Kevin AbbottKevin Abbott • 1stPremium • 1stUrban Design, Development and Placemaking Specialist, and now a AuthorUrban Design, Development and Placemaking Specialist, and now a Author2 hours ago • Visible to anyone on or off LinkedIn
Which design guidelines approach is best?
A couple of posts ago I lamented what I saw as the failure of guidelines in delivering quality built outcomes, I stated that they had become vague as to have a bet both ways and not create a situation where it could be interpreted wrong and end up in a legal nightmare.
In that post I suggested why aren’t guidelines clearer, more direct in what is desired. However, it is important to understand what type of guidelines are in play and how they affect their implementation, especially from an urban management position of the regulators.
Usually there are two options – you either go down a Prescriptive or a Performance guideline approach. Prescriptive tells you what you MUST do while Performance identifies and demonstrate what you COULD and SHOULD achieve. At first glance Performance seems the logical choice as it allows for potential innovative design solutions, whereas Prescriptive is far more rigid and stuck in what is now and not what could be.
However, even Performance guidelines can suffer from missing the mark, as unforeseen solutions may be against the placemaking vision that was intended – therefore they need to be carefully considered. Refer to my earlier post and document on PDA's.
Secondly, urban management responsibilities aren’t equal, they always have competing agendas, and both approaches impact how they are managed. For instance, the Prescriptive approach would require significant upfront costs to develop quality guidelines, and some urban management teams don’t have these funds and then fall into the trap of grabbing ‘off-the-shelf’ documents in hope they will do – which ultimately delays their failure and creates more problems down the road.
The problem with the Performance approach is that while not requiring significant up-front guideline development costs, it soon depletes budgets because of the ability to administer interpretation of how a design performs. This may mean resourcing and training staff which currently has become problematic as there is limited skilled staff and time available. The other option is to contract this service out to professional companies, but this becomes another financial burden.
Therefore, as I have advised many internal and external service providers about which path to choose no one way is better than the other they all impact in the delivery of place. What is required is to understand what fits best for your organisation, your budget, your ability to provide adequate service.
In most cases I have found that you need to identify what can be prescriptive and what needs to be performance in making great places. It becomes a bit of a hybrid, but that’s another post for another time – Tell me which approach do you thinks works best?
A couple of posts ago I lamented what I saw as the failure of guidelines in delivering quality built outcomes, I stated that they had become vague as to have a bet both ways and not create a situation where it could be interpreted wrong and end up in a legal nightmare.
In that post I suggested why aren’t guidelines clearer, more direct in what is desired. However, it is important to understand what type of guidelines are in play and how they affect their implementation, especially from an urban management position of the regulators.
Usually there are two options – you either go down a Prescriptive or a Performance guideline approach. Prescriptive tells you what you MUST do while Performance identifies and demonstrate what you COULD and SHOULD achieve. At first glance Performance seems the logical choice as it allows for potential innovative design solutions, whereas Prescriptive is far more rigid and stuck in what is now and not what could be.
However, even Performance guidelines can suffer from missing the mark, as unforeseen solutions may be against the placemaking vision that was intended – therefore they need to be carefully considered. Refer to my earlier post and document on PDA's.
Secondly, urban management responsibilities aren’t equal, they always have competing agendas, and both approaches impact how they are managed. For instance, the Prescriptive approach would require significant upfront costs to develop quality guidelines, and some urban management teams don’t have these funds and then fall into the trap of grabbing ‘off-the-shelf’ documents in hope they will do – which ultimately delays their failure and creates more problems down the road.
The problem with the Performance approach is that while not requiring significant up-front guideline development costs, it soon depletes budgets because of the ability to administer interpretation of how a design performs. This may mean resourcing and training staff which currently has become problematic as there is limited skilled staff and time available. The other option is to contract this service out to professional companies, but this becomes another financial burden.
Therefore, as I have advised many internal and external service providers about which path to choose no one way is better than the other they all impact in the delivery of place. What is required is to understand what fits best for your organisation, your budget, your ability to provide adequate service.
In most cases I have found that you need to identify what can be prescriptive and what needs to be performance in making great places. It becomes a bit of a hybrid, but that’s another post for another time – Tell me which approach do you thinks works best?
No comments:
Post a Comment