Collaborative Consumption: Toward Inclusive Public Participation in Design

COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION

TOWARD INCLUSIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DESIGN Magda Hogness

COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION

TOWARD INCLUSIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DESIGN Magda Hogness

Content first published as two separate works; The Civic Waterfront: Public Participation in Urban Megaproject Design and as Pier 48: Collaborative Consumption

© 2012 by University of Washington The Civic Waterfront :Public Participation in Urban Megaproject Design A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Urban Planning Chair of the Supervisory Committee:

Associate Professor Daniel B. Abramson

Assistant Professor Gundula Proksch

Committee Members:

Associate Professor Nancy Rottle

© 2012 by University of Washington PIER 48: Collaborative Consumption A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture Co-Chairs of the Supervisory Committee: Assistant Professor Gundula Proksch

Associate Professor Daniel B. Abramson

Committee Member: Associate Professor Nancy Rottle

© 2012 by Magda Hogness

I dedicate this work to my parents, Zbigniew Celinski and Jolanta Celinska, for their unconditional love, support, and encouragement throughout my entire academic career.

Preface .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1

R AT I O N A L I T Y A N D P O W E R I N P U B L I C PA R T I C I PAT I O N.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Planning as Solution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Gathering Valid Knowledge... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Synthesizing Knowledge.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2

5 5 . 4 0 C O P E N H A G E N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Political Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Planning Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 South Harborfront. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3

5 9 . 2 1 S T O C K H O L M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Political Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Planning Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Slussen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4

4 7. 6 0 S E AT T L E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Political Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Planning Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 The Central Waterfront. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Shoreline Alteration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Shoreline Fortification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

5

P U B L I C PA R T I C I PAT I O N D E S I G N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Supporting a Reflective Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 A Civic Assembly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

6 7 8

A U T H E N T I C I T Y + U S E R G E N E R AT E D D E S I G N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Authenticity within the Design Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Highly Responsive Architecture.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Collaborative Design.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Self Invention of Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 M E T H O D O LO G Y.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Shoreline Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Neighborhood Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Intervention Scale.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 C O L L A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O N O F P I E R 4 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Design Principals ...............................................................................................................................77 2016................................................................................................................................................. 78 2022.................................................................................................................................................80 2030.................................................................................................................................................82 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................................88

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Acknowledgements.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

PREFACE

1

As a designer I am interested in the movement away from proprietary forms of architectural knowledge towards collective experimentation.

Approaching design process with collective experimentation has expansive potential to transform our cities through community building. As design projects, public spaces are well suited to offer such potential. They must address many complex physical and relationship constraints within urban landscapes. More critically, public spaces must also evolve to suit community needs through time.

Within the design community, successful public spaces are often measured and described with easy to record observations such as comfortable personal distances, site furniture layout, sight distances for safety, etc. These measures are valuable for comparison, but they do not disclose how these spaces are shaped, adopted and used by communities over time. Although the success of a public space is difficult to measure, one aspect is inarguably true; it must be used. This work began with the intention to research design process and public participation models to identify which models facilitate community growth and empowerment for the long term use of a public space.

After considering several project types, I decided to basis my research on urban waterfront projects. Such projects often involve large infrastructure components and complex stakeholder relationships.

Seattle’s ongoing waterfront redevelopment project has such constraints. Shortly after the 2001 Nisqually earthquake, Seattle’s seawall, which provides support to surrounding buildings and infrastructure, was found to be damaged. In the event of a future earthquake, the ability of the seawall to continue to support Seattle’s downtown is significantly diminished. If sections of the seawall structure were to fail, soils would liquefy and also destabilize the viaduct structure. In response to these environmental threats, the City of Seattle began efforts for the redevelopment of the waterfront. In addition to posing a structural threat, the Alaskan Way Viaduct separates downtown and the waterfront. Due to this visual and physical separation Seattle’s waterfront space has been isolated and largely unused by the residents.

After considering several alternatives, the city council decided to remove the viaduct and replace the highway with a tunnel.

To understand the space that will be redeveloped in the future, I began by documenting the viaduct structure. Under the instruction of photographer John Stamets, who generously offered his time and allowed me to borrow a great camera, I spent six months walking, driving, and flying over the viaduct. In order to capture the scale of the viaduct and very different contexts the structure weaved in and out of, I broke down the assignment into three different approaches, each offering a different perspective: 1. Pedestrian Perspective 2. Vehicular Perspective 3.

Aerial Perspective

The Contex camera I used with a shift lens allowed the perspective to be checked and corrected by shifting the lens upwards or downwards before shooting. This was very useful for obtaining shots with the top and base of the viaduct in a single frame. For the aerial photographs, rather then dangling the Contex camera outside the open door of a helicopter, I used an inexpensive but reliable Canon Rebel camera.

Cameras + Lenses: Contex 129 Quartz + Carl Zeiss PC-Distagin 2.8/35.

Canon EOS Rebel S + Canon Zoom Lens EF 35-80mm 1:4-5.6 Film: Kodax 125 PX

For the record, the photographs were taken between September 2010 and February 2011.

Kodax P3200 TMAX

2 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION

3

PEDESTRIAN PERSPECTIVE

Alaskan Way and Yesler Way (facing page)

The elevated highway separates downtown and the adjacent waterfront with a visual barrier. In areas north of the ferry terminal, this barrier is reinforced with topography.

Alaskan Way and Marion St. (left) Alaskan Way and Seneca St. (right)

4 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION

Alaskan Way and the Pike Place Hillclimb Walk (left) Alaskan Way and Lenora Street Walk (right)

5

Lenora Street Walk facing North (left) Lenora Street Walk facing South (right)

6 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION

Driving South on the viaduct near Lenora St. (top)

Driving South on the viaduct near S Washington St. (bottom)

VEHICULAR PERSPECTIVE The construction of the viaduct provided transportation access for industry. Although many question the viaduct structure for the pedestrian barrier it creates, the structure does provide drivers an opportunity to view the waterfront daily, as part of their commute.

7

Driving South on the viaduct near Pine St. (top)

Driving South on the viaduct near S Atlantic St. (bottom)

Atop the viaduct structure near S Main St. facing North and South (following facing pages left and right)

8 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION

9

10 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION

Walking South on the viaduct near S Main St. (left) Detail of viaduct expansion joint (right)

11

Walking North on the viaduct near Seneca off ramp (left) Seneca off ramp (right)

12 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION

13

AERIAL PERSPECTIVE

Aerial of viaduct structure near Pine St. (left)

Aerial perspectives allow an overall view. From this perspective, the elevated highway system and surrounding connections become visible.

Aerial of viaduct structure near the Lenora Street Walk (right)

Aerial view of Seattle downtown and waterfront (facing page)

14 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION

Aerial of viaduct structure near Seneca St. (left) Aerial of viaduct structure near Marion St. (right)

15

Aerial of viaduct structure near Yesler Way (left) Aerial of viaduct structure near S Atlantic St. (right)

16 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION

INTRODUCTION Public participation’s contribution to the process of design decision-making is often difficult to distinguish from other factors: the influence of a few powerful stakeholders, or the inspired vision of a single designer.1 Complex projects involving large infrastructure components, such as urban waterfronts, involve added pressures of high cost, scale, engineering, and differing expertise. As “megaprojects,” these large scaled projects cannot sustain an open dialogue between the public and design team as with smaller scaled projects.2 Individual financial and political interest, often limited to short term goals, define megaproject constrains. As a result, the design process frequently discourages public participation to accelerate the design approval process.

This work investigates different formal and informal models of public participation in megaprojects, for the purpose of proposing an alternative public participation approach for Seattle’s Waterfront. Drawing on case study examples, I compare redeveloped sections of the Copenhagen Harborfront and the Stockholm Waterfront to the current Seattle Waterfront design process. The following chapter provides a historic overview of the transition from the exclusively rational planning paradigms to more participatory or community-driven planning paradigms that characterize planning practice in the United States. I then introduce the political context, planning constraints, and site history of each case study, which defines the formal or informal models of public participation used within the design process. I examine Scandinavian waterfronts, rather than other American waterfront examples, for the following reasons: 1. Political heterogeneity; the comparison of public participation models from different political contexts provides a broader framework for understanding public participation issues.

2. Historical and cultural ties; demographically, Seattle has a large population of Scandinavians, and a rich history of Scandinavian settlement. By 1910, approximately one-third of Seattle’s foreign-born residents immigrated from Sweden, Norway, Denmark or Finland.3 This historical tie can be observed by the number of Scandinavian heritage organizations as well as numerous Scandinavian aesthetic references found in Seattle’s architecture.

1. For the purposes of this research, I use the term “public participation” inclusively to include all who are affected by the planning of urban spaces and all who currently use or will, in the future, use urban spaces.

2. Originally coined by Bent Flyvbjerg, ‘megaprojects’ encompasses extremely large-scale investment projects which attract public attention due to substantial impacts on communities, environment, and budgets.

Bent Flyvbjerg, Nils Bruzelius, and Werner Rothengatter. Megaprojects and Risk : An Anatomy of Ambition. United Kingdom; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 5.

3. Stuart Eskenazi. “Familiar landscape lured Scandinavians.” Seattle Times. November 4, 2001. http://seattletimes.nwsource. com/news/local/seattle_history/articles/ scandinavians.html (accessed Aug. 10, 2011)

3. Precedence in planning; Scandinavian cities are regarded, by Seattle’s local design and planning community, as balanced in community process and aesthetics. The City of Seattle’s Planning Department is currently researching Scandinavian methods for many planning strategies, including bicycle and pedestrian policies. The transfer of knowledge between Seattle and Scandinavia is also encouraged in educational. The University of Washington’s College of Bilt Environments facilitates a number of programs and opportunities for travel and exchange.

4. Climate; Scandinavian waterfronts function as cold waterfronts. Located within 12 degrees of latitude from one another, the public space face a common barrier of cold climate and consequently have fluctuating seasonal public use and interest.

These attributes allow for a broad comparison of the successes and limitations of each public participation model.

55.40 COPENHAGEN Due to a lack of a comprehensive plan, informal and reactive methods of public participation shaped public space along the Copenhagen harborfront. Beginning in the 1980s, the national state, the local state, and the port authority, developed planning and policy initiatives to create a comprehensive plan for redeveloping Copenhagen’s waterfront. However these efforts were largely unsuccessful. As a consequence the planning process of Copenhagen’s harbor development is more flexible to all actors involved; citizen and grassroots movements as well as developer interest. I explore this “loose framework” with the study of a portion of the south harbor; Kalvebod Brygge and Islands Brygge.

17

Cold Waterfronts The case study areas are located within 12 degrees of latitude from one another and consequently face a common barrier of cold climate and fluctuating use.

59.21 STOCKHOLM Swedish municipalities have extensive authority over local land use and employ a formal and transparent public participation process.

Although highly transparent, the public participation process often cannot support citizen involvement beyond tokenism. I examine this formal process in relation to the ongoing design and planning discussion of Slussen, a waterfront frontage linking the historic city, Gamla Stan, to SĂśdermalm.

47.60 SEATTLE Seattle’s design process is not guided through one single entity, but rather must comply with a number of federal, state, and local regulations.

Shortly after the 2001 Nisqually earthquake, several groups began separated efforts for the design and planning of the waterfront. I document the past efforts of design and public dialogue and describe in context the ongoing design and planning process.

These case study findings provide the foundation for a public participation proposal for the Seattle Waterfront. In the proposal, I pose a set of alternative assumptions that might help us to include diverse sets of knowledge and develop an inclusive creative process. Building upon public participation model research, I explore a self-evolving design process with public participation clearly affecting the decision-making process to ultimately test the influence such a process has on design. Drawing connections between the current practice of interdisciplinary design and research on user-generated design, I argue for a method of collaborative consumption−a sedimentation of user-generated program. As a final product of this work, I test this method on Pier 48 in Seattle and address how user-generated program could inform architecture through a self-evolving design process.

City Council

Local Knowledge

Politics

Expert Knowledge City Council Planners Public Participation

Stakeholders Public Time

Planners

Vision/DesignArchitects Engineers

Public

Environmental Sustainability

Architects FutureDevelopers users Aesthetics

Science

Technology Producers Consumers Influence Method

Experts

RATIONALITY AND POWER IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Future users

“If we define planning as bounded by the profession, and it’s objective as city-building, then we generate one set of histories. If we define planning as community building, we generate another. If we define planning as the regulation of the physicality sociality, and spatiality of the city, then we produce planning histories that try to make sense of those regulatory practices over time and space.

But in emphasizing planning as a regulatory or disciplinary practice, we may miss its transformative possibilities, which in turn may be connected to histories of resistance to specific planning practices and regulatory regimes.”

Leonie Sandercock, and Peter Lyssiotis. Cosmopolis Ii : Mongrel Cities in the 21st Century. London; New York: Continuum, 2003. 40

Engaging the public through participation allows for the possibility to move beyond individual focus and create public space collectively.

Although the public participation process is often required in large scale complex projects, the effect on decision-making is often difficult to delineate. In this chapter I describe public participation’s evolution as a reaction against the rational planning method and the inherent complications of gathering and synthesizing local knowledge in “megaprojects.”

PLANNING AS SOLUTION According to Rationalism, modern planning is founded on objective and scientific methods to determine success. As a discipline dominated by a positivist epistemology, rational planning process privileges scientific and technical knowledge as opposed to local knowledge.1 In this context, technical expertise possesses a strong political legitimacy and even an aura of infallibility, leaving no room for non-expert voices in even fundamental debates about what the public interest is.2

19 The role of public participation in a conventional design process (facing page) In a public design process the design team provides the vision and negotiates the values of the environment, ecology and aesthetics.

Within this process, public participation is often limited to support the design claims and political interest.

This rhetorical use of expert rationality in decision-making can justify non-rational, power-based decisions. This phenomenon became readily apparent during the 1960’s when concerns for socially equitable access to the political process led to the critique of rationality, as a comprehensive and exclusive planning approach.3 As technical experts, ideally detached from the realm of politics, planners advised decision-makers with prepared masterplans without promoting particular policy positions. There is an inherent problem with assuming such a role to address complex urban environments; the product of planners work−master plans with singular and closed-ended solutions− appropriates specific types of knowledge and information in order to define and create a solvable solution. With this solution driven approach, planning misses the benefits of a mutual learning opportunity for the public and the design team. By involving the public in decision-making, social learning can support a self-evolving democratic process. John Friedmann describes social learning as an integral part of four traditions informing current planning practices; the other three being social reform, policy analysis, and social mobilization.

Friedmann defines social learning as a proactive approach, commencing with action where “practice and learning are construed as correlative processes, so that one process necessarily implies the other.”4 Through this self-evolving process, expert and local knowledge inform each other to articulate strategic policy and urban planning activities. It is important to note that as planning departed from a modernist perspective, planners began to use this new belief in public participation to advocate for the discipline of planning itself.5 However legitimizing planning solely by public participation leads to other problems such as the reproduction of power relations.6 In order to counteract such an imbalance of power, I explain how the collection and synthesis of diverse sets of knowledge ensures a mutual learning process.

GATHERING “VALID” KNOWLEDGE In assimilating priories and goals, the way in which knowledge is obtained affects the outcome. During the exchange of information from different actors, a hierarchy of information is produced dependant on the roles and relationships in the design project. In constructing this process it is important to comprehend the full range of knowledges, including what can validated as knowledge, who can contribute knowledge, and most importantly at every point in the design process, which knowledge is excluded. In various stages of the design process, different players have more opportunity to be vocal with their respective opinions. Professional expertise is typically more vocal during the initial stages of clarifying the design constraints and in the final process of supporting the final design outcome. Local knowledge is usually obtained during a public participation phase of design review. The cycle in which information is translated by different players, results info different design constraints and goals which are then satisfied by the final design.

The conventional design process often lacks a balance of expert and local knowledge. The exclusion of types of knowledge, whether intentional or incidental, allow power to define reality within the design process. This is largely due to the structure of the process, where experts are paid and given resources to develop a cohesive argument, whereas local knowledge is self-organized by individuals who must volunteer time and resources. In this sense, it is relatively easy to obtain expertise of professionals working alongside a project and rather

1. Sandercock, 41.

2. I use the term “public interest” to denote the peoples’ general welfare in which the populace as a whole has a stake.

3. Barry Checkoway, “Paul Davidoff and Advocacy Planning in Retrospect.”

AIP Journal of the American Planning Association 60, no. 2 (1994): 140 4. John Friedmann, Planning in the public domain: from knowledge to action.

Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

1987. 181.

5. David Walters, Designing Community : Charrettes, Master Plans and Form-Based Codes. Amsterdam; London: Elsevier/ Architectural Press, 2007. 51.

6. Flyvbjerb, Rationality and Power, 237

Method

20 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION

Transfer of knowledge within a public design process At different stages along a public design process, certain groups have more opportunity to be vocal with their respective opinions. In a public design process the design team provides the vision and balances the values of the environment, ecology and aesthetics. In this process, public participation is often limited to support the design claims and political interest.

Local Knowledge Stakeholders Future users

Public

Future Users

Time

Expert Knowledge

City Council

Planners

Engineers

Architects

difficult to accurately capture a full range of public opinion. To counteract the inherent imbalance, I argue that the emphasis must be placed on gathering local knowledge.

With sensitivity to many types of knowledge, an expert guided process must be reactive to ensure local knowledge is acknowledged in all stages of the decision-making process. This process of exchange is crucial in recognizing the culturally diverse population and respective difference in opinion. Many factors must be addressed in gathering these knowledges in a sensitive and effective manner, including time, cost, technology and environmental resources. A balance must be reached between these factors to guide an equally proactive and responsive process. I argue this balance can be achieved through social learning−a process which synthesizes different types of knowledge and resolves the conflict of expert and local knowledge through shared understanding.

SYNTHESIZING KNOWLEDGE Public involvement in a megaproject design process is often watered down to participatory events in which viewpoints from stakeholders are gathered only in the initial stages of design and during final stages of public approval. In a typical megaproject design process the design is a vision of the designer/engineer. The design team negotiates the values of the environment, ecology and aesthetics and draws on public participation to support the design claims and political interest. In the public participation process, planners orchestrate public events to allow for the opportunity of communication. This type of information collection does not clarify public participation’s actual contribution to decision-making. A design process which simply gathers public opinion without synthesis only serves intrinsic purposes. Often public participation is viewed as an intrinsic value in design, a value worthy in and of itself. However, solely viewing public participation as such, disregards the instrumental value of the process and reinforces traditional power relations. Reliance on sole intrinsic value justifies mere public placation. Using Sherry Arnstein’s framework for analyzing public participation, the typical procedure of public participation in “megaproject” design follows informing, consultation and placation processes, all of which are degrees of tokenism.7

7. Sherry R. Arnstein, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, 220.

Care must be taken to inform the public and synthesize the different types of knowledge available. With the design of public spaces, the task of effective communication between private and public interest is an essential task. How then can the process be transparent to communicate the dialog between both design expertise and public interest? Setting the stage for community design process, the work of

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

R AT I O N A L I T Y A N D POWE R I N P U B LI C PA R T I C I PAT I O N • 21

Citizen Control Delegated Power

Degrees of Citizen Power

Partnership Placation

Consultation

Degrees of Tokenism

Informing Therapy

Manipulation

Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation

Nonparticipation

Sherry Arnstein’s framework illustrates the ranging gradations of citizen participation.

Arnstein, Sherry R. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, 220.

John Forester during the 1980’s defined planning as a method for communication action. “As an emerging paradigm the idea of planning as communicative action turns its back on the model of technical rationality and systematic analysis in favor of a more qualitative and interpretive mode of inquiry, seeking to understand the unique and the contextual rather than arriving at general rules for practice.”8 Communicative action is a method of reflecting and expressing the public interest. This interactive activity is effective by involving both formal and informal public participation to produce changes within the design process. Actors are always in search of certain economic, or ideological benefits and use organization, strategy, and influence, outside of the formal participation process. However research on public participation focuses mainly on communicative relationships between actors in formal processes, and usually does not study the mechanisms of informal networks.

Jean Hiller, a professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at Curtin University in Perth, Western Australia has researched formal and informal networks in land-use planning decisions. In formal processes Hiller explains “sub-surface interactions’’ appear if one “scratches the surface’’ of seemingly democratic, open, and inclusionary planning processes.”9 In order to actively affect power relations, the publics’ and design teams’ formal and informal interactions must be balanced and transparently communicated. In such an exchange, public participation can then became a central part of the design process and shape the future public space. In the following chapters, I build upon Hiller’s work by examining the formal and informal modes of public participation models to better understand the challenges and opportunities these different models offer.

8. Sandercock, 67.

9. Jean Hillier, “Going round the back?

Complex networks and informal action in local planning processes”. Environment & Planning A. 32 (1). 2000. 34.

55.40 COPENHAGEN “One is interested in understanding the ways an ensemble of actors— the national state, the local state, international organizations, transnational corporations, place entrepreneurs, and community and environmental groups come together to construct processes for social change. The investigation of Copenhagen’s most recent experiences with waterfront development has found new practices of social regulation. An ensemble of individuals and organizations that are highly intertwined with a broader regime of economic accumulation constructed these new practices, which we call flexible urban governance.”

Gene Desfor and John Jorgensen. “Flexible Urban Governance. The Case of Copenhagen’s Recent Waterfront Development.” European Planning Studies 12, no. 4 (2004): 480.

Public space along the Copenhagen harborfront was created through informal and reactive methods of public participation due to a lack of comprehensive plan. Although the national state, the local state and the port authority, developed planning and policy initiatives to create a process for redeveloping Copenhagen’s harborfront, these efforts were largely unsuccessful. The south portion of the harborfront case study, Islands Brygge and Kalvebod Brygge, illustrates the subsequent piecemeal and reactive approaches to development which instigated an informal public participation. In order to understand the development of Islands Brygge and Kalvebod Brygge I first introduce the reactionary planning and political environment which set the framework for future development.

POLITICAL CONTEXT The modern Danish planning system is nationally decentralized and the delegation of responsibility is separated into national, regional and municipal levels. National spatial planning presents strategic goals for major infrastructure, international relations and environmental protection. The county level regional planning is responsible for the future development of the region and guides the use of nature resources, designation of urban areas, and location of large public institutions. Municipal planning determines the future development with legally binding local plans and detailed land use regulations.1 Denmark’s “law on planning,” last revised in 2004 defines the purpose of planning to “unite the interests of society in the use of land and assist in protecting nature and the environment so that a sustainable development of society can occur−in full respect of the living conditions of man and for the preservation of plant−and animal life.”2 The law on planning further defines the planning system by ascribing powers and responsibilities to the different political levels.

In the past decade, changes of regulations within the Danish political system, and consequently the planning system, followed a direction towards cooperation between the once very separated areas of public and private enterprise. This cooperative approach promoted different values and goals then the Welfare State had worked towards for decades−values such as equal access to education, housing, and social services. Gene Desfor and John Jørgensen, professional collaborators and scholars from York University in Toronto, have researched Copenhagen’s change in political structure from managerialist to entrepreneurialist strategies. They argue that social regulation processes have undergone two major changes which regulated their scale and effectiveness. The initial change occurred with the opening of the policy-making process to civil society which “increased mobilization of local political forces for the purpose of securing economic growth.”3 The second, and perhaps more influential change to city wide policy, Desfor and Jørgensen describe as a shift from “government to governance;” from a formalized urban planning system to a project oriented development system.4

Government policy:

Sector plans:

National planning report

Water resource plans

Overview of national interests

Natura 2000 plans

Planning directives: Finger Plan 2007

Transport plans

Regional spatial development plans A vision for the region

municipaliTy

Regional raw materials plan

muniCipal plans Municipal planning strategy Regulating land use in towns and the countryside

loCal plans

WELFARE Regional economic GOVERNMENT growth forums Business development

The minister for the environment establishes a comprehensive framework for regional spatial development planning and municipal planning through national planning reports, overviews of national interests in municipal planning, national plan­ ning directives, dialogue and other means. The Minister ensures through such means as a veto that municipal planning complies with overall national interests.

PROCESS A continuation of a formalized, urban planning system

strategy

WELFARE GOVERNANCE

Copenhagen south harborfront’s project team and stakeholders (facing page) The diagram illustrates the relationship between the project team and stakeholders and the reactionary planning and political framework.

1. Enemark, S. Spatial Planning System in Denmark. The Danish Association of Chartered Surveyors. Copenhagen, DK. (2002). 2.

2. Ministry of Environment. Planning Act LBK 883, 2004, Ch. 1, Part 1.

3. Desfor and Jorgensen. 481 4. Ibid., 484.

Danish Planning System (left) Nationally decentralized, the delegation of responsibility is separated into national, regional and municipal levels, where municipal planning determines future development with legally binding local plans and detailed land use regulations.

denmaRk’s planning system 2007

region

counTry

national planning

23

Project-oriented development which aims for a regeneration of growth

Spatial planning in Denmark, The Ministry of ACTORS

Elected officials promoting bureaucratic, holistic and long-term policy instruments with a predefined, functional division of labour between the various administrative bodies A mix of actors and projects initiated by entrepreneurs within the building sector or by public in entrepreneurial activities within various administrative levels.

the Environment, 2007. http://www.ouka.fi/ tekninen/innourba/publications/Spatial%20 planning%20in%20Denmark.pdf (Assessed April 15, 2011) Comparison of Welfare Government and Welfare Governance Attributes (right) Due to changes of regulations in the past decade, the Danish planning system has moved from welfare government to welfare governance. This shift signifies cooperation between the once very separated areas of public and private enterprise.

24 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION 5. Desfor and Jorgensen. 484.

6. Desfor and Jorgensen. 484.

7. A. Lund, H. T. Andersen, and E Clark.

Creative Copenhagen; Globalization, Urban Governance and Social Change. European Planning Studies. 9, no. 7 (2001) 857.

8. Desfor and Jorgensen. 484.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

The shift to welfare governance along with economic development pressure, escalated the need for quick waterfront development. During the late 1980s and early 1990s the Denmark government placed priority on Copenhagen to become the nation’s ‘locomotive’ for economic growth.5 During the period, many ports and harbors throughout Denmark were suffering from the aftermath of economic restructuring and technological change.6 Over the past forty years, the municipality redeveloped Copenhagen’s harborfront with priorities geared toward economic growth to boost the region’s economic output. Anders Lund, Eric Clark , and Hans Andersen, academics within the Copenhagen University and Lund University, have collaboratively researched social and economic geography changes along the Copenhagen harborfront.

They found harborfront redevelopment projects were conceptualized in accord with ongoing patterns of economic restructuring. These patterns were: 1. Economic growth issues dominate policy priorities 3. The public sector has embraced entrepreneurial forms of organization and behavior. 7 2. The public agenda is more outward looking than inward looking in perspective As a result of the added pressure and government policy shift, the government focused on redeveloping underutilized harborfront land in a project oriented manner. In piecemeal fashion, various actors with differing spatial and temporal interests, directly influenced the planning process of harborfront development. It is critical to note that the direction toward cooperation between public and private enterprise with a focus on economy, reestablished new structures of power relations which were then translated into planning procedures.

PLANNING CONSTRAINTS Recognizing the economic importance of regeneration, the Government of Denmark and the Municipality of Copenhagen undertook a number of initiatives in an attempt to identify waterfront problems and propose possible solutions. However, the majority of these initiatives were disconnected from one another and as a result the effort for creating a comprehensive plan for the harborfront was unsuccessful. In 1987, a discussion within the Danish Parliament commenced the initial large scale formal process; a survey of harborfront conditions.8 The Ministry of Environment was in the process of compiling a survey of the conditions and architectural importance of buildings in the country and had begun focusing on the merit of buildings in Copenhagen’s harbor. The survey resulted in a freeze on developments in Copenhagen’s port. In response to these complex issues, the Government of Denmark formed the Copenhagen Harbour Committee with representatives from the Council of Greater Copenhagen, Port Authority of Copenhagen, Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Environment, academics, private sector businesses, and union officials. Under a mandate, the committee studied alternative development frameworks for the port areas to identify port boundaries, and to consider financing models for possible development schemes.9 The City of Copenhagen declined to have a representative on the committee. Instead the city set their own recommendations for the harborfront in the Copenhagen’s Municipal Plan. Unsurprisingly, this plan described different goals and values than the Copenhagen Harbour Committee recommended. In addition to this disconnection, timing and lack of coordination between government offices rendered the Municipal Plan ineffective. A few months after the report was made public, the Government of Denmark’s announced that the Navy would be moving its facilities from the Inner Harbour vacating 70 hectares (roughly 7,535,000 square feet) of prime harborfront land. This opened the possibility for a range of alternative uses, of which the municipal plan did not address.10 Although the plan did not create a comprehensive plan for the harborfront, one recommendation was eventually realized. The Municipal Plan recommended the establishment of a new organization to manage harborfront developments. The organization would function as a development corporation and form a partnership between the Government of Denmark and the Municipality of Copenhagen. Additionally the Port Authority would have a presence on its Board of Directors. The new development corporation would have considerable financial and regulatory power beyond that of private corporations. For example, the development corporation could issue bonds to finance this

construction, and revenues gained from increased land values and invested interest would secure and repay the bonds. Such a corporation could improve the harborfront through constructing major harbor projects by having the financial means to undertake cleaning up contaminated soil and ground water. The creation of this organization would reestablish power relations from the public sector into the private sector.11 Pressured by the need to facilitate economic growth, the government undertook the task of creating a development corporation to ensure corporate growth within the harborfront. In 2000, the Denmark government adopted an Act of Parliament which transferred 1.7 billion Danish Kroner (322 million US dollars) of the Port Authority of Copenhagen’s assets into a publicly owned limited liability corporation, the Port of Copenhagen.12 The government action quickly created a legal dispute. By the nature of the formation, the Port of Copenhagen acted as a private sector organization following profit maximization whereas legally it was to “be an arms-length agent of the Government of Denmark.”13 Tied in legal disputes, the development corporation failed to progress harborfront development forward. As these legal proceedings became public knowledge and became publicly criticized for profit maximization strategies, the government reacted by creating a new way of planning for the harborfront. Senior politicians created a “Vision Group” to provide a shared vision and a new discourse for the harborfront development. Raising concerns in their collaborative work about the Vision Group progress, Desfor and Jørgensen argue that the opportunity for local democracy is shortened due to the Vision Group intervention. Although the Vision Group increased stability to urban politics and enabled economic growth to proceed in the midst of political scandal, the new process streamlined the approval process and did not address issues of public access to the harborfront nor long term harborfront economy. Since the rapid physical development of current economically viable companies creates a unbalanced harborfront economy, market fluctuations in these concentrated sectors would have a negative impact on physical harborfront development over time.14 As the Vision Group’s strategies provoked criticism, the municipality moved forward with planning strategies. The Greater Copenhagen Region Plan 2005, prepared by the Greater Copenhagen Authority (HUR), provided a development strategy for the Copenhagen harborfront.

The Port and City Development Corporation also provided a report in 2007 on urban harborfront development. Despite these plans, a comprehensive plan for the entire harborfront has yet to be created.

5 5 . 4 0 C O P E N H A G E N • 25 11. Bent Flyvbjerg, Rationality and Power.

237.

12. Desfor and Jorgensen. 485.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid., 494.

Principal landowners along Copenhagen’s waterfront in 1996.

As government policy focused on redeveloping underutilized waterfront land in a project oriented manner, various actors, with differing spatial and temporal interests, directly influenced the planning process with piecemeal development.

Desfor and Jorgensen. 483.

Copenhagen’s South Harborfront in 1659, 1770,1844, 1906, 2011 (following facing pages left to right) Copenhagen’s Harborfront was originally comprised of natural salt marshes and was developed for industrial activities.

Copenhagen, 1659, http://www. landsarkivetkbh.dk Copenhagen, 1770, http://www. landsarkivetkbh.dk Meyer, Joseph, Copenhagen. 1844, David Rumsey Historical Map Collection, http:// www.davidrumsey.com, Copenhagen, 1906, http://www. landsarkivetkbh.

Copenhagen, 2011, Google Earth

26

27 SOUTH HARBORFRONT Historically Copenhagen’s harbor areas have been constructed for industrial and port activities with the intention of separating these industrial activities from surrounding neighborhoods. In 1901, Port Services constructed a 3034 ft (925 meters) quay infrastructure paving over the natural salt marshes which composed the region.15 Similar to other working waterfronts, as manufacturing industries relocated, new opportunities for use of these spaces were realized. Due to the lack of a comprehensive plan for the harborfront, various actors and different interests affected the harborfront development.

15. “Havneparkens historie.” Kobenhavns Kommune. http://www.kk.dk/ Erhverv/TilladelserOgBevillinger/ VejeOgPladser/arrangementer/ Pladsguide/IslandsBryggeHavneparken/ ParkensHistorie.aspx. (Assessed April 22, 2011)

28 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION Creation of Islands Brygge Park (left) Islands Brygge was initially created in 1984 with the mobilization of several hundred residents.

Source: Zalewski, Barbara. 2004. Islands brygge: fra skepsis til succes. [s.l.]: Nostra.

134

Harbor Baths (right) This popular design by PLOT architects has made it possible for residents and visitors to go for a swim in the city center Source: “Copenhagen Harbour Bath / PLOT,” ArchDaily, http://www.archdaily. com/11216/copenhagen-harbour-bathplot/ (assessed Feb. 22, 2011)

16. “Havneparkens historie.”

17. Ibid.

18. Elinor Ostrom, A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, The American Political Science Review 92(1) 1998. 1 19. Desfor and Jorgensen. 486.

"

Islands Brygge is a former dockland area which used cooperative, participative and communicative forms of informal participation to form public space. Beginning in the 1970’s, the residents of Islands Brygge communicated that the housing densities were very high and that the area needed a park. When the municipality failed to provide the amenity, a local grassroots movement conceived the first plans to transform the dockland into a park. In the spring of 1984, several hundred residents laid out a provisional park, as a happening. After the event, 1 hectare (107,639 square feet) was temporarily granted to the Islands Brygge Local Council for the park. Initially created with the residents empowerment and mobilization, subsequent development of the public space remained concurrent with citizen vision. In 1993, the Roads and Parks Department decided to grant the money to complete the park and provide permanent design solutions. In response, the neighborhood council established a fund to support the park and by 1995, the park was extended with an additional 2.8 hectares (301,389 square ft) of harborfront space through the combined efforts of the neighborhood council and the Road and Parks Department.16 The Islands Brygge park incorporates accessibility, safety and programmatic flexibility into the public space. Over time the partnership continues and additional amenities have been built such as the Harbour Baths−a popular design which has made it possible for residents and visitors to go for a swim in the city center into Copenhagen’s clean harbor waters.17 Instigated with a collective group effort empowered through high degrees of citizen power, Islands Brygge is a successful example of a community combining common interest and becoming empowered through the creation of a public space. Elinor Ostrom, an American political economist and Nobel Prize laureate has written about the political framework and social change. In her work on behavior and theory of collective action, she presents the argument that within communities, individuals who are caught in social dilemmas are likely to innovate institutional structure by developing a system of informal social controls.18 In the Islands Brygge case, the government’s lack of action allowed for this type of social innovation. Using informal public participation, the residents of Islands brygge were able to successfully develop city interest in providing supplemental funding toward their project. As the park continued to expand, citizens combined efforts with the Roads and Parks Department, creating a neighborhood council. Through this process citizens established a partnership and continued to direct the design outcome of their park.

Across the harbor, Kalvebod Brygge is a largely fragmented development on a narrow strip of central harborfront land once owned by the city. The pressure on the city as the locomotive of growth, directed development toward economic interests. In order to provide economic incentive for private development within the city as development of Copenhagen was expanding outwardly, the Danish parliament passed laws to create the another urban development corporation “Ørestadsselskabet”, [Ørestaden]. In the early 1990s, the City sold ownership to the Ørestaden Development Corporation to finance the construction of the a new Metro rail link.19 The Ørestaden corporation then

Design Process Activity Degrees of Public Participation Major Public Participation Events 5 5 . 4 0 C O P E N H A G E N • 29

Collective Group Effort

1978 Plans to transform the area into a park was conceived by local grassroots

1984

Several hundred residents laid out a provisional park

1993 Neighborhood establishes park council

1993 Parks Department completes the park as a permanent feature

Formal

Pa

De

le

2003 Harbor Baths constructed

ga

Ci

tiz

en

1995 The park was extended with an additional 2.8 hectares

t Co rtn ed ntr P o Co lac ers Pow l h a n er In sul tion ip fo ta M The rmi tion n an ip rapy g ul at io n

Informal

Collective Group Effort

Formal

Informal

Public Participation in the Islands Brygge development process

Sole Proprietorship Sole Proprietorship

Design Process Activity Degrees of Public Participation Major Public Participation Events

Collective Group Effort

The public participation analysis diagram compares the design process timeline and public participation events which shaped the design processes. As the diagram suggests, the creation of the Island Brygge park was instigated with a collective group effort empowered through high degrees of citizen power.

30 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION Kalvebod Brygge (left) Present Kalvebod Brygge is a largely fragmented development along the shore of the harbor adjacent to downtown. : “Morning in the Habour,” Copenhagen Eye, 2010, copenhageneye.blogspot. com/2010/07/morning-in-habour.html (assessed Feb. 22, 2011)

Kalvebod Brygge proposed development (right) As part of a proposal to reconnect the Kalvebod Brygge to the city, JDS architects propose a new design which promises a larger spectrum of public activities.

Copenhagen construction and development, Skyscraper City, http:// www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread. php?t=415393&page=296 (assessed April 8, 2011)

subdivided the land sold the pieces to private developers, who developed the land with little to no public participation. By the mid-1990s individual developers had constructed a North American style shopping centre, a hotel complex and other large office buildings which aesthetically and contextually created a public outcry. Unreflective of the city center building structure, these buildings walled off the public harborfront from the rest of the city. 20 Public access to the harborfront is being reconfigured onto Kalvebod Brygge site. Islands Brygge’s success is in process of being grafted across the harbor. JDS architects, the same architects who had collaborated as PLOT architects on the Harbor Baths project, currently propose a new design promising a larger spectrum of public activities and better connections to city areas such as the central train station and Trivoli, Copenhagen’s famous city amusement park.21 Although the strong public response instigated a retrofit of public space to be completed in 2012, the public participation process only involved degrees of tokenism; informing, consultation and placation. Kalvebod Brygge is an example of market driven development with little to no public participation. Landowners and developers pursued their interests, as they perceived them.

20. Desfor and Jorgensen. 486.

21. “Kalvebod Brygge” Architecture News Plus. http://www.architecturenewsplus.com/ projects/783 (assessed April 22, 2011) 22. Desfor and Jorgensen. 486.

The political environment and planning process of Copenhagen’s harbor development is open and flexible to citizen and grassroots movements, although also more susceptible to developer interest. The lack of comprehensive plan for the haborfront created reactive process of public participation, as shown by the simplified participation cycles of the sites. This lack of formal plan provided the opportunity for citizens to form their own informal process of cooperative, participative, and communicative methods of decision-making for the Islands Brygge public space. On the other side of the harbor, economic interest fueled the development of Kalvebod Brygge and created an undesired outcome with reactive public participation. It is critical to note that this negative experience has had a larger impact. It has become a catalyst for questioning market-driven development for all of Copenhagen’s harborfront.22

Design Process Activity Degrees of Public Participation Major Public Participation Events

Sole Proprietorship

5 5 . 4 0 C O P E N H A G E N • 31

Collective Group Effort

1990: The City of Copenhagen transferred ownership of land to the Ă˜restaden Corporation

2001

Formation of the Vision Group

Informal

Formal

The buildings along Kalvebod Brygge raised a public outcry

an

M

l ro r nt we Co Po ip en d tiz te sh Ci ega ner ion n l rt at io De Pa ac tat Pl sul ing n rm y Co nfo rap tion I e a Th ipul

Collective Group Effort

2010 New design of public waterfront space by JDS and Kla

Formal

Informal

Sole Proprietorship Sole Proprietorship

Public Participation in the Kalvebod Brygge development process.

The diagram compares major public participation events with the design process, and shows the strong reactive process of informal public participation against the formal development process.

Design Process Activity Degrees of Public Participation Major Public Participation Events

Collective Group Effort

59.21 STOCKHOLM

“Scandinavians, who like other people around the world have experienced the construction of one megaproject after another during the past decade, have coined a term to describe the lack in megaproject decisionmaking of accustomed transparency and involvement of civil society: ‘democracy deficit’” Bent Flyvbjerg, Nils Bruzelius, and Werner Rothengatter. 2003. Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 5.

Swedish municipalities have great authority over local land use and control over planning development. Planning approval is dictated through a very systematic process of project development. This formal approach will be illustrated through the study of the Slussen Urban Redesign Project, a proposed major multi-use destination and transportation hub located on the northern edge of Stockholm’s Södermalm island anticipated to start construction in 2013 and finish in 2020. In order to understand the formalized process of public participation currently underway with the ongoing planning and design discussion of Slussen, I examine Stockholm’s political context and highly organized planning structure.

33 Slussen project team and stakeholders (facing page) The diagram illustrates the relationship between the project team, stakeholders, and the formal planning framework for the proposed site development.

POLITICAL CONTEXT Historically, Sweden has a long tradition of strong government involvement and master planning. In the late 1980s, philosophical and political approaches to planning shifted from specific stipulations to general guidelines. The former state Planning Law, Byggnatslag, gave specific open space standards for distance, area, and design. The new state Planning Law, Planbildlegt, is philosophical in content but also requires municipalities to produce a comprehensive plan.1 The comprehensive plan provides guidance for decisions on land use and the development or preservation of the built environment. The municipal document also must address reported national interest.

Paul Wilkinson, a political science academic, has written about this change in policy and how it influences planning. In this approach, individual municipalities were given the power to examine their own current use and set their own standards, which “represents a swing away from nation-wide standards and norms of all kinds; it is more philosophical than directive and gives much more local autonomy to municipalities, for example, in setting their own open space standards. This may create a problem for some municipalities, particularly Stockholm which is faced with strong pressures to re-zone, in its next municipal master plan, some existing open spaces into industrial and residential uses; the outcome will not be known for some time.”2 Along with a more flexible plan, the strong pressure to rezone influences land use and development decision-making. It also produces a climate where confrontations are inevitable, and as Flyvbjerg distills “in open confrontations rationality yields to power.”3 This preposition is reflective of Stockholm’s planning approaches to development.

Economic interest strongly influences development within Stockholm. Thomas Hall, a professor of Art History at Stockholm University, has focused his research on the history of architecture and urban design, particularly in Stockholm, revealing the actors and interests behind decision-making. Hall summaries the main factor in Stockholm planning as “a fundamental agreement between the Social Democrats and the non-socialist parties that Stockholm should be given priority, and that investments in the capital are necessary for Sweden’s future. The crucial differences are not found inside Stockholm City Hall, but between Stockholm County and the provinces. The shifts of majority in the city and county of Stockholm are spectacular events which do not play the decisive part the actors would like us to believe in order that they can muster their forces.”4 Nationally and regionally, Stockholm is given strong national interest and priority in capital investments, which in turn creates development pressure for Stockholm to generate an economic viable investment for Sweden.

Under such pressure, the city of Stockholm has self proclaimed the title of “Northern Europe’s most business friendly city.” This initiative is reflected in the city documents, such as the annual report. “The City shall attract businesses and visitors by investing in tourism and improving its position as an event city. The City shall be a professional, efficient partner for business by creating simple, straightforward procedures for building permit applications and various permits.”5 In order to accommodate for business development, the city is seeking ways to shorten the application and approval process of development permitting. Similar to Copenhagen, this change reflects short term political interest over long term public interest. A rapid project approval process leads to rapid physical development of currently economically viable companies, which creates an unbalanced waterfront economy in the long term. It is critical to also note that a rapid project approval process shortens the public’s commenting process and can be used as a method to control public participation.

1. Paul Wilkinson, “Urban Open Space Planning in Finland, Norway, and Sweden.”

Leisure Studies 7, no. 3 (1988): 282.

2. Wilkinson, 4.

3. Flyvbjerg, Rationality and Power : Democracy in Practice. 237 4. Thomas Hall and Martin Rörby. 2009.

Stockholm: the making of a metropolis.

London: Routledge. 204 5. City of Stockholm, Annual Report, City Executive Office, 2009, 32.

max. +/- 1 per cent. This goal has been partly met as the result was + 1.5 per cent.

Description of overall municipal operations

■ Group companies with a decisive or significant influence.

■ Commission companies such as other co-owned companies and municipal contracts respectively.

According to recommendation 8.2 from the Council

34 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E National Directive: The Ministry CONSUMPTION

Comprehensive Plan City of stockholm

Swedish Planning System (left) CountyThe LevelSwedish planning system is centralized.

Regional planning The comprehensive plan provides guidance

for decisions on land use and development or preservation.

the City's operations

Municipality level

Municipality planning

City ofLocal Stockholm Organization (right) planning The City of Stockholm has a substantial amount of human resources including 101 members of City Council, the City’s supreme decision-making body, and over 42,000 employees. With this amount of resources, the project approval and public participation process is systematic and formally organized.

the City's companies

Legally binding Building Permit

Co-owned companies with no significant influence

municipal contracts

SÖRAB (5 %)

stockholms stadshus aB parent company

District Council of Rinkeby-Kista District Council of Spånga-Tensta District Council of Hässelby-Vällingby District Council of Bromma District Council of Kungsholmen

Source: City of Stockholm, Annual Report, 12.

District Council of Norrmalm District Council of Östermalm District Council of Södermalm District Council of Enskede-Årsta-Vantör District Council of Skarpnäck District Council of Farsta District Council of Älvsjö District Council of Hägersten-Liljeholmen District Council of Skärholmen

25mi 50mi

municipal commission companies

municipal Group

Legally binding Detailed Development Plan

Development Committee

125mi

Real Estate Committee Sports Committee Culture Committee Cemeteries Committee Environmental and Health Committee General Services Committee Social Services and Labour Market Committee City Planning and Building Control Committee Traffic and Waste Management Committee Education Committee

AB Svenska Bostäder AB Familjebostäder AB Stockholmshem Stockholms Stads Bostadsförmedling AB Skolfastigheter i Stockholm AB S:t Erik Markutveckling Micasa Fastigheter i Stockholm AB Stockholm Vatten AB Stockholms Hamn AB AB Stokab Stockholms Stads Parkerings AB Stockholm Globe Arena Fastigheter AB Stockholms Stadsteater AB S:t Eriks Försäkrings AB Stockholm Business Region AB

Stockholm Public Trustees Committee City Council, etc.

City Audit Office

Infrastructure, urban environment, protection, SEK 1,010.1 million, 60.1 % Preschool operations and care for schoolchildren, SEK 2,143.6 million, 36.9 % Education, SEK 3,067.7 million, 34.9 % Care for the elderly, SEK 3,302.3 million, 52.3 % Care for the disabled, SEK 1,132.9 million, 43.2 %

Stockholms stads Utrednings- och Statistikkontor AB

Business, trade and industry and housing, SEK 540.5 million, 51.3 % Other operations, special initiatives, SEK 0.4 million, 1.3 %

Limited companies outside stockholms stadshus aB

Mässfastigheter i Stockholm AB (50.4 %) AB Fortum Värme Holding, co-owned with the City of Stockholm (49.9 %) Stockholms Terminal AB (20 %)

Storstockholms Brandförsvar, SSBF

ad m i ni st r at i o n r e p o rt 2 0 0 9

Care for individuals and families, SEK 751.9 million, 20.8 %

Leisure and culture/general leisure activities, SEK 168 million, 11.3 %

municipal associations

12

Political activity and joint administration, SEK 29.4 million, 0.3 %

S:t Erik Livförsäkring AB

Election Committee Elderly Services Committee

Some municipal matters are handled by a legal entity other than the City. Below is a specification of which business areas are handled in this manner, at what cost, and the percentage of the City's expenses for the business area. In total, the City paid SEK 12.1 billion for the contracts

PLANNING CONSTRAINTS Often referred to as a planning monopoly, the City of Stockholm has a great deal of power and control over development. This is largely due to the substantial amount of resources the city has at its disposal, which includes a City Council composed of 101 members and over 42,000 city employees.6 It should come to no surprise that with this amount of human resources, the project approval and public participation process is systematic and formally organized.

Stockholm’s current master plan, adopted in 1999, marked a significant change to Stockholm’s urban development priorities. The 1999 Stockholm City Plan sought to renew and redefine existing neighborhoods and older harbor industrial areas as mixed-use neighborhoods, a way of “building the city inwards.”7 By 2030, Stockholm expects the population will increase by 200,000 new people.8 Housing, commercial uses and infrastructure including waterfront public space is currently being planned to provide additional space for the growing population.

In 2007, the City Planning Department began the process of preparing a draft master plan focused on strategic, implementation and environment-oriented approaches.8 The process of updating Stockholm’s master plan is characterized by dialogue and interaction of many departments and companies.

5 9 . 2 1 S T O C K H O L M • 35 6. City of Stockholm, Annual Report, 32.

7. City of Stockholm, Stockholm City Plan, The City Planning Administration, 2009, 3.

8. Ibid., 4.

9. “Plan Process,” City of Stockholm.

Planning http://www.stockholm.se/ TrafikStadsplanering/Stadsplanering/ Planprocessen/ (accessed May 1, 2011).

In order to clarify the process for organization between city departments and companies, the development of projects are dictated in great detail including three specified opportunities for public comment.

1. Exploratory of Land: The preliminary exploratory study investigates the conditions for the proposal.

2. Start Phase: The planning process start is decided by the City Planning, outlining the foreseeable issues to be addressed and scheduling 3. Program Phase: In an application the program states the goals and points outright. There is an opportunity for close residents and stakeholders to make comments during exhibition and/or a open house event.

4. Planning Phase: A detailed plan proposal with a consultation plan, similar to program consultation.

5. Exhibition Stage: After the final plan proposal is clarified, it is exhibited for a minimum of three weeks. At this stage, this is the final opportunity to comment on the proposal otherwise the right of appeal is lost.

6. Approval / Adoption: City Planning Committee must approve adoption. Larger project must also be approved by City Council.

7. Appeal: Upon adoption, the plan may be appealed by the County Board, which could then be appealed to the government.

8. Res judicata: If the plan is not subject to appeal or the appeals are rejected the plan implementation can begin.9 The development permitting process produces a formalized method of public participation. I will use the case study of Slussen to illustrate this relationship between the highly organized and systematic planning and political approaches involved in the design process.

Stockholm’s Slussen in 1700, 1771,1844, 1926, 2011 (following facing pages left to right) The waterfront frontage structure linking the historic city Gamla Stan to Södermalm, has been rebuilt three times since the 17th century. Its current form was constructed in 1935.

Homann, Johann Baptisit, 1700, Stockholm City Archives, http://www.stockholmskallan. se Brolin Jonas, Stockholm Stad, 1771, Stockholm City Archives, Meyer, Joseph, Stochholm. 1844, David Rumsey Historical Map Collection, http:// www.davidrumsey.com, Krakau, Carl-Ottto, 1926 Stockholm, 1926, http://www.stockholmskallan.se/ Google. (2011) Google Earth

36

37 SLUSSEN Historically, the lock has been an important junction for transportation and commerce.

Slussen is composed of a complex series of bridges, boat locks, pedestrian walkways and an underground bus and subway transit station.

The structure has been rebuilt three times since the 17th century, and the current form was constructed in 1935.10

10. “Slussens history� City of Stockholm, http://www.stockholm.se/Fristaendewebbplatser/Fackforvaltningssajter/ Exploateringskontoret/NyaSlussen/Omprojektet/Bakgrund/Slussens-historia (accessed May 8, 2011).

38 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION Foster’s design proposal Axonometric view (left) Perspective view (right) As a part of the project the proposal includes a new park, square, and two new private buildings which will have ground floor public spaces below the office functions.

“Foster + Partners Enters Competition To Design Pedestrian Bridge In Slussen” 2008, ArchiCentral, http://www.archicentral.com (accessed May 8, 2011).

Once considered a modern architectural marvel, the infrastructure is currently in need of extensive repair. To maintain safety and reduce the risk of injury, between 5 and 10 tons of surface concrete is removed and repaired annually.11 In the long range, there is also a flood risk due to higher levels of water caused by global warming. In response to high maintenance cost and flooding risks, the City of Stockholm has decided to demolish the lock and build a new infrastructure facility.

11. “Technical life,” City of Stockholm, http://www.stockholm.se/Fristaendewebbplatser/Fackforvaltningssajter/ Exploateringskontoret/NyaSlussen/InEnglish/Technical-life1/ (accessed May 8, 2011).

12. “Slussen - a fairy tale but happily ever after?” Stadsbyggnad , Swedish MunicipalIndustrial Society No. 5 2010 http://www. stadsbyggnad.org/2010/10/slussen%E2%80%93-en-saga-utan-lyckligt-slut/ (accessed May 1, 2011).

13. Project Milestones, City of Stockholm, http://www.stockholm.se/Fristaendewebbplatser/Fackforvaltningssajter/ Exploateringskontoret/NyaSlussen/Omprojektet/Bakgrund/Projektets-milstolpar/ (accessed May 8, 2011).

14. “Slussen - a fairy tale but happily ever after?”

"

Thus far the design development of Slussen has followed a complicated and controversial process. The lock’s future has been discussed for several years beginning with an idea competition held in the early 1990s, which did not lead to any formal proposals. In 2001, another competition was held and Nyrén, Tyréns, ELU architects was announced as the winner. Two alternatives were studied and analyzed; a reconstruction of the current structure and a new alternative. Over a time period of three months both proposals were displayed to the public and interested parties had the opportunity to make comments. Ultimately the City Planning Board elected to move forward with Nyréns proposal in December of 2007. The same year, city officials addressed the Slussen renewal as part of Stockholm’s Vision 2030. However, Nyréns proposal was not approved by the majority of politicians. In May 2008, City Planning Mayor Michael Söderlund announced a new competition with five different architectural firms, shortly before he unexpectedly announced his resignation. Mayor Kristina Axen Olin also resigned during the same time period. Two of the city’s leading politicians consequently relinquished the responsibility for the finance and urban affairs of the project which had jumped from an estimated 4 billion SEK (625 million US dollars)to an estimated 8 billion SEK (1.3 billion US dollars).12 Nevertheless, the project proceeded forward to a selection of architect phase, where the public had the opportunity to comment. Beginning on October 24, 2008 the five design proposals from Ateliers Jean Nouvel and Habiter Autrement, BIG, Foster + Partners and Mountain Architects, Wingårdh Architects and the previously selected architect, Nyrén Architects were displayed for four months. During the exhibition period, the 920 people submitted comments; nearly 140 commented in favor of Nyrén’s proposal, 140 for Foster + Partners’ proposal, 120 for Nouvel’s proposal, 90 select BIG’s proposal and 10 for Wingårdh’s proposal.13 Others suggested that the various proposals should be combined. After a multistage interview process and design competition, Foster and Partners was selected by the Land Planning Board, City Planning and Transport and Waste Management Committee in May of 2009. The main concept of the Foster and Partners’ original urban design is to create a modern civic urban quarter, providing new public spaces and buildings, an accessible quayside, and pedestrian and cycle routes in addition to the transportation and lock infrastructure. In addition to a new design for public space, the proposal is part of the economic incentive for the area. The plan would provide the city significant income approximately 10 percent of the cost.14 After the time and financial constraints were reviewed and approved by City Council, the Foster + Partners composed a consultation plan. As part of the formal public participation process, the plan was presented on June 10, 2010. During the event, nearly 10,000 people visited the project’s

5 9 . 2 1 S T O C K H O L M • 39

  





 

Godkänt dokument - Katrin Berkefelt. Stadsbyggnadskontoret Stockholm. 2010-05-27. Dnr 2005-08976



 



 



     



























































































 























 





  



 







Comments from residents, businesses and individuals are publicly posted online and available for anyone to download.







Public Comment

“Documents on the Lock” http://www. slussen.nu/index.php?option=com_con tent&view=article&id=206&Itemid=98 (accessed May 8, 2011).



 









 

 









  



























 











































  



  

 































 







 







 















 















 

 



 

 

 

  

showroom and 1,200 comments were submitted. Approximately 1,100 of these comments submitted by individuals and 100 comments submitted by stakeholders. The high levels of public participation portray the public’s commitment to the site. Although, these comments relate to a wide range of issues, the most repeated public concern focused on private development impacts on views and proximity to water.

Although very formalized, public commenting is very transparent and accessible. The City Planning Office complied all of the public comments, including each author’s name, as a publicly posted pdf online. The formal public commenting process, however, did not satisfy full representation of public opinion. On February 20, 2011 hundreds of residents gathered to protest against Slussen’s plan as undemocratic due to the sale of several parcels and new addition of buildings. Architect Ola Andersson, a protestor criticized the “step towards a city ruled by technocrats in which the public area is reduced to a question about traffic engineering.”15 Beyond the technical implications of the design constraints, the redesign of Slussen is an economic and long term cultural issue. Although Fosters’ design is characterized as economic, the Swedish Municipal Rating criticized the proceedings sharply by giving the city its next to lowest scores. The criticism is based on the selling of assets to private enterprise as a short term economic strategy which would not translate to be a sustainable long term economic policy. 16 The final plan proposal is said to address the public comments although key elements of the proposal remain the same, the design still includes two new private buildings. This final proposal was exhibited, with representatives from the project on hand to answer questions,

15. Bernt Lindgren, “Slussens future at risk” http://www.slussen.nu/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&i d=256:slussens-framtid&catid=1:aktuella (accessed May 8, 2011).

16. “Slussen - a fairy tale but happily ever after?”

40 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION Public Protest Hundreds of residents gathered to protest against Slussen’s plan on February 20, 2011 Bernt Lindgren, Liberty City, http://www. slussen.nu/index.php?option=com_co ntent&view=article&id=251:frihetensplats&catid=1:aktuella (accessed May 8, 2011).

17. Lindgren.

before the plan was approved by City Council in 2011.17 When compared to Copenhagen, Stockholm’s formal process follows a highly guided process. Although this highly organized process is transparent, it is insufficient in producing citizen participation above the levels of tokenism. As the design process progressed from a collective group effort to a sole proprietorship design, the methods of public participation followed degrees of tokenism; informing, consultation, and placation. The 2011 protest event demonstrated that the guided formal public participation process did allow for an adequate representation of public opinion. With such a vocal and interested public, a partnership would be possible to form. Such a partnership could move the process beyond degrees of tokenism toward citizen empowerment.

Design Process Activity Degrees of Public Participation Major Public Participation Events 5 9 . 2 1 S T O C K H O L M • 41

Collective Group Effort

2001 Competition was held

Ci

g le

De

n io at ul ip apy r g an M The min on r ti fo lta n In u o ns ati ip er w Co ac rsh e Pl Po rol rtn d nt Pa ate Co

2004 Nyrén, Tyréns, ELU architects was announced as the winner

en

tiz

2007 A program consultations annalyed different options 2007 City officials addressed Slussen in Stockholm’s Vision 2030

October 2008 Five design proposals were displayed for 4 months

February 20, 2011 Residents protested against the plan

Formal

Informal

May 2008 Mayor Söderlund announced a new competition

2009 The City decided upon the design by Foster + Partners

Public Participation Process Collective Group Effort

June 10, 2010 Consultation plan presented for public comment

May 2011 The final plan proposal is said to address the public comments

Formal

Informal

Sole Proprietorship Sole Proprietorship

Public Participation in the Slussen development process.

Design Process Activity Degrees of Public Participation Major Public Participation Events

The diagram compares the Slussen design process and the formalized public participation process.

Collective Group Effort

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are studying alternatives

City of Seattle: Owns and Maintains Seawall Seattle Department of Transportation

Viaduct Removed

Elliott Bay Seawall Project

Central Waterfront Project

Central Waterfront Stakeholder Group

Seawall Stakeholder Group

Damage to Seawall Seawall Scientific Wood Structure Habitat Enhancement Study examining opportunities for marine wildlife diversity surrounding the seawall Sea Level Rise

City Hall

Earthquake

47.60 SEATTLE

“In contemporary theory, a technological “ecology” replaces poetic dwelling; an overly aestheticized attitude displaces the power of symbolic content; parodic historicism replaces history and tradition; nostalgic regionalism opposes contemporary modernity; a fundamentalist “ nature” movement displaces art and cultural representation; and the uncritical dogmatism of different camps replaces critical dialogue.”

Corner, James. “A Discourse on Theory I: “Sounding the Depths” Origins, Theory, and Representation.” Landscape journal 9, no. 2 (1990): 75.

Shortly after the 2001 Nisqually earthquake, the city of Seattle began several separated efforts for the design and planning of the waterfront.

This chapter relates the past efforts of formal public dialogue to the ongoing design process and public participation strategies.

POLITICAL CONTEXT In the United States, the value of the right to own private property is reflected in all facets of the physical environment including planning, zoning, infrastructure and government services. As a result parcel ownership is diverse and complicated. Within this political framework, planning is created on the local level through municipal plans and regional plans. However urban development must also comply with a number of federal, state, and local regulations.

43 Seattle Waterfront’s project team and structure (facing page) The diagram illustrates the relationship between the project team and the planning framework for the project development.

PLANNING CONSTRAINTS Similar to Copenhagen, the Port of Seattle is suffering through consequences of economic restructuring and technological change. The City of Seattle recognizes this need of renewing economic vitality and addresses waterfront revitalization in the comprehensive plan as a matter of statewide significance, encouraging the construction of “economically viable marine uses to meet the needs of waterborne commerce and facilitate the revitalization of downtown’s waterfront.”1 As with Stockholm’s Slussen project, costs are expensive and environmental and social implications are numerous. As a result of its complexity, the project must comply with a number of federal, state, and local regulations. Locally, the planning constraints of the seawall must comply with the City of Seattle’s developing land use plans. Additionally the US Corp of Engineers has identified a federal interest in storm damage reduction and related ecosystem restoration as well as compliance with the following federal regulations: • • • • • • • • •

National Environmental Policy Act National Historic Preservation Act Clean Water Act Rivers and Harbors Act Endangered Species Act Coastal Zone Management Act Clean Air Act Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

• • • • • • •

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Executive Order 12898 Action for Addressing Environmental Justice in Minority and Low Income Populations Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ER 200-2-2, Procedures for Implementing National Environmental Policy Act ER 1105-2-100, Planning Guidance Notebook2

Large scale public space funded through taxpayer support faces additional challenges. Within such projects, as opposed to typical client and designer relationships, design roles are renegotiated to not only produce images to convey design intentions, but more critically, to create specific branding and image generation for conveying competence. These communicated images are crucial in gaining public support to finance the project in the design phase, as well as after construction, to create a drive for public use. Vale and Warner, urban designers and academics, specifically call planners and designers to become more image conscious with their claim that “cities are no longer built; they are imaged.”3 As protagonists of the promise of image-making, Vale and Warner argue for using media and media’s physical influence to our advantage in creating spaces. However, using the influence of media to our advantage creates another set of challenges. I discuss these challenges in context to Seattle Central Waterfront Project, a proposed redevelopment of 9 acres of waterfront lands located on the western edge of downtown Seattle.

1. City of Seattle, Toward a Sustainable Seattle, Seattle Comprehensive Plan, January 2005, 88 2. US Corps of Engineers. “Elliott Bay, Washington. Shore Protection and Storm Damage Reduction” Section 905(b) (WRDA 86) Analysis August 2003. 10 3. Lawrence Vale and Sam Bass Warner.

2001. Imaging the city: continuing struggles and new directions. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research. xxiii.

Seattle’s waterfront in 1890, 1924, 1946, 1980, 2011 (following facing pages left to right) The Seattle shoreline was originally composed of 3,763 acres of mudflats, marshes, and freshwater riparian community.

Anderson, City of Seattle and Environs.

1890, David Rumsey Historical Map Collection Rand McNally and Company. Seattle, 1924, David Rumsey Historical Map Collection Aerial survey of Seattle,1946 Seattle, south of N/NE 85th St. 1 : 12,000 Rand McNally and Company,.Seattle, 1980 Seattle, 2011, Google Earth

44

45

THE CENTRAL WATERFRONT Originally composed of mudflats, the waterfront has been incrementally extended for development. The current need to rebuilt the seawall and viaduct became an urgent issue after damage was found from the 2001 Nisqually Quake.

46 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION Seattle in 1882 The photograph shows a less altered shoreline from Dearborn Street and Twelfth Avenue South “Prosch Seattle Views Album, Vol. 2,” c18701910, University of Washington Libraries.

Special Collections Division.

SHORELINE ALTERATION Human shoreline alteration initially began with pioneer settlement and the opening of Yesler Lumber Mill in 1852.4 During the time, pioneers began recontouring the original shoreline, filling the original lagoon with excess sawdust from the mill. This marked the beginning of the approach to cut and fill the landscape to overcome spatial restriction as opposed to working with the original topography.

4. Mildred Tanner Andrews. 2005. Pioneer Square: Seattle’s oldest neighborhood.

Seattle: Pioneer Square Community Association in association with University of Washington Press. 7 5. Ibid., 12.

During the late 19th century, Seattle’s population rapidly grew from 3,500 in 1880 to nearly 45,000 in 1890.5 Although the population grew, the commercial strip was confined spatially to much of the same physical space as the original shoreline. This spatial constraint changed after the Great Seattle Fire in 1889, which consumed the majority of the buildings from the shoreline to 3rd Avenue. The destruction offered an unprecedented opportunity to reconfigure the landscape. After the fire, Seattle City Council decided to regrade the area in order to expand beyond the commercial island and relieve chronic flooding. James Street was raised 18 feet at First Avenue and 38 feet at Second Avenue while Yesler, Washington, Jackson and Main were all raised similar amounts from 6½ feet to 18 feet.6 The city council also replated the area and widened First Avenue to 84 feet. Second and Third Avenue were also widened from 24 feet to 90 feet.7 The original street level still exists today and can be accessed through the Pioneer Square Underground Tour.

6. Andrews, 19.

7. Ibid., 42.

Perhaps the most drastic shoreline alteration occurred with an incomplete canal project in 1895. During the time, Eugene Semple, a former

P I E R 4 8 • 47 Semple’s Canal Initial Dredging and Tideline Reclamation from 1895-1897 Although Semple’s Canal was never constructed, nearly 100 acres of mudflats were filled, extending the perimeter of South Pioneer Square to present Georgetown.

Berner, 13.

state governor, began constructing a canal project from Elliot Bay through Beacon Hill to Lake Washington. The soil from the proposed canal project was intended to fill in the tide flats of current South Downtown in order to resell the land for profit. Ten months into the project, with nearly 100 acres of tide flats filled, Thomas Burke derailed the project.8 Burke had his own plans to build a canal north of downtown. As a result of Burke’s efforts, Sempler’s canal was never built, although, his landfill extended the perimeter of South Pioneer Square to present Georgetown.

Another major shoreline shift occurred with the Jackson Hill Regrade from 1907 to 1908. City Engineer R. H. Thompson created a master plan to level Seattle’s topography, with the idea that business and commerce required level ground. Beginning with Jackson Street, workers pumped high-pressure water to remove 85 feet from the steep hill to the mudflats. Street grades were lowered from 15 to 5 percent.9 By 1910 R.H. Thomson created additional plans to regrade downtown. Second, Third and Fourth Avenue were lowered to 5 percent maximum grade.10 Over the course of two decades, the landscape of the original Seattle settlement had been altered significantly. During this time more than 2,000 acres of land were formed by filling tidal wetlands, mudflats, and beaches along the waterfront and south of Seattle.11 This approach to cut and fill the landscape to overcome spatial restriction was a massive undertaking. Mildred Andrews, a historian specializing in Northwest history states “historians have likened the amount of dirt shifted from the Seattle hills to the tide flats to another technological marvel of the era−the digging of the Panama Canal.”12

8. Andrews., 47 9. Ibid.

10. Richard Berner, Seattle 1900-1920: from boomtown, urban turbulence, to restoration. Seattle, Wash: Charles Press.

1991, 14

48 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION View of 2nd Avenue during regrade work. (top left) After the Great Seattle Fire, 2nd Avenue was regraded to expand beyond the commercial island and relieve chronic flooding.

Source: James Lee, “Northern View of 2nd Avenue from Yesler Way showing regrade work,” (photograph) c1894, University of Washington Libraries. Special Collections Division. Seattle Photograph Collection.

Aerial of Seawall reconstruction during 1934 (top right) Sections of the 1916 concrete gravity seawall have been replaced in 1934, 1964, and 1987.

Source: “A circa 1934 aerial of the waterfront“ (photograph) c1934, Seattle Now & Then: the Pike Pier Fishing Fleet. http://pauldorpat.com/seattle-now-andthen/seattle-now-then-the-pike-pier-fishingfleet/(accessed Feburary 8 2012.)

Pier 48

Viaduct

Great Seattle Fire Fill

Viaduct structure

Sawdust fill

Seawall structure

Liquefiable soil

Seawall

Non-liquefiable soil

Tunnel

Section of the Seattle Waterfront (bottom) The section illustrates layers of human alteration, major constructed projects and the future tunnel structure.

11. Andrews, 74.

12. Ibid., 106 13. Federal Highway Administration, “Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation.” July 2011. 87.

14. Andrews 106.

15. “Elliott Bay Seawall Project,” City of Seattle Department of Transportation, http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/ seawall.htm (Assessed October 15, 2010) 16. US Corps of Engineers, “Elliott Bay, Washington. Shore Protection and Storm Damage Reduction,” Section 905(b) (WRDA 86) Analysis August 2003, 6 17. Ibid., 7

SHORELINE FORTIFICATION The approach to cut and fill the landscape had significant impacts. After the massive amount of soil was shifted, the soil needed to be stabilized for future construction projects. In order to address this need, the Elliott Bay Seawall was constructed to support waterfront building structures and transportation infrastructure. Initially constructed in 1916 with unreinforced concrete, the gravity wall stabilized soil and served as a protective wall against the wind driven storm waves of the Puget Sound.13 Over the past century the seawall has had three main alterations. Much of the original 1916 concrete gravity wall was replaced in 1934, 1964, and 1987 by two different types of structure.

Both types are pile-supporting reliving platforms constructed from untreated timber, concrete, and steel, however, one type of seawall is taller and wider since it is located in deeper water levels. The entire seawall is filled with loose liquefiable material composed of mainly sand and small amounts of gravel and clay.14 Due to the corrosive water environment, the seawall has sustained damage from marine bores, which critically altered the structural integrity of the timber supports.15 This corrosion was first observed in 1947. The most extensive damage is along the deeper seawall type, where corrosive water tides produced holes in the steel sheet pile.16 This area was reconstructed and in 1956, a cathodic protection system was also installed to reduce the rate of corrosion. However, corrosion continued and additional voids were discovered and repaired in 1962, 1974, and 1979. A 1982 site condition survey revealed more damage to the timber supports and in 1985, the timber-relieving platform was rebuilt and replaced with an ekki wood facing structure.17 The shallow seawall was thought to be immune against the corrosion. Since the seawall is shorter, a mudline barrier exists between the soil fill and seawater, which protects the structure. However, damage to this type of structure was also found in 2001, and further geoprobe

explorations revealed damage to the dock. In the event of an earthquake, the ability of the seawall to continue to provide support to surrounding buildings and infrastructure is increasingly diminished. The structure is predicted to have a 1 in 10 chance of failure from an earthquake in the next 10 years.18 If sections of the seawall structure were to fail, soils would liquefy and also destabilize the Alaskan Way Viaduct structure. This risk is the major driver for the current reconstruction of the seawall and adjacent viaduct.

To address the urgency of the seawall, the waterfront redevelopment has been divided into two projects with varying timelines; the Elliot Bay Seawall, and the Central Waterfront Plan. The Central Waterfront design team will design the public space vision and transportation expertise. The Elliott Bay Seawall Project team will provide engineering services and environmental habitat design expertise, due to be completed in 2016 before the Central Waterfront Plan is completed.19 The City of Seattle decided that is not essential for final plans for the waterfront redevelopment to be complete in order to move forward with the construction of the seawall project, since the seawall should be designed to accommodate and work with a variety of Seattle waterfront design options. In order to produce an integrated process, the two different design teams must work collaboratively, especially to gain consensus in spending taxpayer finances for the project.

Since the earthquake event, the City of Seattle has informed the public with formal outreach strategies. Shortly after the preparation of a background report, the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) held several forums in 2003, educating the public about the need for rebuilding the viaduct. The first of several waterfront public forums introduced the project and encouraged designers, neighborhood advocates, and stakeholders to become involved. During the meeting, commissioners facilitated a role playing workshop to gather local knowledge about waterfront values and perceived barriers. Approximately 200 attended the event.20 Several months later, city staff facilitated discussion groups on the topics of transportation, urban design, natural environment and ecology, economic development, and neighborhood/community. Composed of technical experts and key stakeholders, the groups met 13 times over the course of two months and advised the city on key issues, challenges, and opportunities.21 During this time, Allied Arts, an arts advocacy organization that had in the past worked to save the Pike Place Market and Pioneer Square, held a month long design collaborative with various members of the Seattle design community, including a dozen of UW students. Allied Arts guided design teams with these constraints to prioritize the waterfront as a destination instead of a transportation corridor: • The Alaskan Way Viaduct will be removed • All pass-through-Seattle traffic will travel below the surface • Pedestrian experience will take priority over vehicular activity on the surface of the waterfront.22 Several members of the Planning and Design Commission also outreached to high school students, and created a class at a local public high school, Center School, focusing on youth use of the waterfront. Students presented their reports at the second waterfront public forum, held in November of 2003.23 At the meeting commissioners facilitated an interactive session on the priorities generated at the initial public forum and the findings of the various discussion groups. This interactive session identified common priorities between the expert knowledge from discussion groups with the broader local perspectives from the role playing session. The following priorities guided the framework principles and design parameters for the 2004 Waterfront Charrette: • • •

Identify visionary ideas.

Expand the list of considered Provide creative input

• •

Educate people Gauge public opinion.24

Three hundred designers, planners, artists, and citizens from five countries, created twenty two schemes for the waterfront. Approximately 600 people attended the presentation of charrette results in April of 2004.25 Following the charrette, city staff began drafting the Waterfront Concept Plan, which later formed the basis of the Mayor’s Recommended Objectives and Strategies. In July of 2004, a Waterfront Advisory

4 7. 6 0 S E AT T L E • 49 18. US Corps of Engineers, 7.

19. Elliott Bay Seawall Project 20. Department of Planning and Development. Mayor’s Recommendations: Seattle Central Waterfront Concept Plan.

City of Seattle. 2006. 6.

21. Ibid.

22. David Yeaworth, “Waterfront Design Collaborative: Introduction,” Allied Arts, http://www.alliedarts-seattle.org/index. php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1 6&Itemid=27 (Assessed August 15, 2011) 23. Department of Planning and Development. Mayor’s Recommendations: Seattle Central Waterfront Concept Plan. 7.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid., 8.

50 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION 26. Department of Planning and Development. Mayor’s Recommendations: Seattle Central Waterfront Concept Plan. 7.

27. Ibid.

28. Corner, James. “A Discourse on Theory I: “Sounding the Depths” Origins, Theory, and Representation.” Landscape Journal 9, no. 2 (1990): 68.

29. Corner, James. Recovering Landscape : Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999.153.

30. Lawrence Vale and Sam Bass Warner. xv.

31. Corner, James. “Field Operations.”

Architectural Design 69, no. 7-8 (1999): 53.

32. Corner, James. “Not Unlike Life Itself: Landscape Strategy Now.” Harvard Design Magazine 2004, no. 21 (2004): 32.

33. Corner, James. “Field Operations.” 53.

34. Warwicker, John. 2008. The floating world: Ukiyoe [a tomato project]. Göttingen: Steidl Mack. 234 35. Corner, James. Waterfront Seattle Event at the Aquarium February 17th, 2011 http:// waterfrontseattle.org/ (accessed March 18, 2011).

team formed to advise city staff in the drafting of the Concept Plan. The plan was publicly presented at an open house in February of 2005 where approximately 200 people attended.26 One year later, an updated plan was presented to an audience of approximately 150 people.27 It is critical to note that public attendance conveys public interest and perceived inclusivity. The charrette presentation, which allowed community members to contribute ideas and offer design solutions had three times the attendance of either open house meeting.

For several years, the design and public process tapered due to a debate on traffic alternatives for the viaduct. After five years of discussion, the City of Seattle declared to move forward with the tunnel option in 2010. Later that year, the Seattle Department of Transportation publicly announced James Corner Field Operations as the chosen design team for the waterfront project.

James Corner is both a practitioner as well as an academic. In both realms of work, Corner often focuses on representation, phenomenology, and hermeneutics of design. Corner has strong convictions toward image-making, viewing drawing and representation. Tracing the changing perspectives on representation, Corner proposes in his academic work, that the turn of the 18th century led to a major shift in representation where symbolic expression was “replaced not only by the autonomy of instrumental representation grounded in scientism, but also by an aesthetic representation grounded in the fallacies of taste.”28 Against the excessive technological approach to design, as well as the purely autonomous aesthetic driven approach, Corner calls to fellow landscape architects to develop a cohesive theory. In order to develop this theory, Corner uses the image itself for constructing visions, as a method of creating an informative hybridized image. “Landscape and image are inseparable. Without image there is no such thing as landscape only unmediated environment.”29 Corner’s statement reiterates Vale and Warner sentiment that cities today are imaged. However, Vale and Warner expand the realm of imaging to be much more open and translatable to other disciplines. “To a greater extent than ever before places no longer simply have images; they are continually being imaged (and reimaged) often in ways that are highly self-conscious and highly contentious.”30 The challenge of imaging lies then lies in becoming aware of what the image will itself manifest, and how in the future it might be reimaged. Since James Corner aligns himself directly to the image-making, his process of image-making becomes critical to analyze.

Posed against the traditional view of planning as overly institutionalized, Corner advocates for a process of “inventive mediation” in order to develop alternatives to the conventional master plan.31 Addressing the design needs within the public participation process, Corner voices his concern with the current model lacking distinct hierarchy. “Without kings, autocratic presidents, singular corporate leaders, or similarly single minded ‘clients with power and authority,’ it is very difficult to produce significantly innovative work. The kind of ad-hoc, inclustionist populism that passes as participatory public process today typically leads to dull projects bland politics, and general cultural interia”32 Counteracting the “inclustionist populism” approach, Corner describes his own design process extensively, as “temporal orchestration.”33 He argues for landscape and ecology as methods appropriate in addressing messy and complex realities. The dualities of large scale organization and open relationship structure become open-ended. Corner’s designs are a platform from which new types of urban life can evolve.

In a more qualitative and interpretive approach to design, disciplines outside of design can also use storytelling as a method of communication. With sensitivity to this type of process, James Corner Field Operations collaborates with Tomato, a collective group of graphic artists, designers, musicians and writers. The firm works with branding activities such as hosting workshops, publishing, exhibiting, live performances and public speaking, working with clients in the areas of advertising, architecture, fashion, public installations, music, television, film, and graphic design. Tomato strength is founded on the generation of storytelling as “symbiosis between ‘idea-making’ and ‘world marking.’”34 The firm has successfully generated an approach to aiding the image generating process, and publishes regularly upon the branding process. Working collaboratively with Field Operations, as well as other architects, Tomato strengthens design imaging by adding a story, which communicates to audiences and has successfully facilitated the creation of highly regarded built projects.

As image makers and storytellers, Field Operations and Tomato addressed the Seattle Public on February 17, 2010.35 Visual images were shown by Corner, explaining the Seattle context and future potential opportunities. Visual Media supported approaches for consensus

design by utilizing social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and web surveys. However during the public event, public participation roles remained conventional. The process of gathering public and stakeholder consensus was illustrated in a graphic which animated different groups working collaboratively, yet had minimal information as to how this process would work. Although the typical public process has the opportunity to guide the reconstruction of the waterfront, this is another solution driven approach, which appropriates specific types of knowledge and information in order to define and create a solvable solution. The questions posed in the first public meeting, “Where do you

4 7. 6 0 S E AT T L E • 51

First public meeting presentation (top) Visual media presented by Corner supported the idea of consensus building.

Source: Corner, James. Waterfront Seattle Event at the Aquarium February 17th, 2011

Questions posed to the public in the first public meeting (bottom) The public was given to opportunity to voice their opinion by marking their responses with dots on large posters.

Corner, James. Waterfront Seattle Event at the Aquarium February 17th, 2011

52 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION

most want to be on the waterfront?, What activates would most attract you to the waterfront?,” are valid strategies for gathering information.

However, these questions produce answers for specific solutions and miss the benefits of responding to new ideas.

During the second public meeting, Corner presented three design concepts as well as a “quick win” concept of installing temporary hot tub on piers 62/63. The idea raised positive and negative discussion. Although there might be some question as to whether or not this concept is the right event for the waterfront, the event does create incentive to learn more about waterfront and provides a reason for the public to test the function of the site prior to the final design. Such a discourse is critical for the waterfront since the waterfront space has been largely unused by residents due to physical boundaries which have historically disconnected the waterfront from downtown. Corner’s preliminary design offers solutions to topography and pedestrian access. Corner’s design process does offer community outreach through public meetings, however this outreach is limited in gathering opinion outside of stakeholders and experts involved in the process. This is crucial to address. Seattle’s waterfront has been largely unused by residents due to physical man-made boundaries. The design process must address how to create a major community connection and commitment, or it risks creating space simply for tourist use.

Compared to the other case studies, the Seattle design process is similar to Stockholm. As with Stockholm, guided formal public participation process risks not obtaining an adequate representation of public opinion. The City of Seattle has kept the public informed through formal outreach strategies for the generation of goals and values for the urban waterfront. However the translation of these goals to a design solution is a process of distilling down ideas, rather then an open evolving process. There has also been a large gap in time within the process with the debate of the tunnel alternative. As a result, the past planning public outreach strategies for the waterfront is disconnected from the current process and the dialogue providing public ownership to the process must be regenerated. Events such as Corner’s “quick wins” should be expanded on and invested in to obtain perspectives and views from a diverse range of the population aside from the active constituents already involved.

In seeking to involve the local public into the decision-making of the design process, how might the conventional megaproject design process change? In assimilating priories and goals, the way in which knowledge is obtained affects the outcome. More effort must be undertaken to obtain perspectives, formally and informally, from a diverse range of the population. With sensitivity to many types of knowledge, expertise is still regarded as valid, however it must be reflective of local knowledge to ensure it is also given an important role. An approach which seeks to develop and capture multiple perspectives as a self-informing process, would frame a much different “problem.”

Early Wins (left) As part of the second public presentation, Corner proposed the concept of installing temporary hot tub on piers 62/63 Corner, James. Waterfront Seattle Event at the Aquarium May 19th, 2011

Corner’s Preliminary Design (right) Presented at the second public meeting, the design strategy offers pedestrian access to topography barriers.

“James Corner: reconnect people to the waterfront “ Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce. http://www.djc.com/news/ ae/12029581.html.

Sole Proprietorship

Design Process Activity Degrees of Public Participation Major Public Participation Events

4 7. 6 0 S E AT T L E • 53 Public Participation Analysis for Seattle.

The City of Seattle has kept the public informed through formal outreach strategies similar to the formal process of Stockholm. As with Stockholm, a guided formal public participation process risks not obtaining an adequate representation of public opinion.

Collective Group Effort

November 7, 2003

Visioning Charrette

rtn

July 8, 2005

Co

June 21-23, 2005

d

en

tiz

te

Ci

Waterfront Concept Plan Open House

ga

le

Charette Presentation & Exhibit

Pa

De

Feb. 9, 2005

Waterfront Forum 2

Pl

February 27-28, 2004 April 7, 2004

June 2003 Waterfront Forum 1

Waterfront Discussion Groups

n io at ul ip py an era ing n M h T rm atio fo In sult ion r n ip at we Co ac rsh o e l P ro nt

September and October, 2003

Waterfront Open Houses

Waterfront Partners Group Public Working Session Feb 1, 2006

Waterfront Open House

Formal July 26, 2006

Informal

Mayor Unveils Waterfront Plans

Public Participation Process Collective Group Effort

September 15, 2010

Presentations by Shortlisted Design Firms

February 17, 2011 May 19, 2011

Formal

James Corner Kick-off event

Informal

Presentation of Initial design directions

Sole Proprietorship

Design Process Activity Degrees of Public Participation Major Public Participation Events

Sole Proprietorship Collective Group Effort

City Council

Local Knowledge

Politics

Expert Knowledge

Local Knowledge

City Council Planners Public Participation

Vision/DesignArchitects Engineers

Public

Architects FutureDevelopers users Aesthetics

Producers Consumers Influence Method

City Council

Stakeholders Public

Environmental Sustainability

Time

Time

Stakeholders Public

Planners

Vision/Design

Planners

Politics

Expert Knowledge City Council Public Planners Architects Engineers

Participation

Public

Architects FutureDevelopers users Aesthetics

Science

Science

Technology

Technology

Experts

Experts

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DESIGN Future users

“The waterfront calls for an open mind. In major cities that were once or are still world ports, from Rotterdam to Yokohama to New York, the call is especially intense. Still flowing with the give-and -take of goods, people, and cultures, today’s most successful waterfronts offer the experience and articulate the values of an open society, in which ideas are exchanges freely, transparent transactions are valued, and people are free to come and go.”

Raymond Gastil, Beyond the Edge : New York’s New Waterfront. New York, N.Y.: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002.

Environmental Sustainability

Waterfronts are more complex than simply post-industrial spaces requiring a “spatio-temporal fix” that responds to changes in economy and capitalist crises.1 As civic spaces, they require a different strategy for regeneration; a strategy which is not solely focused on the rebranding of a space for new opportunities of economy or aesthetics. Rather the focus should be redirected on crafting an evolving public activity for the purpose of long term space inhabitation and ownership. The following chapter builds upon past waterfront planning efforts and James Corner’s concept of “quick wins” to establish a self-evolving form of public participation.

55 Producers and consumers of public space (facing page) The power of place can employed to mobilize community members to become the producers of public space

SUPPORTING A REFLECTIVE PROCESS 1. David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press: Initial Design Process Public place contains public memory, and within this collection of memory, there is power. Dolores Hayden, a professor and urban historian, Seconary Design Process Oxford (2005) 66.

Degrees of Public Participation defines the power of place as “the power of ordinary urban landscapes to nurture citizens’ public memory, to encompass shared time in 2. Hayden, Dolores “TheMajor Power of Participation Place: Public Events Urban Landscapes as Public History’ 109 the form of shared territory.”2 Although the power of place can engage and solicit public participation, it is largely unused within planning 3. Manzo, L. C. “Finding Common Ground: and public participation. Lynne Manzo has researched this gap within the planning discipline. “While planners enthusiastically pursued The Importance of Place Attachment to issues of participation and other social dynamics in planning, the study of the nature and role of place meaning and attachment were left Community Participation and Planning.”

Journal of Planning Literature 20, no. 4 largely to environmental and community psychologists.”3 This disconnection between planners and psychologists, is also transferable to (2006): 336 other disciplines and the way in which we view the design of public spaces in general. Manzo calls for a collaboration of the disciplines to 4. Ibid. 336. progress forward with an ecological perspective, which would engage the multiple levels of the individual, group, organization, community, Types of public participation models (left) city, region and society for analysis.4 In a typical megaproject design process the design is a vision of the designer/engineer. The design Initial Initial Design Design Process Process Initial Design Process InitialInitial Design Process Design Process Initial Design Process Public participation approaches can be Seconary Seconary Design Design Process Process SeconaryPublic Design Process Seconary Design Process team negotiates the values of the environment, ecology and aesthetics into a design solution. involvement within this process isDesign Seconary Process Seconary Design Process defined as reactive, guiding or reflective Degrees Degrees of Public ofof Public Participation Participation Degrees of Public Participation Degrees of Public Participation Degrees of Public Participation Degrees Public Participation Collective Group Effort processes. Grey areas mark public often limited to participatory planning events where viewpoints from stakeholders are gathered in between design iterations−usually in initial Major Major Public Public Participation Participation Events Events Major Public Participation Events Major Public Participation Events Major Public Participation Events Major Public Participation Events participation activity. White arrow denotes phases of information gathering or much later in the process for public approval. Information collection in the initial phases of the process time. may or may not contribute to decision-making. Recognizing the power of place within the design process can guide initial excitement and Comparison of the case studies (right) Formal Informal provide a foundation for public participation to form mutual, social learning. Through social learning, public participation and design process Copenhagen’s Islands Brygge and Kalvebod Brygge can be characterized as reactive are mutually strengthened to collectively articulate strategic planning activities.

Public participation approaches can be defined as reactive, guiding or reflective processes. Historically, public spaces were created by nearby

Collective Collective Group Effort Group Effort Collective Group Effort

Formal Formal Formal

InformalInformal Informal

Formal Formal Formal

Sole Proprietorship Sole Proprietorship Sole Proprietorship

Informal Informal Informal

Formal Formal Formal

FormalFormal Formal

Formal Formal Formal Formal

Informal Informal Informal

FormalFormal Formal Formal

Collective Group Effort Collective Group Collective GroupEffort Effort

Informal

Formal Formal Formal

InformalInformal Informal

Sole Proprietorship Sole Proprietorship Proprietorship Sole

Informal Informal Informal Informal

SoleProprietorship Proprietorship Sole Sole Proprietorship Sole Proprietorship

Reactive Guiding Processes Processes Reactive Processes Slussen

Informal InformalInformal

Sole Proprietorship Sole Proprietorship Sole Proprietorship Sole Proprietorship

Collective Group Effort Collective Group Collective EffortGroup Collective Group EffortEffort

Sole Proprietorship Sole Sole Proprietorship Proprietorship

CollectiveCollective Group Effort Collective Group Effort Group Effort Collective Group Effort

InformalInformal Informal

Sole Proprietorship Sole Proprietorship Sole Proprietorship

Informal InformalInformal Informal

Reactive Reflective Reflective Processes Processes Processes Reflective Processes

Collective Collective Group Effort Group Effort Collective Group Effort

Reactive Processes Kalvebod Brygge

Collective GroupGroup Effort Effort Collective Collective Group Effort

Sole SoleProprietorship Proprietorship Sole Proprietorship Sole Proprietorship

Guiding Guiding Processes Processes Guiding Processes

CollectiveCollective Group Effort Group Effort Collective Group Effort

Sole Proprietorship Sole Proprietorship Sole Proprietorship

Formal Formal Formal Formal

Sole Proprietorship Sole Proprietorship Sole Proprietorship

Reactive Reactive Processes Processes Reactive Processes

Formal Formal Formal

InformalInformal Informal

Sole Proprietorship

Islands Brygge

Collective Group Effort Collective Collective Group Effort Group Effort Collective Group Effort

Collective Collective Group Effort Group Effort Collective Group Effort

public participation design processes, whereas Stockholm and Seattle can be defined as guiding processes.

Guiding Reflective Processes Processes Guiding Processes Seattle Collective Group Collective EffortGroup Collective Group EffortEffort

FormalFormal Formal

Informal Informal Informal

Sole Proprietorship Sole Proprietorship Sole Proprietorship

56 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION 5. Corner, James. “Not Unlike Life Itself: Landscape Strategy Now.” Harvard Design Magazine 2004, no. 21 (2004): 32.

communities, supporting their needs through informal processes similar to Copenhagen’s Harborfront. These communities used localized knowledge and the power of place in public space creation. It is critical to note that the same reactive process also created undesired spaces. With a purely reactionary approach, comprehensive vision or direction would become difficult to assemble. Without direction, the process risks the reproduction of unbalanced power relations. This however could be avoided with the collection of diverse sets of knowledge.

Through a formal and guided process, Stockholm attempts address the public’s needs within the design process. However, a guided process may not address all of the public’s concerns, and the rigidity of this formal process and lack of distinct hierarchy can lead to project delays and controversies. The City of Seattle planning process also follows a guided process. In order to facilitate the best opportunity for both a public participation and Corner’s role, the process should be redirected as a reflective process, one of mutual learning and balance. The following proposal facilitates a self-evolving process for developing new possibilities of public space design while simultaneously empowering the community.

A CIVIC ASSEMBLY Overview Public participation transforms the design process as an active part of physical design. Perspectives and views from a diverse range of public are obtained through a temporary design intervention capturing both the formal and informal modes of participation. This event establishes a cyclical process, which claims ownership over the design process and strengthens social networks for future participation.

Organization In order to organize the event, a community outreach committee is formed to publicly announce the event and invite the public to participate.

After a social media and public marketing campaign, the committee organizes the public participants into seven groups based on James Corner’s interpretation of waterfront districts. Groups are strategically composed to build upon existing spatial relationships and address potential conflict of spacial uses. For example, the Ferry Terminal Team is composed of residents, local commuters, stakeholders, businesses, and organizations within the district as well as technical transportation experts; representatives from the Port of Seattle and Washington State Ferries. The groups are formed two months in advance to allow for discussion and planning and perhaps prefabrication of materials.

Simple constraints help maintain flexible design intention and a cohesive installation for the exhibition. Each of the seven groups is given an equal amount of base resources. The supplied materials are simple: • Sheets of plywood are supplied for prefabrication purposes.

• Vegetation is rented/borrowed from local nurseries to allow for the temporary installation.

• Paint allows for complex visions to be drawn onto the site, claiming the area. After the event, the paint will serve as a reminder to the ideas and allow for waterfront visitors to engage the markings informally. Additional objects and materials are welcome with group support.

The event offers citizen control and interpretation of the design process temporarily. The user-generated design builds on the power of place and public memory to create incentive for others to engage the site. During the event, participants are given the opportunities to offer ideas and build community relationships. Participants engage their creativity in a spatial way, offering a different approach from typical public consultation. Over a period of four days, a temporary installation of ideas is constructed and exhibited on the waterfront. Set into existing events held on the waterfront, the event draws residents and visitors to participate in assembly of structures or through informal observation.

Seattle residents, waterfront business owners and tenants, design professionals, organizations, technical experts, and youth representatives from local schools install their collaborative work and display their ideas for the public comment. The temporary waterfront installation

eer Sq.

unday

ne 5, 2011.

EXPERIENCE IDEAS

INSTALL

SEPTEMBER 8th-9th

SEPTEMBER 6th-7th After weeks of planning community groups are installing physical design ideas on the waterfront Join the conversation!

P U B L I C PA R T I C I PAT I O N D E S I G N • 57

SEPTEMBER 6th TAILGATE INSTALL Join sports fans and the local industry to create a tailgate event like no other prior to a Seattle Mariners vs. Angels game

SEPTEMBER 7th COMMUNITY COMMUTE Free ferry rides after 8pm.

Stay after work and help island residents complete their installation

SEPTEMBER 6th FIRST THURSDAY ART WALK Local artists and community engage in an outdoor art walk installation of temporary public space

CONCERTS

FESTIVAL FARM DAYS

SEPTEMBER 7th LUNCH OFF Visitors and Workers spend lunch/Friday afternoon working on their installation

Shop from Pike’s Place Market farmers in stands by the Waterfront. Choose from the season's best berries, greens, herbs, and vegetables.

Hear local talent as you walk along the waterfront installation

Installation event schedule (top) The installation is constructed and exhibited on the waterfront over a period of four days.

Installation group teams (bottom)

RAILROAD WAY The Port of Seattle Marine Industries Ballard/Interbay M.I.C.’s Seattle Seahawks Fans Seattle Mariners Fans West Seattle Residents International District Residents South Seattle Residents

FERRY TERMINAL Island Residents WDOT SDOT Feet First King County Metro Riders Washington State Ferries Alaskan Way Drivers Cascade Bicycle Club Squamish Tribe

Pioneer Square Residents West Seattle Residents International District Residents South Seattle Residents Muckleshoot Tribe Duwamish Tribe Seattle Parks Foundation 4Culture Art Walk Attenders Pioneer Square Presevation Board Artists

PIONEER SQUARE

THE PUBLIC PIERS Pike Place Market PDA Washington Convention Center Waterfront Cruises People for Puget Sound Seattle Aquarium Waterfront Hotels Westlake Residents University District Residents University of Washington K-12 Schools

Waterfront Edge Neighbors Businesses Seattle Chamber of Commerce Downtown Seattle Association Seattle Art Museum Seattle Public Libraries Seattle Convention Center Visitor’s Bureau Tourists

THE COMMERCIAL PIERS

THE MARINA

Teams are composed to build upon existing spatial relationships and address potential conflict of spacial uses.

Uptown Residents Bell Harbor Marina Fishermen's Terminal Harbor Island Marina Shilshole Bay Marina Boating Enthusiasts Bell Harbor Conferance AIA

Belltown Residents Ballard Residents Queen Anne Residents Wallingford Residents North Seattle Residents Seattle Sounders Fans Seattle Public Art Community Cornish College for Art People’s Waterfront Coalition Seattle Art Museum Olympic Sculpture Seattle Center

THE NORTH END

58 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION

involves and develops knowledge as an inclusive creative process.

6. Co design Laboratories, http:// codesignklyngen.wordpress.com/ (accessed May 16, 2011).

Success factors The purpose of the exhibition is to expand the possibilities of ideas. The self-informing public participation event creates temporary public space and offers the following values: 1. Multiple site perspectives which reveal historical and social context rooted in the power of place.

2. Integrated multiple functions and multiple simultaneous perspectives of the site 3. The exploration of possibilities, which is more open then permanent design.

7. Ibid.

8. Parking Day, http://parkingday.org/aboutparking-day/ (accessed May 16, 2011).

A temporary event transcends the conflict inherent in megaprojects; high cost, large scale, significant technical constraints and differing expertise. Designs are investigated and created over a short period of time. The event provides low risk to the process of testing ideas due to the impermanence of the event and the subsequent low level of commitment. It is critical to note that the event is not just about working through individual conflict or a individual design process. Spatial collaboration transcends conventional issues. Since the designs are temporary there is more opportunity to explore different solutions in a non binding way and learn mutually though each iteration.

Related Projects Currently there are planning methods which seek to involve public participation in a creative manner on a smaller scale. Co design Laboratories, a progressive research department within Denmark University, uses and develops creative methods of public participation.6 These methods mobilize and engage the public through design games and scenarios such as “rehearsing the future.” Working on the concept of “everyday innovation,” the public is engaged creatively.7 There are many other groups using these outreach methods of public participation such as the Detroit Collaborative Center, Project for Public Spaces, and Portland’s City Repair Program.

Creative public participation is also used to educate and inform the public. Although not necessarily tied to a comprehensive design process, events, such as PARK(ing) Day are successful in establishing an active spatial exploration of urban space which is user generated.

PARK(ing) Day initiates public participation through the temporary reuse of metered parking spaces in order to raise awareness to auto dependant urban infrastructure. The event draws a wide range of public involvement and ideas, ranging from the miniature parks to the expression of local character or raise awareness of an important issues. Since the project’s conception in 2005, by Rebar, a San Franciscobased art and design studio, the project has sparked the creation of 800 installations in more than 180 cities in 30 countries on six continents.8 These planning methods have worked well for projects with a involved community group or for a generating public interest towards a specific issue, however, there has not been a process which draws the public to participate spatially for the design of a megaproject. This type of spatial collaboration could draw on the power of place to facilitate the opportunity for a reflective public participation. With the Seattle waterfront, a reflective process can strengthen both the public’s role and Corner’s role into a supportive relationship, one of mutual learning and balance.

Post Event After the event, group input is specifically invited to comment on alternatives and whether any additional attributes should be considered in the design process of the Seattle Central Waterfront Design team. The event establishes an dialog between design and community which is mutually educational. Building upon Corner’s concept of “quick wins,” participants become engaged and feel invested in the process in a relatively short period of time.

59 Potential Public Participation Event Installation Users have the possibility to engage and shape the site by testing collective ideas

In order to continue to balance formal design concepts from the design team and informal design ideas from the public, the event establishes an biannual happening on the waterfront. These ephemeral events have a lasting influence on the waterfront’s future. Since both the design team and the public have the opportunity to creatively test ideas, the power of decision-making is redistributed through the biannual open transfer of ideas. Following each biannual event, citizens are better prepared to argue for different design solutions having experienced the educational benefits of the spacial public space design exercise. Participants actively shape and contribute ideas to the evolving design constructed between each biannual event This self-evolving discourse provides a wide collection of current and future knowledge. As an active part of physical design, multiple perspectives creatively test possibilities. The temporary design intervention captures both the formal and informal modes of participation and establishes a self-informing process which has the ability to transcend conflict. The events establishes a strong community connection to the site, which upon design completion, transfers to long term space inhabitation. Ownership is claimed over design process and strengthens social networks for future inhabitation and participation.

AUTHENTICITY + USER GENERATED DESIGN “Today, notions of place and market, expanding information technologies, local authenticity and global consumer culture have intersected to create a nexus of complex relationships.

In a time of hyper-capitalism where counterculture has been demystified, culture hijacked to transport commercial messages (and commerce hijacked to transport culture), and all boundaries between high and low design, concept, content, and form have been blurred, how can we create relevant and meaningful and authentic experiences that are purely defined by architecture?

Anna Klingmann, 2007. Brandscapes: architecture in the experience economy. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 1

In order to address how a design proposal might support an evolving public participation, I explore the topic of authenticity– a sense of place which is “authentic and genuine” as opposed to “inauthentic, contrived or artificial”−as a critical component for community adoption of urban spaces.1 Authenticity was once the only means of city building. Before modern construction methods, cities were built out of community driven need to integrate the political, economic, social and cultural activities. Public places were built through sedimentation−the process of layering use incrementally into spaces.2 The transition from a system based on close-knit community to one of non-converging networks and anonymity has altered the function of public spaces. Public places still contain some of their historic programs such as markets and event spaces, however these programs have residual roles, secondary to modern conveniences.3

61 Seattle’s vertical growth(facing page) In the latter half of the 20th century, Seattle went through a large construction boom and expanded vertically.

Throughout history the measure for authenticity has remained constant. Within our modern cities, however, public spaces are superficially contrived; city centers are being themed around tourist and entertainment functions.4 Architects such as Koolhaas recognize the “traditional sedimentation of a city, which for us is still the model for authenticity.”5 As designers, and as users, we perceive authenticity in public space by the historic layering of resident and community use. The disappearance of authentic public space is critical to address; especially when we, as architects and planners, advocate for a denser city environment, which would in turn, require more public space to be constructed. In this chapter I argue that the lack of authenticity within public space design is due to the way we as designers approach the design process.

AUTHENTICITY WITHIN THE DESIGN PROCESS The circumstances that make authentic spaces cannot be replicated. Architectural critic Michael Sorkin explains “whether in its master incarnation at the ersatz Main Street of Disneyland, in the phony history of a Rouse market place, or the gentrified architecture of the ‘reborn’ Lower East Side, this elaborate apparatus is at pains to assert its ties to the kind of city life it is in the process of obliterating.”6 Richard Marshall argues “the condition in which we find ourselves is not an issue of memory. We have not forgotten how cities were made, rather our ideas of what a city is and how it is put together seem at odds with the way the world works today.”7 The current process of development is a linear progression–from need to scoping, to conceptual design, to design, to construction, to operation and maintenance. When the development no longer provides a valued need, the space is decommissioned and a new need establishes the beginning of a new linear process. Although this linear process functions with spaces which have strong community commitment and involvement, spaces without such commitment often develop into artificial public spaces–spaces which lack authenticity measured by time and use.

If a conventual design process lacks authenticity, why are we not changing the design process? Architects such as Koolhass discuss the absoluteness of the contemporary situation we find ourselves in, “there is no escaping the artificial in the new architecture, and certainly not in large amounts of architecture being generated at the same time.”8 I argue that this matter is not as absolute as we might think.

Although time, construction methods, and pace of life have irreversibly defined the way we construct our cities, I believe there is still room for expanding our scope of thinking–especially during this moment of slowing development–to work with the realities of planning process, construction delays, and funding limitations by collaborating with the local community. In order to understand the possibilities of changing the conventional design process, I researched user generated design to understand the potential for layering use incrementally into spaces.

Within my research, I found there are three approaches to user-generated design in public spaces: 1. Highly responsive architecture-a constantly evolving environment which anticipates building user use patterns, needs, or desires.

2. Self-invention of experience-users become active participants by some factor of contributing to the meaning of the work through their choices.

3. Collaborative design- a mutual effort of designers and community members

1. Edward Relph. 1987. The modern urban landscape. London: Croom Helm. 113 2. Within this work, I denote “place” as a built work which is adopted by a community.

In contrast, a “space” functions without a identifiable user group.

3. Ali Madanipour. 2003. Public and private spaces of the city. London: Routledge. 6 4. Wall 1999, Dovery 1999, Sorkin 1992, Huxtable 1997 Mike Davis 1992, Harvey 1996 5. Rem Koolhaas Trajectory as a Positive, OMA 6. Michael Sorkin. 1992. Variations on a theme park: the new American city and the end of public space. New York: Hill and Wang. p xiv 7. Madanipour. 6

In the following sections I expand upon these approaches with case study precedents.

8. Koolhaas.

62 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION 9. During the time, cybernetics was commonly associated with computers.

Wiener pioneered the cybernetics as a model of the natural processes that permit all living things to actively maintain the conditions of life. Price used this concept of cybernetics to design the Fun Place.

10. Stanley Mathews. 2006. “The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture”. Journal of Architectural Education. 59 (3).

11. Stanley Mathews. 2006. “Cedric Price: from the “brain drain” to the “knowledge economy”. Architectural Design. 76 (1): 45 12. Ibid.

HIGHLY RESPONSIVE ARCHITECTURE The concept of user-generated design gained momentum during the 1960s, occurring simultaneously with the critique of rationality as a comprehensive and exclusive planning method. During the time, architects began experimenting with technology to provide options for users to control their own surroundings and experiences. The most ambitious of these types of projects was Cedric Price’s and Joan Littlewood’s proposal for the Fun Palace. The architects collaborated with a wide rage of scientists, sociologists, artists, engineers, and politicians; including Richard Buckminster Fuller, Yehudi Menuhin, Gordon Pask, and Tony Benn. By attending lectures at London’s Institute of Contemporary Art, Price learned of the potential offered by electronic and cybernetic systems. Employing cybernetics, computer technologies, and game theory, Price produced improvisational, constantly evolving architecture.9 Rather than a diagram of architectural spaces, the program of the Fun Palace became “an array of algorithmic functions and logical gateways that control temporal events and processes in a virtual device.”10 A range of data was mathematically modeled, from visiting patterns, mechanical and architectural considerations, program capacities, to determination of what is likely to induce happiness.11 The resulting web of information is parallel to rhizomatic theories of knowledge developed in the 1970s by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari.12

13. Ibid., 47.

Assembled, the architecture became a type of kit of parts. Enclosures were defined by two scales; small scale spaces with a high degree of servicing such as kitchens, restaurants, workshops and lavatories, and large scale spaces such as auditoriums, cinema and meeting halls.

Flexibility was incorporated through the construction and the deconstruction circulation of the constantly adapting architecture. After years of design, the construction was blocked by mid-level bureaucrats in the Newham planning office. Price moved on to construct a smaller scale of the Fun Palace in Kentish Town. Known as the InterAction Centre, Price designed the center as a building with a limited life span of twenty years. Mathews, an architecture critic, attributes Price’s designs to situating architecture to the most socially relevant position; “not as enclosure, symbol, or monument but as the convergence of site and human event.”13 Fun Palace Organizational Plan (left) The program was organized by a range of mathematically modeled data.

Mathews, Stanley. “The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture.” 59.

Fun Palace Floor Plan (top right) Flexibility is incorporated through the construction and the deconstruction of the adapting circulation.

Mathews, 59.

InterAction Centre (bottom right) As a scaled down version of the Fun Palace, Price designed the center as a building with a limited life span of twenty years. In 2003 conservationists tried to preserve the building, however, Price adamantly opposed the preservation, and the InterAction Centre was demolished.

Mathews, 59.

COLLABORATIVE DESIGN Collaborative design requires the role of the architect to be the facilitator instead of the sole innovator. As architects began exploring the method of highly responsive architecture, urban designers also began adapting the design process to be more reflective of community interest. Moving beyond conventional public outreach, designers worked with stakeholders collaboratively as a mutual learning process.

The temporary design solutions of Muf (UK) explore theses boundaries of participation and design decision-making with art and public place.

The project “We are artists” enable local public artists to actively inform policy making for highly contested spaces.14 As part of the design process, a dinner debate with thirty-two local artists began the dialog of vision and goals. After the event, artist submitted proposals for a series of temporary workshops with local children on a local development site. Four temporary commissions were selected by anonymous peer review.

AUTH E NTI C ITY + US E R G E N E R AT E D D E S I G N • 63 14. Muf architecture/art. “We are Artists.” http://www.muf.co.uk/archives/portfolio/ we-are-artists (accessed January 8 2012.)

15. Ruth Morrow. ECObox. “Mobile devices and urban tactics” http://www.domusweb. it/en/architecture/ecobox-mobile-devicesand-urban-tactics/ (accessed January 8 2012.)

Atelier d’Architecture Autogérée (AAA) is another group practicing collaborative design with the local community. Critical of formulaic participatory practice which superficially engages citizens, the group of artists, architects, urban planners, landscape architects, sociologists, students, and residents worked together on ECObox: a five year public space installation which opened in 2001.15 Made from low-tech affordable materials, each module is moveable, allowing users to determine their location. Each modules housed different programs such as a garden, kitchen, library, tool bank, and radio station. Initially curated by AAA members, and then by the local community, the installation allows a physical manifestation of democratic space−a communal place transformed by users.

Public comments from the “We are artists” event (top) Thirty-two local artists attended the public participation dinner which began the dialog for vision and goals.

Muf architecture/art

ECObox installation (bottom) Each ECObox module contained different programs such as a garden, kitchen, library, tool bank, radio station. These modules were initially curated by the designers and then by the local community.

Ruth Morrow. ECObox.

64 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION 16. Larissa Bank. “Foundations in Interactive Art making” http://www.larabank.com/usc/ lecture1/index.htm (accessed January 8 2012.)

17. Julia Klein. Don’t Just Stand There.”

Brown Alumni Magazine. 2008. 42 18. Lebbeus Woods. “Another Rem.” http:// lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ another-rem/ (accessed January 8 2012.)

Duchamp’s Rotary Glass Plates piece (left) The artwork’s movement is controlled by the viewer. This machine consisted of five glass pieces with curved black lines attached to a horizontal spinning metal pole.

When in motion, the glass spins creates a stroboscopic effect−images of a moving spiral can be seen.

Larissa Bank. “Foundations in Interactive Art making” http://www.larabank.com/usc/ lecture1/index.htm (accessed January 8 2012.)

Snibbe’s Interactive floor projection (middle) The interactive floor installation senses the human body. As participants step onto the installation piece, lines outline their body in relation to others.

Klein. 42

Koolhaus’s submission for Park de Villette (right) Koolhaus superimposed five layers of program into contrasting vertical and horizontal strips. Each segment contained different programs and different placement of structure and vegetation to allow users to shape their own experience, their own path through the site.

Source: Lebbeus Woods. “Another Rem.” http://lebbeuswoods.wordpress. com/2009/10/24/another-rem/(accessed January 8 2012.)

SELF INVENTION OF EXPERIENCE Public participation through self invention is rooted within the interactive art movement−a genre of art where viewers become active participants by some factor of determining the outcome. Allowing various types of contribution to an artwork, these installations transcend individual mental activity in traditional art. The earliest example of such a piece is Marcel Duchamp’s Rotary Glass Plates piece.16 Composed of five glass pieces attached to a horizontal spinning metal pole, the artwork movement is controlled by the viewer. When in motion, the glass spins with the metal pole and creates a stroboscopic effect. Since Duchamp’s piece was created in 1920, significant technological advancements have progressed this dialog between art and viewer. Computer-based sensors, allow artists, such as Scott Snibbe, to monitor temperature, motion, and proximity to elicit participant responses. With “Boundary Functions”, an interactive floor projection, Snibbe strives “to make a medium as emotionally engaging as a movie, but one in which you remain aware of your body and your relationship to others−to communicate a vision of the world where people understand that we are all interdependent.”17 This interdependency produces meaning as a continual process.

Self invention, as a concept, has influenced architecture since the early 1980s. In 1983, Koolhaus submitted a design competition proposal of a new public park to be built on the fifty-five hectare site of a former slaughterhouses in Paris. Koolhaus’s submission, composed of five superimposed layers of program, transformed the site into contrasting vertical and horizontal strips; each containing different programs and different placement of structure and vegetation. Lebbeus Woods argues that this architecture allows self-invention to occur. “It is a park that would be difficult to experience the same way twice—repeat visits would each be different. For example, if we walk along the strips, we encounter a particular sequence of landscapes and experiences; if we cut across the strips an entirely different sequence of perceptions is discovered.”18 In this manner, Koolhaus defines a mutable experience for the users, who can shape their experiences with the site.

Shaping experiences with the site can be used as a method of design inquiry. I had the opportunity to see the idea of temporary installation as design inquiry actualized upon completion of my urban planning thesis work. My thesis committee member Nancy Rottle and Kathryn R. Merlino assigned a public interaction installation as part of the Scan/Design Master studio. The installations were specifically aimed at provoking public interaction and education on the waterfront. Over the course of one and a half weeks, students designed, constructed, and exhibited a series of “Quick Win Site Expressions.” The students’ installations created a platform for mutable experience. The installations were specifically aimed at provoking public interaction and education on the waterfront. Student formed into five groups with simple instructions, constraints and a budget of $100 for materials. Over the course of one and a half weeks students, designed, constructed and

exhibited a series of “Quick Win Site Expressions” on Pier 62/63. Each installation engaged various spontaneous responses, including somewhat expected responses such as children engaging the installation for play, or a somewhat unexpected occurrence of a couple posing for wedding photos. The student’s installations created a platform for mutable experience. Users could shape their experiences and choose their level of engagement. This temporal shaping of place creates a mutually beneficial dialog between the user and the designer.

AUTH E NTI C ITY + US E R G E N E R AT E D D E S I G N • 65 19. “Public Places.” Joseph Rowntree Foundation http://www.jrf.org.uk/work/ workarea/public-spaces (accessed January 8 2012.)

With the design of a public space, there is a tendency to focus on design and management issues rather than what people value about public places.19 User generated design can transcend managerial thinking and focus on supporting place attachment including opportunities for people to engage with others. It can also ensure that the citizens’ experiences with new urban qualities and designs are considered. This process can create experiences beyond what is initially considered by the design team.

Within this work, I propose to reform the design process to be collectively owned. The preceding studies of related precedent have helped develop a conceptual framework that applies to the design of large public places in general and Pier 48 in particular. In the following chapter, I propose the method of collaborative consumption- a sedimentation of public use to provide the programing of the site, which provides flexibility to transcend conventional and present limitations.

Quick Win Site Installations (left to right and following facing pages) Over the course of one and a half weeks, five groups of students designed, constructed, and exhibited a series of Quick Win Site Expressions.

1. Site observations 2. Caught in the Current 3. rePort 4. Submerge 5. Home Sweet Waterfront

Local Knowledge

Stakeholders

Future Users

Public

METHODOLOGY

Time

Expert Knowledge

City Council

Planners

Architects

}

}

}

}

}

Conceptual Planning Framework

}

}

}

} } } } } } } }

}

} Need

Engineers

Public Design Construction Public Design Construction Public Design Construction Public Design Constru Design Design Design Design Event Event Event Event

Operation & Maintance

Operation & Maintance

“The true issue is not to make beautiful cities or well-managed cities, it is to make a work of life. The rest is a by-product. But, making a work of life is the privilege of historic action. How and through what struggles, in the course of what class action and what political battle could urban historical action be reborn? This is the question toward which we are inevitably carried by our inquiry into the meaning of the city.”

Raymond Ledrut “Speech and the Silence of the City” in Gottdiener, Mark, and Alexandros Ph Lagopoulos. 1986.

The City and the sign: an introduction to urban semiotics. New York: Columbia University Press. 114-34

Operation & Maintance

Operation & Maintan

In an attempt to define the design process of an authentic public place, I pose a set of alternative approaches to public space design that might help us develop more responsive approaches for designing with community. As a civic space, the focus of redeveloping Seattle’s waterfront should be directed on crafting evolving public participation for the purpose of community long-term space inhabitation. Public places are works of life. The success of these places is often measured by community use and adoption over time. Determining ultimately whether a design will become successful is often beyond a designer’s control. Furthermore, within the conventional design process, it is difficult to gather community opinion outside of stakeholders, and impossible to gather opinions of future users.

Instead of a purely solution driven response, I argue for open-endedness within the design process itself; for architecture to facilitate incremental sedimentation of program proposed by a local community. It is important to note that the need to address the current and future residents is critical within the Pioneer Square Neighborhood. The neighborhood is currently undergoing significant change. The surrounding South Downtown neighborhood currently has seventeen proposed projects. One of which, the Stadium North Lot, will develop 718 residential units, 410,000 square feet of commercial office space, and 16,000 square feet of retail space on a site of 3.85 acres.1 Due to this and other large development projects, the neighborhood population will grow significantly. With this growth, the need for a public place to provide a place for the community will inevitably increase.2

67 Self-evolving design process diagram (facing page) With the design of a public space, there is a tendency to focus on design and management issues rather than what people value about public places. User generated urbanism transcend managerial thinking and create an open-endedness within the design process itself for architecture to facilitate incremental sedimentation of program proposed by the evolving community.

To address this need for place and adaptability, I propose that the architecture becomes the site of collaborative consumption−a sedimentation of use providing instances of incitement and spaces for negotiation and dialog between the local community and the design team. Such a collaboration would engage the multiple levels of the individual, group, organization, community, city, and region, and transcend Swimming Pool the inherent disconnection between the vision of the designer and the public which will use the space in the future. This chapter builds upon Seattle Saw Mill Museum my research with a proposal for a design process to support a self-evolving form of public participation.

Pioneer Square Historical Preservation Museum 1. “Stadium Towers: Project Summary.” North

Lot. http://www.northlotdevelopment.com/ I recognize the potential of the power of place as an open-ended self-evolving process−inclusive to current as well as future participants.

Historic Boat Launch Restoration stadium_towers.html (accessed Feburary 20, 2012.)Tour Earlier in this work, I proposed a series of biannual events, which inform the site over time by the sedimentation of program.

Excavated pierThese addition as part of Underground 2. Public involvement is often limited ephemeral events harness the potential of power of place and have a lasting influence on the waterfront’s future.Pioneer The events establish a Square Architectural PhotographtoGallery participatory planning events where cyclical process, which temporarily claims ownership over the design process. During each event, participants are given the opportunities viewpoints from stakeholders are gathered Kayaking Area in between design iterations; usually in to offer ideas in a spatial way−a different approach from conventional public consultation. Strengthening social networks for future initial phases of information gathering from Swimming Pool Viaduct Artifact Museum participation, current and future participants become engaged and invested in the process. Instead of imposing a solution on the site, the the public or much later in the process for approval. Information collection in the initial Seattle Saw Mill Museum Artist participation Live/ Work Studios architecture defines the areas where this sedimentation can occur.

Through this process, design practice and public collectively phases of the process may or may not Pioneer Square Historical Preservation Museum Artist Large Installation Spaces articulate a balanced process, which can then define site activities. contribute to decision-making.

Historic Boat Launch Restoration

First Thursday event Community Space 3. Manzo, L. C. “Finding Common Ground:

In order to work within the timeframe of a thesis project, I designed a simulation to actasas a proxy for the series public participation Excavated pier addition part of Underground Tour of Skateboarding surface events.

In the simulation, a pair of dice is rolled three times for each biannual public participation event.

Each combination of dice signifies one Pioneer Square Architectural Photograph Gallery 4Culture Art Support Facility program desired by the community. The rolling of dice communicates different perspectives, outside my own will as a designer, and provides Kayaking Area

Woodworking Collaborative Shop

Swimming Pool

Viaduct Artifact Museum

Scuba Diving Center

Seattle Saw Mill Museum

Artist Live/ Work Studios

Food Cart Space

Pioneer Square Historical Preservation Museum

Artist Large Installation Spaces

Fishing Area

Historic Boat Launch Restoration

First Thursday event Community Space

Expansion of Seattle Water Taxi

Excavated pier addition as part of Underground Tour

Skateboarding surface

Winter Ice Skating Rink

Pioneer Square Architectural Photograph Gallery

4Culture Art Support Facility

Public boat docking

Kayaking Area

Woodworking Collaborative Shop

Tailgating surface

Viaduct Artifact Museum

Scuba Diving Center

Artist Live/ Work Studios

Food Cart Space

Artist Large Installation Spaces

Fishing Area

First Thursday event Community Space

Expansion of Seattle Water Taxi

The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning.”

Journal of Planning Literature 20, no. 4 (2006): 336

Simulation method for public participation (facing page) In order to work within the timeframe of a thesis project, a dice simulation to act as a proxy for a series of public participation events. In the simulation each member of my thesis committee roles a pair of dice once to signify one program desired by the community for each biannual public participation event.

68 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION

a possible pattern of community adoption and use. For the sake of testing this method against a reasonable amount of time which would allow the funding and construction of a new pier, I have chosen to simulate ten events beginning with 2012 and ending with 2030. Over the course of the simulation, these events actively shape and contribute programmatic ideas for the site. The rolled dice provide a sense of what the community desires at a given time and also provides feedback over time. For example, if a dice combination is rolled again in the simulation, this communicates that the community is demonstrating a need for this program to expand.

With the simulation, I focus on local community programs rather than general waterfront uses for two reasons. (1) In order for the site to be adopted by community in the future, I argue local community programing should be prioritized over general waterfront uses. (2) I also assume that the Waterfront Core Framework Plan will provide the majority of general waterfront uses. I have designed the simulation accordingly.

Rolling a combination of two different dice has a greater probability then rolling the same number on both dice. The dice combinations that have a greater probability of being rolled support local community programs. Dice of one kind propose programs for general waterfront use, typically found on urban waterfronts. By shifting probability toward local community programs, I prioritize local community uses to shape the site.

Through this simulation public participation is transformed into an active part of physical design and strengthens local social networks for future participation. For this sedimentation to occur, the architecture must spatially define areas where this sedimentation might take place.

In order to understand the best opportunities, I have examined physical site of Pier 48 and the current design constraints that impact the site, through three scales: the shoreline scale, the neighborhood scale, and the intervention scale.

Simulation program probability Local community programs are prioritized over general waterfront uses and are given a higher probability in the simulation.

1/9 Probability

1/36 Probability

Swimming Pool

Swimming Pool

Seattle Saw Mill Museum

Seattle Saw Mill Museum

Pioneer Square Historical Preservation Museum

Pioneer Square Historical Preservation Museum

Historic Boat Launch Restoration

Historic Boat Launch Restoration

Excavated pier addition as part of Underground Tour

Excavated pier addition as part of Underground Tour

Pioneer Square Architectural Photograph Gallery

Pioneer Square Architectural Photograph Gallery

Kayaking Area

Kayaking Area

Viaduct Artifact Museum

Viaduct Artifact Museum

Artist Live/ Work Studios

Artist Live/ Work Studios

Artist Large Installation Spaces

Artist Large Installation Spaces

First Thursday event Community Space

First Thursday event Community Space

Skateboarding surface

Skateboarding surface

4Culture Art Support Facility

4Culture Art Support Facility

Woodworking Collaborative Shop

Woodworking Collaborative Shop

Scuba Diving Center

Scuba Diving Center

Food Cart Space

Food Cart Space

Fishing Area

Fishing Area

Expansion of Seattle Water Taxi

Expansion of Seattle Water Taxi

Shoreline scale plan (facing page)

Winter Ice Skating Rink

Winter Ice Skating Rink

The plan illustrates the past major alterations of the shoreline edge.

Public boat docking

Public boat docking

Tailgating surface

Tailgating surface

SHORELINE SCALE Past development has repeatedly altered and fortified the edge of the shoreline, walled the urban environment from the water, and created an inhabitable edge for ecology and residents. In addition to the shoreline fortification during the 20th century, major construction adjacent to the shoreline has moved mass quantities of soil, which has impacted soil quality and intensified seismic instability. Shoreline fortification, degraded soil quality, and seismic instability continue to impact the physical site of the Seattle waterfront. The design approach must address these challenges.

Central Waterfront Core Framework Plan

M E T H O D O LO G Y • 69

1855

Central Waterfront Framework Plan Elements

1890 1924

N

1946 250’

500’

1000’

70 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION

Bainbridge Bremerton

Potential Extension to Port Townsend Kingston Vashon West Seattle

View Corridor Washington St.

Potenial Extension to Tacoma View Corridor Main St.

View Corridor Washington St.

Pioneer Square Presevation District

N

50’

100’

200’

ALASKAN WAY

VIADUCT

DOWNTOWN

Physical access to waterfront

Waterfront visual access

Limited access to waterfront

Waterfront visual access

No physical access to waterfront

Lack of waterfront visual access

No access to water PIER 48

UNDERNEATH VIADUCT

Physical access to waterfront

Near physical access to waterfront

Waterfront visual access

Waterfront visual access

Opportunity for access to water

Neighborhood access to the waterfront Although in this location of the waterfront, topography does not restrict waterfront access, lack of visual connection and of a local community destination separates the neighborhood and the waterfront space.

Neighborhood scale plan (facing page)

NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE As a national historic district and a local preservation district, the Pioneer Square Preservation District is protected by ordinance and design guidelines. While the district area itself is protected, the surrounding area faces drastic growth with seventeen large development projects currently proposed. One of which, the Stadium North Lot, will add 718 residential units to the area−a significant addition to a district which currently has a population of 5,323 residents.4 With this population growth, the need for a public place to provide space for the community will inevitably increase and must be able to adapt to future community needs.

In this area of the waterfront, topography does not restrict waterfront access. However lack of visual connection and of a local community destination separates the neighborhood and the waterfront space. I claim Pier 48 offers a unique opportunity for a different approach toward the urban edge−an approach which enables a multitude of thresholds and connections between the shoreline and neighborhood urban development.

The plan shows the historic district boundary, major circulation routes, and locations of artist studios/galleries located within the neighborhood.

4. Pioneer Square / International District 2011 Neighborhood Profile, Metropolitan Improvement District’s Business Development & Market Research team, in cooperation with the Downtown Seattle Association. http://www.downtownseattle. com/files/file/Pioneer%20Square%20 and%20International%20District.pdf (assessed May 23, 2011 )

2011

1822

1882

1882

2011

2011 Historical and current use diagram The plan and photographs depict the site and the site’s surroundings over time.

“Prosch Seattle Views Album, Vol. 2,” c18701910, University of Washington Libraries.

Mildred Tanner Andrews. 2005. Pioneer Square: Seattle’s oldest neighborhood.

Author 5. History Link, Point 9: Skid Road Meets the Sea, foot of Yesler Way: Pier 48,. http://www.historylink.org/ index.cfm?DisplayPage=cybertour. cfm&fileId=7056&frame=9 (assessed February 23, 2011 ) 6. Port of Seattle, Pier 48, http://www. portseattle.org/business/realestate/ flyers/c_lease_p48.shtml (assessed February 23, 2011)

1882

INTERVENTION SCALE Pier 48 was chosen specifically for the physical attributes of the pier and the contextual opportunities. The pier is located within the Pioneer Square district, as defined by James Corner, and is in close proximity to the stadiums and the ferry terminal. This surrounding area was once the original center of Seattle’s maritime trade. Adjacent to Pier 48, extending from the foot of Yesler Way, was once the site of the Yesler Mill.5 Located on the site, the Washington Street Boat Landing was built in 1920 to house Seattle’s harbormaster.

The current pier structure was built in the mid-1930s to serve a variety of shippers. Bought by the Port of Seattle in 1950, Pier 48 was the terminal for the Alaska Marine Highway System Ferries and later accommodated summer steamship service to Vancouver, B.C. from 1967 to 1989. After the steamship service ended, several events activated the warehouse space on the pier, including the first Northwest Bookfest event and Kurt Cobain’s Live and Loud Concert in 1993. In the late1990s, the warehouse was demolished due to structure concerns.

Pending possible expansion of the Washington State Ferry Terminal to the north, the stripped pier is currently offered through WSDOT as 14 acres of Maritime Lease/Development.6 Currently the site has contains few programed activities. During the winter, the pier functions as a holiday parking lot. During the summer, the West Seattle Boat Taxi transports passengers from the historic boat launch to West Seattle Seacrest Park. The pier structure will be used in the future for staging during the demolition of the viaduct.

Site of Yesler Mill

1880’s

1970

Washington Street Boat Landing

1890’s Pier 48

Original shoreline

N

50’

100’

200’

74 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION Top view of site conceptual model (facing page) In this concept I have changed the pier circulation path into a loop, and defined the area where sedimentation will occur on two distinct areas of the site.

Photographs of the existing site conditions looking west (top) and north (bottom) Presently a holiday parking lot, the photographs depict the close proximity to water and downtown.

Environmentally, the site contains the only section of the waterfront which has shallow water, and the opportunity for a potential aquatic habit and beach. Since the site has the opportunity for a beach, I argue the best use of the site would be to provide this beach, as previous designers have also proposed. As part of the collaborative consumption method, I define the area where sedimentation will occur on two distinct areas of the site. The first will be constructed as part of the beach, situated on the northeast corner of the site. This location has the potential to anchor into the community and provide programmatic functions adjacent to the pedestrian ferry terminal. The second area is at the end of a new pier structure. For this structure, I propose extending the view corridors of Main St. and Jackson St. into the water.

Changing the circulation path into a loop allows for a different ways of approaching the pier, and various levels of engagement. For example, the pier structure could be used simply for the informal use of circulation, or for a more formal visiting of the programs on the pier. Within the intervention scale, I define the areas where sedimentation of use should occur and I test this concept in the following chapter.

M E T H O D O LO G Y • 75

N

25’ 50’

100’

76

COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION OF PIER 48

“To stop understanding architecture as unique and singular objects, autonomous and isolated buildings, definite and finished products, big machines for consumption, and start to understand it and produce it as a strategy, a process, a system of relations, a process in which both time and the user take part, spaces whose essential matter is energy, an atmosphere for feelings and perception, a work acting symbiotically with nature�

JM Montaner. Contemporary Architecture Systems. Ed. GG Barcelona 2008

When architecture acts as a facilitator for user-generated program rather than a solution to community needs, different priorities and inform the design process. For example, if a site requires programmatic ideas from the community, rather than simply requiring community approval of a project, the priority becomes how might we, as designers, provide the platform to gather these ideas. Bearing this in mind, I propose a self-evolving design process with community involvement clearly affecting the decision-making process. I strive to strike a balance between the detail a structure requires in order to be built and open-endedness to how the structure might adapt over time through community adoption. This open-endedness within my approach is more responsible and more conservative with resources than conventional public space projects. Rather than spend resources to bring a project to an absolute solution (and redo this process in 50 years) I propose the method of collaborative consumption−a sedimentation of user generated program. With this method, architecture facilitates the incremental growth of a public place, shaped over time through community efforts. In this chapter, I test this method with an architectural proposal. Through the method of collaborative consumption, I propose that over time, programs are expanded/contracted by biannual public participation events. In order to show how the architecture facilitates the sedimentation of use, I first introduce the design principles behind the highly responsive intervention, before I discuss how public participation has informed the structure.

DESIGN PRINCIPLES Connectivity In order to support current and future connectivity, sight lines are preserved for visual connection to and through the site. Washington Street and Main Street remain as unobstructed view corridors for way finding and waterfront visibility. The structural ribs of the pier form preserve these site lines. Between these ribs, program can sediment and spill into the surrounding topography.

Jac ks

on

.

ton

The design intervention evolved from a balance between site constraints and a series of user generated programs proposing cultural and recreational programs.

The circulation path is altered into a loop and connects the view corridors of Main St. and Jackson St. to the water.

in S t.

ing

Design proposal (facing page)

Connection/Circulation diagram

St

Ma

Wa sh

77

St.

Exhibition structure diagram

Exhibition Sections reveal the topography formed by wrapping the structural ribs with a wood skin. Built onto a steel pile and concrete slab, the glulam and wood skin structure is able to adapt for various programs, inviting the local culture to sediment uses.

Established on existing networks, programs can organized according to constraints.

They can expand or shrink in size within the ribs of the structure or expand beyond these ribs into the open courtyard. Since the site has no distinct center it can operate in a wide range of configurations. It can over time, produce new functions and find new ways to perform.

The ribbed structure allows program to develop onto, between, and beneath the exhibition topography, blurring boundaries between inside/outside.

Program diagram Programs can expand or shrink in size within the ribs of the structure or expand beyond these ribs into the open courtyard.

Regeneration diagram

-2’-0” -3’-0” -4’-0”

Regeneration Stormwater is collected and cycled through a series of rain gardens along Alaskan Way. This runoff collection system captures and treats water from two stormwater overflows; lowering the likelihood that untreated overflow from the site is introduced directly into the Puget Sound. Upcycling of materials is crucial for ecological regeneration. The existing pier is deconstructed. The concrete from the original pier is distributed across the site forming the path and structure for the rain gardens. The wooden piles from the original pier remain, marking the different levels of the water from the changing tides.

STORM OVERFLOW

-5’-0” -6’-0” -7’-0”

In order to explain how this structure expresses sedimentation from multiple public participation events, I describe the design decision-making that occurred in response to several public participation events.

Collected stormwater is cycled through a series of rain gardens along Alaskan Way.

78 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION

Site analysis for 2012 (top left), in 2014 (top right), and 2016 (bottom) The diagrams identify site constraints and public participation event outcomes.

Pier 48 in 2016 (facing page) From the beach, framed by pavilions and food carts, the construction of the new pier structure can be viewed.

2016 Adjacent to the Pioneer Square Preservation District and the Colman Ferry Dock, Pier 48 has a potential to open up as a gateway and a connection to ongoing monthly art walk events. As the only section of the waterfront which has shallow enough water levels for the beach to be constructed, this opportunity is realized. Stormwater is collected and cycled through a series of rain gardens and a salt marsh.

The scale of biannual interventions fluctuate and respond to current events. During the 2012 and 2014 biannual events, the sedimentation area is limited the beach, to prepare for the pier construction in 2016. At these events, the public indicated a need for a saw mill museum, large installation spaces, a winter ice skating rink, a connection to the underground tour, and the restoration of the boat launch. In response to site constraints and these user-generated programs, four rain garden pavilions are constructed for large installation spaces for artists and a temporary ice skating rink during the winter. Next to these pavilion, the historic boat launch structure is restored and renovated with a subterranean connection to the Seattle Underground Tour. Food cart space forms along the public path framing the constructed beach.

C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION OF P I E R 4 8 • 79

80 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION

Site analysis for 2018 (top left), 2020 (top right), and 2022 (bottom) Public participation events identify temporary uses of the pier structure.

Pier 48 in 2022 (facing page) With construction of the two layers of pier structure complete, visitors can experience the waterfront and the many programs on the site with different circulation paths.

2022 Ephemeral public events provide flexibility within the design process and offers potential for transcending conventional limitations and constraints. For example, within the next 5 years the Colman Ferry Dock will be reconstructed. To aid the reconstruction efforts, Pier 48 could become a temporary ferry platform. Extending the city fabric beyond the constructed shoreline, the public right of way connects Main St. and Jackson St. in a loop marking the new circulation of the site. While the site temporarily functions as ferry terminal, this loop connects and establishes the site as a gateway to the city from the water. Neither corrective nor prescriptive, the structure’s allows program to develop onto, between, and beneath the exhibition topography, blurring boundaries between inside/outside. By 2022 a number of programs have sedimented onto/beneath the constructed topography of the pier. Some programs, such as a woodworking collaborative shop, occupy sheltered areas beneath the topography. Others, such as a swimming pool, form in the valley in-between sheltered areas.

C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION OF P I E R 4 8 • 81

82 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION

Site analysis for 2024 (top left), 2026 (top top right), 2028 (bottom right), and 2030 (bottom right) Public participation events identify uses of the pier structure.

Pier 48 in 2030 (facing page) A number of cultural and recreational programing have been sedimented onto the site. Local residents and tourists gather in the large community space, open for a First Thursday art walk event.

2030 At each stage of sedimentation, the openness of the site supports multiple experiences and engages users to become involved in the next stage of design and programming. By 2030 a number of cultural and recreational programing have been sedimented onto the site. The structure has evolved from a series of user generated programs proposing these programs and site constraints. By providing opportunities for social interaction and giving users the ability to shape what happens on the site, the architecture facilitates community growth and responds to changing community needs over time.

C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION OF P I E R 4 8 • 83

84 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION

Simulation Outcome This particular simulation offered a large number of artist and historic programing from which the design evolved.

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

The design proposal offers one possibility for one specific simulation. If this project process was actualized, different programs and ideas would evolve from the design process. With this particular simulation, a large number of artist and historic programing was advocated through community events. In response to this simulation, the architectural form takes shape over time through the sedimentation process of user-defined program. These ephemeral events have a lasting influence on the public space. The events establish a cyclical process, which temporarily claims ownership over the design process and ensure a dialogue between the community and the design team. Public spaces that look good but fail to provide adequate amenities or connections to existing social and economic networks will result in sterile places that people just do not use. The process of collaborative consumption builds on existing networks and transcends this disconnection by offering multiple formal and informal ways to engage with the site. Visitors become active participants by some factor of determining the design outcome. Allowing for various types of contribution, the public space transcends individual mental activity into collective consumption.

C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION OF P I E R 4 8 • 85 Seattle Saw Mill Museum Pioneer Square Historical Preservation Museum

Pioneer Square Architectural Photograph Gallery Kayaking Area

Artist Live/ Work Studios Artist Large Installation Spaces

4Culture Art Support Facility Woodworking Collaborative Shop

Food Cart Space Fishing Area Expansion of Seattle Water Taxi

2024

2026

2028

2030

D

+0” street level -6’-0” high tide +0” street level -6’-0” high tide +0” street level -6’-0” high tide

+0” street level -6’-0” high tide

A A A

-23’-0” low tide

E

+0” street level -6’-0” high tide +0” street level -6’-0” high tide +0” street level -6’-0” high tide

+0” street level -6’-0” high tide

B B B

-23’-0” low tide

F

+0” street level -6’-0” high tide +0” -23’-0” street level low tide -6’-0” high tide

+0” street level -6’-0” high tide

+0” -23’-0” street level low tide -6’-0” high tide

-23’-0” low tide

-23’-0” low tide

Sections A-H The sections show the potential for different programs with different space requirements underneath and between the structural ribs.

The high and low tide is denoted by the boundaries of light grey.

C C C

G

Scale: 1”= 200’ Plan (facing page) The floor plan reveals the potential for sedimentation−underneath and between the structural ribs. Listed in chronological order and based on the time of construction, the plan illustrates the layered connections between the neighborhood to the water from the simulation time frame of 2012-2030.

Scale: 1/128”= 1’-0”

+0” street level -6’-0” high tide

+0” street level -6’-0” high tide

+0” -23’-0” street level low tide -6’-0” high tide

-23’-0” low tide

+0” -23’-0” street level low tide -6’-0” high tide -23’-0” low tide

D D D

H

N

32’

64’

128’ 2 4 8 8 9

1

2 5

12 7

2

18

16

16

16

16

16

11

17

17

17

13 3

10

6

2

15 14

19

H G

F

E

D

C

B

A

1

BEACH

6

FOOD CART SPACE

11

FIRST THURSDAY COMMUNITY SPACE

16

ARTIST LIVE/WORK LOFTS

2

RAIN GARDEN

7

BOAT LAUNCH RESTORATION

12

PUBLIC BOAT DOCKING

17

ARTIST LARGE INSTALATION AREA

3

SALT MARSH

8

ARTIST LARGE INSTALATION SPACE

13

SWIMING POOL

18

SEATTLE WATER TAXI/ PUBLIC BOAT LANDING

4

SEATTLE SAW MILL MUSEUM

9

WINTER ICE SKATING RINK

14

WOODWORKING COLLABORATIVE SHOP

19

PHOTOGRAPH GALLERY

5

UNDERGROUND TOUR EXTENSION

10

VIADUCT ARTICFACT MUSEUM

15

PIONEER SQUARE PRESERVATION MUSEUM

88 • C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION

CONCLUSION As part of my proposal, I sought to design a process which could be adopted into the current planning process. This model is similar to the concept behind James Corner’s process of orchestration and “quick wins,” however, it also seeks to educate and engage the public through spacial interaction and the power of place. Through this model, public participation can transform the balance of decision-making by establishing a self-informing process which has the ability to educate the public and openly transcend conflict through physical design and installation. Through this collaboration, the design process invites values to be examined and debated. Multiple perspectives creatively test possibilities while strengthening social networks for the public space inhabitation as well as future participation.

By exploring a self-evolving design process with community involvement clearly affecting the decision-making, I found that such a design process requires a different type of design thinking. Part of the challenge was designing a structure, which could be flexible and open to future sedimentation of program, while also reflective of the programs demonstrated as user needs by the simulation. This type of design process cannot center on an individual architectural icon fixed in time, but instead must focus on the potential and flexibility of the site through the passage of time.

It is not my intention to claim that this particular design or design process could solve all the issues with the Seattle Waterfront. Through researching and exploring many iterations of architectural form, I realized that there are many possibilities for further exploration. Other events, models, and simulations could be explored which balance the relationship between formal and informal public participation and the design team vision. I conclude that this method and others which progress the role of public participation within design decision-making are important for designers, planners, and the public to contemplate in order to create public places for the local community.

Design explorations Several architectural forms were explored with different simulations.

C O L L A B O R AT I V E CONSUMPTION OF P I E R 4 8 • 89

90

REFERENCES Arnstein, Sherry R. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July (1969): 216-224.

“Elliott Bay Seawall Project,” City of Seattle Department of Transportation, http://www. seattle.gov/transportation/seawall.htm (Assessed October 15, 2010)

Allen, Stan, and Marc McQuade. 2011. Landform building: architecture’s new terrain.

Baden, Switzerland: Lars Müller Publishers.

Ellin, Nan, “A Vulnerable Urbanism,” Re-envisioning Landscape/Architecture, Catherine Spellman (ed.), Barcelona: ACTAR, 2001

Andrews, Mildred Tanner. 2005. Pioneer Square: Seattle’s oldest neighborhood. Seattle: Pioneer Square Community Association in association with University of Washington Press. 7 Arnstein, Sherry R. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, 220.

Enemark, S. Spatial Planning System in Denmark. The Danish Association of Chartered Surveyors. Copenhagen, DK. (2002).

“Background” City of Stockholm, http://www.stockholm.se/Fristaende-webbplatser/ Fackforvaltningssajter/Exploateringskontoret/NyaSlussen/Om-projektet/ Bakgrund/ (accessed May 8, 2011).

Eskenazi, Stuart. “Familiar landscape lured Scandinavians.” Seattle Times. November 4, 2001. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/seattle_history/articles/ scandinavians.html (accessed Aug. 10, 2011) Federal Highway Administration, “Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation.” July 2011.

Bank, Larissa. “Foundations in Interactive Art making” http://www.larabank.com/usc/ lecture1/index.htm (accessed January 8 2012.)

Flyvbjerg, Bent. Rationality and Power : Democracy in Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998

Berner, Richard, Seattle 1900-1920: from boomtown, urban turbulence, to restoration.

Seattle, Wash: Charles Press. 1991, 14

Flyvbjerg, Bent, Nils Bruzelius, and Werner Rothengatter. Megaprojects and Risk : An Anatomy of Ambition. United Kingdom; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Bhatia, Neeraj. 2011. Coupling: strategies for infrastructural opportunism. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Breen, Ann, and Dick Rigby. The New Waterfront : A Worldwide Urban Success Story.

[London]: Thames and hudson, 1996.

Gastil, Raymond. Beyond the Edge : New York’s New Waterfront. New York, N.Y.: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002.

Brown, Lance Jay, David Dixon, and Oliver Gillham. Urban Design for an Urban Century : Placemaking for People. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2009.

Gehl, Jan, and Gemz, Lars. Public Spaces, Public Life, Copenhagen. Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press & the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture Publishers, 2004.

Central Waterfront Citizens Advisory, Committee. The Central Waterfront Master Plan : Portal to the Pacific. Seattle, Wash.: The Committee, 1994.

Hall, Thomas, and Martin Rörby. 2009. Stockholm: the Making of a Metropolis. London: Routledge.

Cragg, Amy M. “A Study on the Design of Emptiness : An Open-Ended Pier Space on Seattle’s Central Waterfront.” Master Thesis, University of Washington, 2005.

“Havneparkens historie.” Kobenhavns Kommune. http://www.kk.dk/Erhverv/ TilladelserOgBevillinger/VejeOgPladser/arrangementer/Pladsguide/ IslandsBryggeHavneparken/ParkensHistorie.aspx. (Assessed April 22, 2011)

City of Seattle. Alaskan Way Seawall Replacement Project - Financial Plan Summary.

January 14, 2010.

City of Seattle, Toward a Sustainable Seattle, Seattle Comprehensive Plan, January 2005.

City of Stockholm, Annual Report, City Executive Office, 2009.

City of Stockholm, Stockholm City Plan, The City Planning Administration, 2009.

Checkoway, Barry. “Paul Davidoff and Advocacy Planning in Retrospect.” AIP Journal of the American Planning Association. 60, no. 2 (1994): 139

Harvey, David. A brief history of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005.

History Link, Point 9: Skid Road Meets the Sea, foot of Yesler Way: Pier 48,. http://www. historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=cybertour.cfm&fileId=7056&frame=9 (ssessed February 23, 2011 ) Hopkins, Lewis D. Urban Development : The Logic of Making Plans. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2001.

Corner, James. “A Discourse on Theory I: “Sounding the Depths” Origins, Theory, and Representation.” Landscape Journal, 9, no. 2. (1990): 61-78

Hou, Jeffrey. 2006. “Hybrid Landscapes: Toward an Inclusive Ecological Urbanism on Seattle’s Central Waterfront.“ Getting Real: Design Ethos Now. ACSA 94th Annual Conference, Cheng, R. and P. J. Tripeny, (Eds.). March 30th to April 3rd, 2006. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Corner, James. “Projection and Disclosure in Drawing.” Landscape Architecture. 83, no. 5 (1993): 64-66

Isitt M. 2009. “At last, a solution for Slussen: Foster’s simple vision proves a winner”.

Architectural Review. (1949).

Corner, James. Recovering Landscape : Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999.

“Kalvebod Brygge” Architecture News Plus. http://www.architecturenewsplus.com/ projects/783 (Assessed April 22, 2011)

Corner, James. “Field Operations.” Architectural Design, 69, no. 7-8 (1999): 52-55

Kilb, Hans, and Gitte Marling. 2005. “The 21st-century welfare city: Aalborg + Copenhagen, Denmark”. Architectural Design. 75 (6): 50-55.

Corner, James. “Not Unlike Life Itself: Landscape Strategy Now.” Harvard Design Magazine, no. 21 (2004): 32-34

Klein, Julia. Don’t Just Stand There.” Brown Alumni Magazine. (2008): 42-43

Corner, James. Waterfront Seattle Event at the Aquarium, February 17th, 2011. http:// waterfrontseattle.org/ (accessed March 18, 2011).

Klingmann, Anna. 2007. Brandscapes: architecture in the experience economy.

Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press 1

Davidoff, Paul. “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31, no. 4 (1965): 331-38.

Koolhaas, Rem. “Trajectory as a Positive,” OMA 2006.

Desfor, Gene, and John Jorgensen. “Flexible Urban Governance. The Case of Copenhagen’s Recent Waterfront Development.” European Planning Studies, 12, no. 4 (2004): 479-96.

“Design Firm Selected For Seattle Central Waterfront Project.” KIRO Seattle. http://www. kirotv.com/news/25102908/detail.html. (Assessed March 15, 2011)

Ledrut, Raymond “Speech and the Silence of the City” in Gottdiener, Mark, and Alexandros Ph Lagopoulos. 1986. The City and the sign: an introduction to urban semiotics. New York: Columbia University Press. 114-34 Lindgren, Bernt. “Liberty City,” Slussen. http://www.slussen.nu/index.php?option=com_co ntent&view=article&id=251:frihetens-plats&catid=1:aktuella (accessed May 8, 2011).

Lindgren, Bernt. “Slussens future at risk” Slussen. http://www.slussen.nu/ index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=256:slussensframtid&catid=1:aktuella (accessed May 8, 2011).

“Slussen” Swedish Municipal-Industrial Society No. 5 2010 http://www.stadsbyggnad. org/2010/10/slussen-%E2%80%93-en-saga-utan-lyckligt-slut/ (accessed May 1, 2011).

Lund, A. Andersen, H. T. and Clark, E. “Creative Copenhagen; Globalization, Urban Governance and Social Change.” European Planning Studies. 9, no. 7 (2001) 851-869.

“Slussens history” City of Stockholm, http://www.stockholm.se/Fristaende-webbplatser/ Fackforvaltningssajter/Exploateringskontoret/NyaSlussen/Om-projektet/ Bakgrund/Slussens-historia (accessed May 8, 2011).

“Mandate and Process,” City of Stockholm. http://www.stockholm.se/Fristaendewebbplatser/Fackforvaltningssajter/Stadsbyggnadskontoret/Oversiktsplan/ Uppdrag-och-process- (accessed May 1, 2011).

Sorkin, Michael. 1992. Variations on a theme park: the new American city and the end of public space. New York: Hill and Wang.

Manfredi, Michael. Lecture Oct 2011, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJH_ bLPKOAU&feature=uploademail) Madanipour, Ali. 2003. Public and private spaces of the city. London: Routledge.

Mattern, Shannon. “Plurality in Place: Activating Public Spheres and Public Spaces in Seattle,” Invisible Culture 6 (Fall 2003) Mathews, Stanley. 2006. “The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture”. Journal of Architectural Education. 59 (3).

Mathews, Stanley. 2006. “Cedric Price: from the “brain drain” to the “knowledge economy”.

Architectural Design. 76 (1): 45 Manzo, L. C. “Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning.” Journal of Planning Literature 20, no. 4 (2006): 335-350 Ministry of Environment. Planning Act LBK 883, 2004, Ch. 1, Part 1.

Montaner, JM. Contemporary Architecture Systems. Ed. GG Barcelona 2008 Morrow, Ruth. ECObox. “Mobile devices and urban tactics” http://www.domusweb.it/en/ architecture/ecobox-mobile-devices-and-urban-tactics/ (accessed January 8 2012.)

“Stadium Towers: Project Summary.” North Lot. http://www.northlotdevelopment.com/ stadium_towers.html (accessed February 20, 2012.

Suzuki, Makie. “Urban Waterfront Design for Coexistence : Connecting People and Water on Seattle’s South Lake Union.” Master Thesis, University of Washington, 2006.

Tate, Dennis. “The City of Memory : An Urban Design Case Study of Seattle’s Central Waterfront District as Contextual Linkage between the Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market Historical Districts.” Master Thesis, University of Washington, 1980.

Taylor, William J., Parks Seattle . Dept. of, and Recreation. Aquatic Environment Technical Report : Redevelopment of the Seattle Aquarium and Waterfront Park. Seattle, Wash.: The Dept., 1995.

“Technical life,” City of Stockholm, http://www.stockholm.se/Fristaende-webbplatser/ Fackforvaltningssajter/Exploateringskontoret/NyaSlussen/In-English/ Technical-life1/ (accessed May 8, 2011).

Umemoto, Karen and Suryanata, Krisnawati. “Technology, Culture, and Environmental Uncertainty: Considering Social Contracts in Adaptive Management.” Journal of Planning Education and Research. 25, no. 3 (2006) US Corps of Engineers, “Elliott Bay, Washington. Shore Protection and Storm Damage Reduction,” Section 905(b) (WRDA 86) Analysis August 2003, 6

Muf architecture/art. “We are Artists.” http://www.muf.co.uk/archives/portfolio/we-areartists (accessed January 8 2012.)

US Corps of Engineers. Seattle District. Environmental Assessment Elliott Bay Seawall, WA March 2006.

Nielsen, Thomas and Kacob Norvig. WP 8, Case study analysis. Policies related to de-concentration of economic land-use in Denmark. Spatial De-concentration of Economic Land Use and Quality of Life in European Metropolitan Areas (SELMA) 2005.

US Department of Defense. Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers. “Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Elliott Bay Seawall Project, Seattle, WA.” Federal Register. Vol. 75. No. 103. May 28, 2010

Ostrom, Elinor. A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, The American Political Science Review 92 (1998):1-22 “Plan Process,” City of Stockholm. Planning http://www.stockholm.se/ TrafikStadsplanering/Stadsplanering/Planprocessen/ (accessed May 1, 2011).

“Project Milestones,” City of Stockholm, http://www.stockholm.se/Fristaendewebbplatser/Fackforvaltningssajter/Exploateringskontoret/NyaSlussen/Omprojektet/Bakgrund/Projektets-milstolpar/ (accessed May 8, 2011).

Vale, Lawrence and Warner, Sam Bass. Imaging the city: continuing struggles and new directions. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research. 2001.

Walters, David. Designing Community : Charrettes, Master Plans and Form-Based Codes. Amsterdam; London: Elsevier/Architectural Press, 2007.

Warwicker, John. The floating world: Ukiyoe [a tomato project]. Göttingen: Steidl Mack.

2008.

Wilkinson, Paul F. “Urban Open Space Planning in Finland, Norway, and Sweden.” Leisure Studies 7, no. 3 (1988): 267-285

Port of Seattle, Pier 48, http://www.portseattle.org/business/realestate/flyers/c_lease_ p48.shtml (assessed February 23, 2011)

Woods, Lebbeus. “Another Rem.” http://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ another-rem/ (accessed January 8 2012.)

“Public Places.” Joseph Rowntree Foundation http://www.jrf.org.uk/work/workarea/ public-spaces (accessed January 8 2012.)

Zalewski, Barbara. Islands brygge: fra skepsis til succes. [s.l.]: Nostra. 2004.

Edward Relph. 1987. The modern urban landscape. London: Croom Helm.

Saieh, Nico, “Copenhagen Harbour Bath PLOT.” Arch Daily. http://www.archdaily. com/11216/copenhagen-harbour-bath-plot/ (Assessed April 22, 2011)’ Sandercock, Leonie, and Peter Lyssiotis. Cosmopolis II : Mongrel Cities in the 21st Century. London; New York: Continuum, 2003.

Seattle . Office of Intergovernmental Relations, Mayor’s Recommended Design Guidelines for the Central Waterfront Project Street Vacations. Seattle, Wash.: The Office, 1992.

“Slussen - a fairy tale but happily ever after?” Stadsbyggnad , Swedish Municipal-Industrial Society No. 5 2010 http://www.stadsbyggnad.org/2010/10/slussen%E2%80%93-en-saga-utan-lyckligt-slut/ (accessed May 1, 2011).

91

92

The production and completion of this work could not have been accomplished without the support of many individuals. I would like to first thank my thesis committee. Gundula Proksch taught me how to think about graphic representation and gave me support and encouragement throughout my graduate education. I am indebted to Dan Abramson for his many careful readings and for his intellectual

generosity. I thank Nancy Rottle for her advice and discernment throughout the research and design process.

This project was supported at different stages by a number of scholars, design professionals and friends, who generously shared their knowledge and time during the research and design review process. For discussions and support, I thank Alex Anderson, Katie Bang, Wyn Bielaska, Todd Bronk, Greg Brower, Peter Cohan, Lee Copeland, Heather Dietz, Shannon Eldredge, Christine Gannon, Elizabeth Golden, Jason Henry, Gabe Hogness, Nicole Huber, Robert Hutchison, Mike Jobes, Laura Lenss, Kelly Rench, Ryan Kennedy, Brad McGuirt, Brian McLaren, Matt Martenson, Rachael Meyer, Guy Michaelsen, Andy Mitton, Cary Moon, Jonathan Morley, Joshua Morrison, Vandita Mudgal, Bob Mugerauer, John Owen, Karen Smith, Steve Shea, John Stamets, Liz Stenning, and Ron Turner.