Diarmaid Lawlor - Learning Briefing Day 1

© 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




•  OpIons for innovaIve investment •  CreaIve use of exisIng assets

CHALLENGE 2: Re-‐imagining spend for wider benefit

•  ConnecIng up individual iniIaIves





CHALLENGE 3: CreaIng health and resilience

•  Space as community making •  ParIcipaIon and inclusion


•  OpIons for innovaIve investment •  CreaIve use of exisIng assets

CHALLENGE 2: Re-‐imagining spend for wider benefit

•  ConnecIng up individual iniIaIves





[YOUR BRIEF]

resources

You Facilitators Speakers

ParIcipaIon led decisions

[Bela]

Spaces as community making [Dermot]

Assets and values

[Lawrence]


Metho

ds


[Bela]


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


Metho

ds

Contexts

Sighthill

re-thinking assets & values

Port Dundas

re-imagining spaces

Dalmarnock

re-connecting people

World Café sessions


[Bela]


Sighthill

Port Dundas

Dalmarnock

Assets and values

[Lawrence]

Rafaelle Esposito, DRS Glasgow Professor Lawrence Barth

Chris Breslin, ScoYsh Canals Dermot Foley


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



www.turas-cities.org


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


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?

Date post:	21-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	design-skills-symposium-2014
View:	217 times
Download:	1 times

Diarmaid Lawlor - Learning Briefing Day 1

Documents