The Project for Public Spaces
Specializes in Place Making
Part One
by Susan Hines
For the last several months, I've been pondering the vagaries of "collaborative design." Here in Washington, an effort to connect people to the area's plentiful but hard-to-reach waterfronts has resulted in a series of public meetings. I've attended some of them, and each time I'm struck by the difficulties inherent to the process. Some landscape architects--Ignacio Bunster-Ossa, ASLA, for example--have skill in engaging the public productively. Less experienced practitioners can fail to steer the inevitable "break-out groups" in a meaningful fashion, making consensus difficult to achieve. As community input becomes an entrenched part of the design process, psychology and public speaking courses might prove as essential to an LA's training as drawing or CAD.
Community approval is key to creating successful public spaces. Olmsted himself frequently took to the stump, explaining his ideas at forums and trying to convince government officials and citizens to implement his designs. He published editorials and pamphlets outlining his rationale for separation of ways, for refectories, etc. Although public scrutiny is nothing new, these days community stakeholders wield more influence than ever before.
Should landscape architects be leery of citizen participation as an extreme form of design by committee? Or should they embrace community feedback and learn to see ordinary citizens as members of the design team? My efforts to answer this question and to provide useful guidelines for professionals engaged in collaborative design took me from downtown Washington to New York City. Hanging out at DC area public meetings placed me in the impossible position of being both stakeholder and third-party observer. I was going nowhere in my quest to understand the give-and-take between community and landscape architect. Since this is Washington, D.C., the politics of the situation were intense and I couldn't keep my mouth shut. At one point, a very well-meaning landscape architect cautioned me that at first I came off "sounding like a soccer mom." Can't soccer moms have a say? I let the issue rest until the Project for Public Spaces sent round a notice for a workshop that seemed to address many of the issues that perplexed me. Entitled "How to Turn a Place Around," and based on the book of the same name, the training session was billed as a two day course in "place making." PPS is no newcomer to the urban planning scene. Founded in 1975, the organization continues to be inspired by the work of William H. Whyte, who spent the second half of his career observing and writing about public spaces. A research assistant on Whyte's Street Life Project, PPS founder and president Fred Kent was thoroughly grounded in Whyte's philosophy, methods of observation, and film analyses. PPS staff often quote the master's statement that the city street is "the river of life . . . where we come together, the pathway to the center. It is the primary place." They are true believers in common sense and the ability of ordinary people to create meaningful spaces for themselves. Held in two small venues in New York City, the seminar (October 25-26, 2001) reminded me of graduate school--fascinating subject matter, witty teachers, interesting guest speakers, field trips, and cool people to hang with. The events of September 11 failed to discourage attendance. PPS nearly reached their maximum capacity of 40 students, with about 35 people traveling from Jamaica, Canada, and all across the United States. Landscape architects comprised the largest affinity group there. Although this was the first time PPS offered this program on its own territory, the organization has ample experience to draw upon. Ten thousand people attend PPS workshops annually, usually with PPS meeting students on their home ground. In addition to conducting visioning programs for cities and towns, the group trained 300 General Services Employees this past summer and developed a context-sensitive design course for the New Jersey Department of Transportation. The Neighborhood Reinvestment Training Institute (NRTI) also relies on PPS training services.
PPS slide shows are well known and well received. They present a humorous and informative mix of eye candy and eye crud. Fred Kent and PPS vice president Kathy Madden have logged thousands of travel miles and probably taken an equal number of pictures of good places and bad spaces. We saw many examples of both. Viewed together, these photographs--four of which appear here--illustrate their ideas about place and place making. For Kent, "the idea of place is is a transformative way of thinking" that moves beyond the narrow concept of design and gauges success according to how people feel about a space and how often they return. Kent likes to portray himself as the "Anti-Designer." PPS rejects both design competitions and the idea of citizen review in favor of public participation right from the start. However, the organization is more about being for great places than against the design community. In reality, Kent and Madden have distilled some basic truths about creating successful places that encompass more than just visual elements. It's a sociological approach, one that probably has something to teach all spatial designers, whether they work with landscapes, buildings, or interiors.
It is hard to define, but we all know a good place when we see it--a sidewalk cafe near a subway stop, a spot of downtown greenspace that beckons office and construction workers at lunchtime, the street that becomes a farmers market every Sunday. According to PPS, a "place" is created when sociability, multiple activities, and use intersect with comfort, image, and access. While these are the "key attributes," various intangibles--charm, proximity, diversity, and amusements--also exert an important influence. Its not all touchy-feely though. PPS points out that measurable factors like traffic data, crime statistics, and property values contribute to place. So, too, do the number of women, children, and elderly people gathered in one spot. This mental calculus we all perform, consciously or not, every time we enter a space.
Well-known examples of successful places in the U.S. include historic Boston Common and Public Garden, and the newly-built Pioneer (Courthouse) Square in Portland. Outstanding examples of bustling city streets include Bleecker Street in New York City, and Lake Street in Oak Park, Illinois.
The principles posted at right are based on experience and common sense. In addition to placing the community at the center of the process, PPS calls on citizens not only to embrace the idea of place, but also to expand concepts of stakeholders to include potential users, people on the fringes of the space, government agencies, and, especially, "zealous nuts." They note that public areas often have to be retrofitted to make functional places from merely beautiful spaces. The principles encourage mixed-use development on the tiniest scale--placing a trash can, a telephone, and a bench at the entrance to a park, for example. PPS advocates quick and dirty fixes--like paint and petunias--signaling something is afoot. Finally, they acknowledge, "You are never done." Maintenance is among the most important factors in successful place making. It is an often-ignored part of what must be considered an unending process. As attendee Nancy O'Donnell, ASLA, of the Pennsylvania Horticulture Society's Philadelphia Green Program, deftly put it, "Nobody expects a building to take care of itself." Yet, parks and public spaces in general often decline for want of ongoing care. As we set off to observe some good places (Paley Park) and bad spaces (northeast corner of 49th and 42nd--the newer side of Rockefeller center), Kent turned to me and said, "Was I too hard on the landscape architects?" "I think landscape architects would be very open to these ideas and already incorporate many of them," I replied. I cited Len Hopper's work using design to make New York City public housing safer. Certainly, LAs have championed urban renewal and revitalization. Through New Urbanism, they have reclaimed community-building design features from the past. Already it seemed clear to me that, however helpful the 11 principles might prove, I could not ignore the role communication plays in successful place making. Clearly, the public was now an official member of the design team. How landscape architects could best interact with their new partners remained an open question.
Read Part Two: I am introduced to "The Place Performance Evaluation Game"
and learn to play well with others |
636 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001-3736 • Telephone: 202-898-2444 • Fax: 202-898-1185 ©2001 American Society of Landscape Architects. All Rights Reserved. |