I may call "Urban Democracy" whereas not only professionals would debate and discuss, but also the citizens, with their diverse requirements, needs and interests. I can see such notion can expand to the academic theaters, to enrich both analysis and findings for the end-users; the citizens.
Kevin AbbottPremium • 1stUrban Design, Development and Placemaking Specialist, and now a AuthorUrban Design, Development and Placemaking Specialist, and now a Author
2 weeks ago • Edited • Visible to anyone on or off LinkedIn
2 weeks ago • Edited • Visible to anyone on or off LinkedIn
Do design professionals think differently?
I recently attended a testing of an Urban Design theory from a PhD candidate, in the form of a design charrette.
At first, I wasn’t quite sure how the session would run, nor what was expected of me. The clue, of course, was in the word charrette, this gathering of people to explore problems and put forward solutions.
Bringing people together can sometimes come with challenges such as opposing viewpoints, different values, and contrasting priorities. But it also highlights that even in a room full of design professionals, there are distinct approaches defined by discipline.
The room was filled with urban designers, planners, and architects (both building and landscape), all working on the same issue. What struck me early on was just how differently each discipline approached the problem.
Landscape architects naturally considered environmental overlays and features. Architects focused on built form and social cohesion. I, as an urban designer running on instinct, immediately gravitated towards urban structure and development opportunities.
Each of us added something valuable yet contrasting. That’s the essence of city-making, it requires this broad brush. And for me, it was another strong reminder that Urban Design stands side by side with these disciplines, specialist enough to be considered its own profession, not just a subset.
Appreciating diverse professional inputs is essential for good city-making. I can confidently say our charrette group produced meaningful dialogue and some exciting directions for place-making.
What this process reaffirmed is that we should be doing more design charrettes. They deserve a bigger place in project management because they break down barriers, align values early, and challenge us to step outside our professional silos. Without them, we risk narrowing design opportunities.
Our scheme revealed a completely different way to look at the site, fresh solutions that never would have emerged from a single-discipline approach.
Let’s not forget the power of multi-disciplinary design charrettes.
What do you think—are you still using them in your projects, or has ideation shifted in-house because it’s easier to manage?
I recently attended a testing of an Urban Design theory from a PhD candidate, in the form of a design charrette.
At first, I wasn’t quite sure how the session would run, nor what was expected of me. The clue, of course, was in the word charrette, this gathering of people to explore problems and put forward solutions.
Bringing people together can sometimes come with challenges such as opposing viewpoints, different values, and contrasting priorities. But it also highlights that even in a room full of design professionals, there are distinct approaches defined by discipline.
The room was filled with urban designers, planners, and architects (both building and landscape), all working on the same issue. What struck me early on was just how differently each discipline approached the problem.
Landscape architects naturally considered environmental overlays and features. Architects focused on built form and social cohesion. I, as an urban designer running on instinct, immediately gravitated towards urban structure and development opportunities.
Each of us added something valuable yet contrasting. That’s the essence of city-making, it requires this broad brush. And for me, it was another strong reminder that Urban Design stands side by side with these disciplines, specialist enough to be considered its own profession, not just a subset.
Appreciating diverse professional inputs is essential for good city-making. I can confidently say our charrette group produced meaningful dialogue and some exciting directions for place-making.
What this process reaffirmed is that we should be doing more design charrettes. They deserve a bigger place in project management because they break down barriers, align values early, and challenge us to step outside our professional silos. Without them, we risk narrowing design opportunities.
Our scheme revealed a completely different way to look at the site, fresh solutions that never would have emerged from a single-discipline approach.
Let’s not forget the power of multi-disciplinary design charrettes.
What do you think—are you still using them in your projects, or has ideation shifted in-house because it’s easier to manage?
No comments:
Post a Comment