Architecture, Participation and Society

Paul Jenkins, Leslie Forsyth

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2009
• Print ISBN:
  9780415547239
• eBook ISBN:
  9781135264406
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Architecture General

How can architects best increase their engagement with building users and wider society to provide better architecture?

Since the mid 1990s government policy has promoted the idea of greater social participation in the production and management of the built environment but there has been limited direction to the practising architect.

Reviewing international cases and past experiences to analyze what lessons have been learnt, this book argues for participation within other related disciplines, and makes a set of recommendations for architectural practices and other key actors.

Part I
Background, context and analytical framework

Chapter 1
Concepts of social participation in architecture

Paul Jenkins

Introduction

As explained in the Preface, this book draws on an AHRC Speculative Research Project, and hence follows a structure to some extent dictated by the investigation. As such it is strongly research-based, but also—importantly—is speculative in its approach, specifically seen as a scoping exercise, and thus does not claim to be a final definitive treatment of the subject but aims to add to our existing knowledge and propose a conceptual framework for subsequent activity (research and practice) which is seen as rather weak to date in this subject area. While seen primarily as inductive in that it seeks to identify key concepts and an appropriate analytical basis derived from these concepts for further application, it is inevitably based on an existing set of concepts and issues largely drawn from the experience of the main investigators and book editors. This initial chapter thus aims to set out these—and the implications of the research methods—as a baseline to the research material presented in the book and the conclusions drawn from the research in the concluding sections. In this, the epistemological basis for the book is deliberately transformative as it seeks to draw from and enhance understanding and praxis.

Initial identification of key issues

Key issues and concepts with which the research initially engaged include the following.

The focus of the research activity

Potentially the research could be very wide ranging as architectural activity encompasses many different disciplinary and professional areas, as well as many different building typologies. Given its short-term, limited resource and speculative nature, the research had inevitably to be focused, and the key to this was the architectural process, more specifically the design process, albeit with inclusion of aspects of construction and post-completion of relevance.

The nature of the literature sources

There is a wide range of literature sources of possible relevance, with those of more direct relevance illustrated in Figure 1.1,¹ and again the research has needed to focus. This was undertaken in two ways in this initial speculative scoping exercise: first, targeted reviews of the specific literature perceived to be of relevance to participation in architecture and second, identification of key overview texts or concepts, in associated literatures through the research team’s experience and that of key informants (e.g. Steering Group members). As to the international scope, other than the UK, this has focused in the first instance on the North American literature, although with some references to countries in the global South.² How such a wide scoping of literature is of relevance to the subject is described in more detail below.

1.1 Areas of possible literatures of relevance

The analytical framework

Research such as this, drawing on a wide range of disciplines with their different analytical and even epistemological bases, needs to define a clear analytical framework. This is also examined in more detail below, where other key issues of relevance are discussed. Essentially the research focuses on process rather than product and it acknowledges that the built products which are the outcomes of a more participatory process may be valued in different ways by different groups. In other words, an exclusively architectural peer group may apply different values to the end-product than a client or users, let alone the wider public. The research team wishes to avoid evaluating the products of more participatory architectural design in any narrow sense—such as their aesthetic value—and starts from the premise that engaging wider social groups in the architectural process can both produce better use values for buildings and assist with bridging a perceived widening gap between public perception of architecture and professional opinions. The evidence presented thus does not seek to prove this premise, as that could be tautological given the embedded values of the approach, but to demonstrate the potential validity of such claims.³

The nature of wider literature sources

How can the review of wider literatures noted above be of use to analysis of the architecture process? Figure 1.2 is an attempt to map out two broad models of approaches to participation in this process.⁴ On the left is the approach as it tends to exist in design practice. It is designer led and focused on the solution of specific issues by reference to the particular clients and people who will use or be affected by a building. Information on such approaches exists historically in the literature, in architectural practices which carry out such work and, in the academic domain, in the work of people like Henry Sanoff, as well as the recently revived interest in the sort of Design Charrettes carried out by organisations such as the Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA).

1.2 Models of knowledge of relevance

The research team recognises, however, that this is not the only sort of information relevant to the study and the research model represented in the right-hand side of Figure 1.2 shows how to draw on this wider set of information. Researchers investigate people, design processes and buildings, and produce information about specific building types, about the needs of specific groups of building users and about methods which may be used to engage in participation exercises. This information exists in sources like www.informedesign.com, the International Association of People—Environment Studies (IAPS) database of past papers, and increasingly in the work of organizations like the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE).⁵ It is in the nature of such academic work that it aims to generate conclusions from studies that can be generalised, albeit perhaps from particular buildings and/or processes, and thus can be applied to future design exercises. This sort of information includes work on disability and inclusive design, PostOccupancy Evaluation (POE) and the effect of built environments on a whole range of human factors. These approaches also include a wide variety of methodological studies which may have relevance for an improved understanding and/or practice of wider social participation in the architecture process.⁶

In the light of the above perception of relevant information, this research identifies the gap between design practice and this wider set of information sources as often a barrier, represented in the diagram by a solid vertical line. Without bridging this barrier designers interested in participation continue to reinvent methods and spend a lot of time wastefully reproducing information which may already exist in domains with which they are less conversant. One role of the research project was thus to stimulate a flow of information from wider relevant research into design, to encourage the adoption of methods validated by research in participation exercises and, conversely perhaps, to ensure that research recognises the value of design itself as an approach to knowledge building—symbolised in Figure 1.2 by the dotted lines. In summary, the project identified a need to scope (inevitably in limited terms) a very wide-ranging literature concerning methods and approaches to, and information on, wider concepts and practices of participation in design.

Conceptual and analytical issues

In approaching the subject there is a necessity to define key concepts, and some form of analytical framework for structuring the study as well as any comparative work. These key concepts include:

• What is understood by participation, and more specifically the term ‘wider’ participation?
• How is this conceived of in the context of the architecture process, and more specifically the design process?

Participation is generally defined in the dictionary as ‘taking part in’ and typically three different ‘participants’ who take part in the architecture process, other than the architect and other design professionals, are: the client who commissions the building, the users of the building and the general public who are exposed to the building in some form or other. However, as virtually all architecture has some form of client, the participation of the client is assumed as normal, hence widening participation entails the participation of users and/or the wider public—and thus the term ‘widening social participation’.

What form of participation is possible by these different participants? For the purposes of this study, the forms of participation can be seen in three broad categories:

1. Providing information, which is basically a one-way flow, from the professional to the client, user group or wider public.
2. Consultation, which is essentially a two-way flow between professionals and clients, users and the wider public.
3. Some form of negotiated/shared decision-making between professionals and clients, users and the wider public.

How can wider forms of social participation be envisaged within the architecture process? Although the process of commissioning, designing, constructing and reflecting on the process can be broken down into a series of detailed stage of work as defined in the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Plan of Work,⁷ the processes can be simplified as:

• related to design stages;
• related to the construction stage;
• related to the post-completion stage.

These initial definitions permit a form of analytical framework to be created which takes in three dimensions of participation in architecture: the nature of the participant (client, user and wider public); the form of participation (information, consultation and decision-making) and stages of the architectural process (design, construction and post-completion), as illustrated in Figure 1.3. While running the risk of at times being over-simplified, the analytical framework should permit a mapping of the nature/form and stage of participation in different situations and hence some form of comparative work.⁸

Other key conceptual issues which this study engages with include the following:

• different philosophical bases for participation as the basis for understanding value judgements;
• the role of ‘supply’ and ‘demand’ in participation (and temporal issues this raises);
• the relationship between the process and product;
• the way is determined;
• the link between participation and different buliding types;
• the difference between particiapatory ‘techniques’ and ‘tools’.

There are two different philosophical bases for participation: the position which assumes that participation is a fundamental right for those who are affected in some way by a process such as architectural design, and the position which sees value in participation for instrumental reasons—i..e. it makes the process better in some way. The first does not exclude the second, but the second does not entail the first position. The first position may also be adhered to by widening the participatory process, but does not necessarily assume that any form of participation is more appropriate than any other—in other words, it may permit and/or promote wider participation to the extent that this is possible due to either demand/interest or other parameters such as what is possible given the relationship between the professional team and the client.⁹

1.3 3D analytical framework

This raises the issue of ‘supply’ and ‘demand’. To what extent is wider participation demanded or of interest to the different types of participant? One may assume that clients are interested in information, being consulted and also in decision-making, although even here there can be degrees of interest and greater or lesser autonomy in decision-making for the architect and other built environment professionals. Clients may also not be much involved during the construction stage, and may not be directly involved in any form of post-completion review. Concerning users, can they always be expected to be interested in the architectural process for buildings they will be using? To what extent architects and clients might want this is of course another issue, as is what stages of the process are most of interest to users—possibly design and post-completion stages. The same may be said for the general public, who may be interested in information and even some form of consultation on new buildings—especially if directly affected as neighbours and also concerning key public buildings; however, they are probably less likely to have the opportunity to participate in any form of decision-making.

These ‘demand’-side issues—assessing to what extent different potential participants may want to participate in the architectural process—is paralleled by ‘supply’-side issues concerning to what extent clients and architects/ other built environment professionals may want wider social participation, and the form this might take, as this may be seen as reducing their power of decision (see note 5). As well as issues of decision-making, as will be seen later, widening social participation has implications in terms of resources as well as the timing of the architectural process, and this can be an issue which constricts what is possible with limited funding, skills and/or time resources available. However, in certain circumstances clients and/or architects may promote wider social participation—such as in key urban regeneration projects. Here a supply-driven approach to participation can encounter limited interest or at least limited sustained interest.

Both supply- and demand-driven approaches to wider social participation in the architecture process are affected by temporal issues. The most simplistic of these is the time taken for wider engagement—whether information provision, consultation or negotiation on decisions. Linked to this is the issue of the nature of representation of ‘stakeholder’ groups—as it would be impossible to engage with all potential immediate users or the public on an individual basis, which represents the wider group. Thus, how does this representation take place (this of course is also relevant for clients where one hopes the representatives and their decision-making remit would be clearly established at the start of the process). The temporal aspect has a strong effect here—the immediate users may well not remain users for long, and how can such representation and engagement represent more generic use values for future users? This is also relevant for public opinion which changes over time—a currently much-loved building may have been very controversial in its early stages. How can the architect thus deal with temporal change? One way to address changing user needs is to build in flexibility, which may or may not be the outcome of a participatory process.¹⁰

Concerning process and product, a key issue is the different links between these, as mitigated by the philosophical positions noted above. Hence, for those who believe wider social participation is a moral right, albeit determined by the parameters of the ‘supply’ factors and ‘demand’ in practice, the assumption is that the participatory process is something ‘good’ and to be valued in its own right, whether it producers a better ‘product’ or not. However, many although not all of the adherents to this position would probably also assume that a more participatory process is likely to produce a ‘better’, more highly valued, built product. This link between a valued participatory process and a valued built product is more relevant for those who see participation as less of an ‘end’ in itself, and more of a ‘means’ to an end, which assumes some higher form of value in the built product—although this can be the value of the ‘supplier’ (e.g. government agency) and not the ‘demander’ (e.g. a community).

The nature of value is of course a difficult one to clearly define; however, broadly speaking, architecture is seen as addressing issues of technical, functional and aesthetic values (otherwise Vitruvius’ firmitas, utilitas, venustas). There are issues in architecture concerning which of these is most important, and hence more value-laden, and this is a complex area, as different value systems are used in evaluating each of these issues—the first deriving to a great extent from natural sciences, the second from social sciences, whereas the third area is largely influenced by cultural issues. In that there are different value systems that cross these disciplinary boundaries, there is little clarity as to what is the balance between these values as applied to and in architecture. This complicates the balance of valuing process and product. In short, a well-designed product may or may not be the outcome of a participatory process, and a participatory process may or may not produce a successful building as valued in these different systems; however, participation would expect to be valued in some way by some actor in the process (or else it would not be promoted).

Another, not unrelated, issue is whether some building types potentially could or should have wider forms of social participation than others. There has certainly been extensive debate concerning user participation in the design, construction and—to a lesser ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Notes on contributors
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Illustration credits
• List of abbreviations
• Introduction
• PART I Background, context and analytical framework
• PART II Illustrative case studies
• PART III Findings and recommendations
• Appendix I: Relevance of the study to the contemporary policy and practice context in Scotland
• Appendix II: Institutional resources
• Appendix III: Bibliographic resources
• References