Post on 21-Mar-2016
description
© Architecture and Design Scotland June 2012
Diarmaid Lawlor, Head of Urbanism
Learning Briefing:
Design Skills Symposium 2014
learning challenge resources outputs
the focus is on learning, not solving the problem of the sites there isn’t enough time, and there isn’t enough detail exploit the opportunities for your own learning and practice
challenge
Economic restructuring and
public service change
Demands for more ciIzen parIcipaIon
BeKer health, acIve workforce, more opportuniIes
CHALLENGE 1: Re-‐thinking sustainable regeneraIon
• OpIons for innovaIve investment • CreaIve use of exisIng assets Economic
restructuring and public service change
Demands for more ciIzen parIcipaIon
BeKer health, acIve workforce, more opportuniIes
CHALLENGE 1: Re-‐thinking sustainable regeneraIon
• OpIons for innovaIve investment • CreaIve use of exisIng assets
CHALLENGE 2: Re-‐imagining spend for wider benefit
• ConnecIng up individual iniIaIves
Economic restructuring and
public service change
Demands for more ciIzen parIcipaIon
BeKer health, acIve workforce, more opportuniIes
CHALLENGE 3: CreaIng health and resilience
• Space as community making • ParIcipaIon and inclusion
CHALLENGE 1: Re-‐thinking sustainable regeneraIon
• OpIons for innovaIve investment • CreaIve use of exisIng assets
CHALLENGE 2: Re-‐imagining spend for wider benefit
• ConnecIng up individual iniIaIves
Economic restructuring and
public service change
Demands for more ciIzen parIcipaIon
BeKer health, acIve workforce, more opportuniIes
[YOUR BRIEF]
resources
You Facilitators Speakers
ParIcipaIon led decisions
[Bela]
Spaces as community making [Dermot]
Assets and values
[Lawrence]
You Facilitators Speakers
Metho
ds
ParIcipaIon led decisions
[Bela]
Spaces as community making [Dermot]
Sighthill
Port Dundas
Dalmarnock
Assets and values
[Lawrence]
Alison Brown, Clyde Gateway Bela Kezy
Rafaelle Esposito, DRS Glasgow Professor Lawrence Barth
Chris Breslin, ScoYsh Canals Dermot Foley
You Facilitators Speakers
Metho
ds
Contexts
Sighthill
re-thinking assets & values
Port Dundas
re-imagining spaces
Dalmarnock
re-connecting people
World Café sessions
ParIcipaIon led decisions
[Bela]
Spaces as community making [Dermot]
Sighthill
Port Dundas
Dalmarnock
Assets and values
[Lawrence]
Rafaelle Esposito, DRS Glasgow Professor Lawrence Barth
Chris Breslin, ScoYsh Canals Dermot Foley
You Facilitators Speakers
Metho
ds
Contexts
Case stud
ies
Alison Brown, Clyde Gateway Bela Kezy
outputs
WORKSHOP 1: Problem definiIon
Output =1 completed
problem tree
WORKSHOP 2: Brief for soluIons
Output = 1 stakeholder map, 1 opportunity map
ReflecIve learning session: please parIcipate
‘What have you learned?’
WORKSHOP 3: Concepts
Output = Max 2 A1 drawings, 1 flipchart text explanaIon
WORKSHOP 4: IllustraMon
Output = 2 powerpoints slides or
2 Drawings/Flipchart sheet
Plenary : please parIcipate
‘What will you apply in pracMce?’
BUILDING VALUE
Design Skills Symposium Architecture and Design Scotland
Glasgow, 20 March, 2014
Lawrence Barth
Graduate School of the Architectural AssociaMon
THE EVOLVING WORK ENVIRONMENT
• Today, it is not so much corpora2ons that compete, but en2re value chains that compete.
• Today, innova2on is less
about the inven2on of new technologies, and more about the absorp2on and applica2on of new technologies.
KINGS PLACE, London
INTEGRATED PROJECTS
one-‐north, Singapore
Dermot Foley Landscape Architects……..
research leading to.......
design
leading to.......
teaching
leading to......
research
leading to......
research archival research reflective practice research-informed teaching research by design emergent research
Where w
ill the Flyover go? CID
P using DE
AFspace Living laboratory, France
Reflective practice
Research-informed teaching, Gateshead, Newcastle University
Research by Design, CIDP, using DEAFspace, Dublin
Research by Design, using Ecological Succession, France
design research by design evidence-based landscapes for health and sustainability
CIDP DEAFspace, Dublin
teaching
TURAS Transitioning (towards) Urban Resilience And Sustainability
RECDP Many people, throughout the world, are doing this kind of work, at community ‘bottom-up’ level and in a theoretical or academic environment, but there is a need to involve local authorities in a meaningful way and to test theories in ‘reality’, so that we can discover the transferable characteristics.
RE
CD
P Image courtesy M
airin O’C
uireann
TURAS Transitioning (towards) Urban Resilience And Sustainability
TURAS Transitioning (towards) Urban Resilience And Sustainability
www.turas-cities.org
TURAS Transitioning (towards) Urban Resilience And Sustainability
Definitions Our definition of resilience is ‘ecological’ or ‘adaptive’ resilience, not ‘engineering’ or ‘bounce-back’ resilience.
WP3 Task 3.3 Lead Dermot Foley Landscape Architects Research mechanisms and strategies to unlock the potential of abandoned, deserted vacant or contaminated urban sites at various levels and spatial scales
Question: How can abandoned, deserted, vacant or contaminated urban sites contribute to building resilience in cities and their rural interfaces?
qualitative research - emergent research/design
WP3 Task 3.3 Lead Dermot Foley Landscape Architects Research mechanisms and strategies to unlock the potential of abandoned, deserted vacant or contaminated urban sites at various levels and spatial scales
Question: How can we create healthy and sustainable neighbourhoods without relying on (often failed or stalled) masterplans?
Task 3.3
Work-to-Date 1 Inventory of Sites + Site Descriptor (leads to WP1 tool and DCC proposals)
Inventory of vacant sites, Liberties, Dublin
Task 3.3
Work-to-Date 2 Pilot study student projects on (possible) Dublin City Council ‘demonstration site’
Demonstration site, Pelletstown, Dublin
Task 3.3
Work-to-Date 2 Pilot study student projects on (possible) Dublin City Council ‘demonstration site’
Demonstration site, Pelletstown, Dublin
Task 3.3
Work-to-Date 3 Building relationships and ‘Knowledge-Sharing’
Task 3.3
Work-to-Date 4 Integrated Planning Model (IPM) – Phase 1
Feedback loop from Phase 2 (toolkit) & Phase 3 (demonstration)
Task 3.3
Integrated Planning Model (IPM) Phase 1 completed December 2013 IPM leads to Phase 2 Milestone 17 (toolkit) IPM ‘located’ within PP (Policy Platform, T3.2) & ITS (Integrated Transition Strategy, WP7) * IPM intended to be (itself) a product of participatory planning * IPM will be modified based on MS17 and Phase 3 Demonstrations
Four sample local authorities/cities/regions
Task 3.3
Integrated Planning Model (IPM) What are we trying to integrate? A. Integration of planning functions B. Integration of stakeholders’ interests …and * C. Integration of resilience planning with everyday behaviour *
Task 3.3
Integrated Planning Model (IPM) Based on four streams of information: 1. TURAS Literature Reviews (theory) 2. International ‘Case Studies’ in Planning Models (sometimes called ‘best practice’) 3. TURAS Local Authority Questionnaires (current state of resilience planning) 4. TURAS (pilot) Citizen Interviews (experience ‘on the ground’)
Attempting to identify: A. Common Problems B. Approaches to Resilience Planning C. Transferability of Solutions
Task 3.3
Integrated Planning Model (IPM) (pilot) Citizen Interview
Yes Neutral No
Was the project a success? 8 1 0 Did the local authority drive the process/choose the method of communication? 0 1 8 Was the method of communication appropriate? 7 0 2 Did the local authority benefit from the process? 7 0 2 Did the local authority display a satisfactory communications skill set? 2 5 2 Did the interviewee feel he/she/they were equal partners with the local authority? 3 1 5 Did the interviewee trust the local authority after the project? 6 0 3
To summarise ……. the interviewees (almost exclusively) considered that: their project had been successful; the local authority was not the driver of the process and did not choose the method of communication; the method of communication was appropriate; that even though the local authority did not drive the project, they benefitted from it. Less than one third of the interviewees felt that the local authority displayed appropriate communication skills. Only one third felt that they were equal partners with the local authority. Notwithstanding all of the above, two thirds of interviewees maintained that they still trusted the local authorities after the process.
Interim Findings The common problems emerging from all four strands of information can be grouped under five themes: Perception Scope Strategy Technique Communication A possible ideal planning scenario is one where experimentation is allowed to flourish within a managed systematic framework Resilience is likely to be fostered in the form of a ‘flotilla’ rather than a ‘spaceship’ This means that small scale, diversity, difference and partially unknown outcomes are important
TURAS Transitioning (towards) Urban Resilience And Sustainability
What is URBACT?
121
2
1
3
Why cities?
What does URBACT do?
The URBACT way
122
1
Why cities?
City dwellers
127
2
What does URBACT do?
130
City challenges and potentials are
surprisingly similar.
URBACT in figures
CiIes: engines of growth and jobs
1. PromoIng entrepreneurship
2. Improving innovaIon and knowledge economy
3. Employment and human capital
Attractive and cohesive cities
4. Integrated development of deprived areas
5. Social inclusion 6. Environmental issues 7. Governance and urban planning
140
3
The URBACT way
142
Who develops the city?
Co-‐creaIon!
Local Support Groups and Local AcIon Plans
146
The city is like an open-source software; nobody owns it, everybody can
use it, anybody can improve it!
Guidelines for site-visit • We are not here to critique or find weak spots
• We are not here to come up with alternative solutions, either
• We are here to learn from the experience. To do so, we want to understand:
– What was the challenge the development responds to?
– How was it identified?
– Was the problem properly analysed and understood?
– Who were involved in that process?
– Were there alternative solutions? Why this solution was selected?
– What have been the successes? Failures? What are the key lessons learned?