|Planning charette process - Mpls example||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Fred H. Olson (fholsoncohousing.org)|
|Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 10:30:27 -0500|
I'm posting the following description in case it might be helpful in thinking about a planning process that would be of use to cohousing groups. The process resembles the "Open Space Technology" used at the 1997 Cohousing Conference in Seattle. Note that the area being planned in this description would be ideal for an urban cohousing site - if there were prime movers that wanted to make it happen (there are not currently). Thanks to Cohousing-L subscriber Rebecca Bryant - rebbry [at] aol.com who first told me about the Urban Village part of this when she visited Minneapolis recently. On Sat 4/18/98 I attended the main public session for "planning charette" which was announced belatedly on the Twin Cities Neighborhood Issues mailing list with the following description: "A planning charette is taking place next week for the area of Lake Street between Uptown and Lyndale. A charette is a planning process specifically designed to get the public involved from the very beginning. Members of the public, as well as people directly affected by redevelopment/development (such as homeowners or businesses) attend meetings with planners and city reps. where a proposal is created via their input (usually in small groups). Planners then take these ideas and draw up a draft proposal within a few days. It is then presented again to the public. Charettes are a needed alternative to the perfunctory public hearing where a bunch of angry citizens voice their concerns and then are usually ignored." "This is a wonderful opportunity to contribute your views to what you'd like this area to be like (especially if you live near there, although everyone is welcome). It is also a good opportunity to experience, first hand, what "New Urbanism" (neo-traditional/traditional town-planning) is about." The process was (very briefly): 1) Residents and other interested folks registered and were assigned a table number. 2) The 8 or so folks at 12 tables filled out responses to FIVE QUESTIONS on note cards. (See summary of questions below) 3) Note cards were collected and redistributed so people had cards from someone at a different table. 4) As a group tables compiled a poster for each question based on the cards form others. 5) Posters were posted and each participant was noted the first and second priority (with red and blue sticky dot - hence "dotocracy") on the twelve posters for each question. 6) a wrap up session, with brief identification of a few obvious findings. The multi day process continues by transcribing and summarizing the 60 posters, nearly 1000 dots on the 5 questions. The priorities established by this process feed into the 6 3-4 hour "Design Sessions" (over 5 days) with 15 design professionals. The design pros were distributed around the tables as moderators for the Sat session. A public presentation of the Design alternatives is scheduled for Wed 4/22/98 7:30 PM at Jefferson School at 26th and Hennepin Av. Written documents will also be available. Requests for Proposals (RFP's) from developers are expected by early summer. The Uptown area is a dense highly developed urban area with many businesses, two nearby city parks with lakes, a library, a mix of housing, a lots of street activity. It has several buslines that terminate there. The planned Greenway on a depressed rail corridor will go thru the area. There is lots of vehicular traffic and housing tends to be expensive. The traffic and parking problems of the area were repeatedly noted as problems. The Questions: 1) What are 3 things you like about Uptown? 2) What are 3 things you dislike about Uptown? 3) What are 3 features you would like in the bus layover/hub facility which will be built? 4) What are three features of the Urban village that will be developed on 6-10 acres of current industrial land adjacent to the greenway? 5) What are 3 features of the Uptown area you would like to see in twenty years? BTW I did lobby for cohousing at my table and put it on my card for questions 4 and 5. Specifically I put something like "some intentional community / cohousing" down for question 5. During the wrap up session the presenter noted several phrases from the posters that he thought noteworthy. Several times he mentioned "intentional community" in his ad hoc comments. I think he was using the term in a more generalized but compatible sense than we usually do. Fred -- Fred H. Olson fholson [at] cohousing.org Minneapolis,MN 55411 (612)588-9532 Amateur radio: WB0YQM List manager of: Cohousing-L See www.cohousing.org and nbhd-tc the Twin Cities Neighborhood issues list. See www.freenet.msp.mn.us
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.