Collaborative Consumption: Toward Inclusive Public Participation in Design

  • Published on
    12-Mar-2016

  • View
    213

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

As we seek to regenerate postindustrial waterfronts for public use, public involvement in the design decision-making process must be defined. These projects are inherently complex, with large infrastructure components, high cost, and technical constraints. This work explores different models of public participation using case studies from the Copenhagen Harborfront and the Stockholm Waterfront to compare to the current Seattle Waterfront Design Process. The case study comparison demonstrates that more effort is needed to establish the role of local knowledge in decision-making. Drawing connections between the practice of user generated design and research on public participation models, I propose an alternative approach that might help us develop more responsible and responsive strategies for designing with the local community. I argue for the method of collaborative consumptiona sedimentation of user-generated design to shape public placesand I test this method on Pier 48.

Transcript

  • COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTIONTOWARD INCLUSIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DESIGN

    Magda Hogness

  • COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTIONTOWARD 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

    Committee Members: Assistant Professor Gundula Proksch

    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.

  • 1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

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

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

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

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

    5 9 . 2 1 STO C K H O LM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Political Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Planning Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Slussen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

    47. 6 0 S E AT T LE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Political Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Planning Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43The Central Waterfront . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Shoreline Alteration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Shoreline Fortification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

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

    AU 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Authenticity within the Design Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Highly Responsive Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Collaborative Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Self Invention of Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

    M E T H O D O LO GY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Shoreline Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Neighborhood Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Intervention Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

    C O LL 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Design Principals ...............................................................................................................................772016.................................................................................................................................................782022.................................................................................................................................................802030.................................................................................................................................................82Conclusion .........................................................................................................................................88

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

  • 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.

    Seattles ongoing waterfront redevelopment project has such constraints. Shortly after the 2001 Nisqually earthquake, Seattles 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 Seattles 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 Seattles 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.

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

    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

    Kodax P3200 TMAX

    PREFACE

  • 2 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O N

  • 3

    PEDESTRIAN PERSPECTIVE

    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 Yesler Way (facing page)

    Alaskan Way and Marion St. (left)

    Alaskan Way and Seneca St. (right)

  • 4 C O LL A B O R AT...

Recommended

View more >