Designers Without Designs
Editor’s note: Something is wrong with the picture above, and we’ve all experienced it–experts with answers that don’t solve real problems. As Della Rucker discusses below, the expert paradigm has failed us too often. To contribute to lasting change, designers (including government leaders who design programs) need to facilitate dialog that leads to local solutions that designers should only then implement through their technical expertise. Della can be reached at email@example.com.
I like designers — urban designers, architects, landscape architect, even database and user experience designers. I’ve had the pleasure of knowing and being befriended by and working with a whole lot of people who have that eye, that sense, that skill for making things look good and function. As a very non-design-skilled person, I like to watch designers work: it’s a fascinating, mysterious thing to me, to create an image or a model of something out of thin air. I can write all day, but I cannot do that.
But because I have spent so much of my life working with and watching design solutions unfold, I have reached a point where I can’t avoid saying this to my design friends any longer:
Ladies and gentlemen, please stop thinking that you’re creating the Magic Solution to complex problems. I’m especially looking at you, architects and urban designers and impassioned urbanist types.
Good design can help solve problems, but it does not do it alone. And when you believe that — and worse yet, mislead the public into thinking your design solution will Fix That For Them– then you make it all the harder for all of us to actually solve the deeper issues: the ones that we cannot simply build our way out of.
Some of the designers that I have most admired are the people who work for a handful of downtown revitalization organizations across the country. They get no CNU awards, they often don’t have letters after their names, and very few of them write books stuffed with glossy photos.
A lot of their job consists of drawing or Photoshopping a historically-correct facade onto an old building that has been altered – usually in ways that look awful, and are now decreasing the building’s value and that of those around them. Their renderings are lovely, but they’re not High Art, or even particularly innovative. Since they’re trying to return the building to something near its original character, there’s not a lot of room for out-of-the-box thinking. Typically, their renderings are given to the owner of the building as a means of encouraging him or her to improve their property.
Here’s the important part: these designers don’t just draw something, dump it on the community or property owner, and expect Magic To Happen. The rendering is a door-opener for the conversation, the exploration of new possibilities, the collaboration. When this process works, it’s because the property owner comes to realize that there are options available to them beyond what they previously knew. The drawing helps, but the drawing does not make that happen.
What we often fail to do in urban design and planning is involve the people who should and need to be engaged in a collaborative search for the best solutions. We hold meetings, even charrettes, but too often, we simply give them a presentation, let them ask questions, or even ask them what they want, like we would ask a kid what they want for their birthday.
We do that because we assume that they don’t want to do any more, or that they can’t contribute at any higher level than we would ask of a first grader.
And both of those assumptions are wrong.
Here is my increasingly big concern: that we blame the failure of planning or transportation improvements on short-sighted local government executives, or greedy developers, or NIMBYs. We do that without ever turning the thought process around, and exploring how changing the way we engage people might change the rest of the equation.
My personal hypothesis: we don’t do that, and as a result we default to If You Build It They Will Come, because we don’t know how to design or manage a constructive collaborative process, rather than a lecture, a hearing, or a “what do you want for your birthday?” initiative.
And we don’t do that because no one ever taught us to.
We need to start learning from the extension agents, the dialogue and deliberation experts, even good school teachers, to fundamentally rework the role of community members in planning and governance. Planning and architecture and landscape architects – anyone who designs for civic or public use – should be learning how to do constructive public engagement activities, crowd-sourced collaboration, more transparent work, how to pull the public into the process as their own type of subject matter experts on their own communities, similar to the way that we include economists or zoning specialists or other related professionals.
And this needs to be a central part, not only of undergraduate and graduate training, but continuing education as well. We require professionals to learn law and ethics; should we not also require them to know how to work with the public constructively?
That’s not some Polyanna sentiment, based on an idealized belief that everyone is important. It’s a very practical sentiment, based on experience:
When I have built collaboration with the community into the planning and design projects that I myself have managed over the years, tensions have dissipated and misunderstandings had faded, and plans that no one ever thought would get approved have had unanimous adoptions.
That’s happened more times than I can count.
And it’s not that the plans themselves were better, or the designs more innvative, or the pictures prettier, than the ones on the project that fell apart in a cloud of fear and anger.
It’s been because the community helped build the plan, which means that they owned and championed it.. And because they were embedded, we found solutions to problems that a team of blue ribbon outsiders would have missed. And we found those before the draft plan was printed.
Those plans succeeded because we recognized that the people of the community are experts on their own community, and we because we knew that we needed to employ their expertise, just as we employed our own.
So my challenge to my design friends is this, borrowing a bit from the inestimable civic tech wizard LaurenEllen McCann:
Design with, not for.
When you do that, you’ll get closer to designing real solutions.
Della G. Rucker, CEcD AICP has helped citizens, businesses, governments and nonprofits improve their communities’ futures for about 20 years. Della has consulted, written and trained people to create strategy for economic revitalization, and to enable meaningful public participation. Della is one of about 10 private sector persons in the United States to hold the industry-standard professional certifications in both planning (AICP) and economic development (CEcD).
Della is the author of The Local Economy Revolution: What’s Changed and How You Can Help and editor of Why this Work Matters, both from Wise Fool Press, and the author of the upcoming books Online Public Engagement, from Routledge Press, and New Learning from Las Vegas, from Wise Fool Press . Della also serves as the Managing Editor of EngagingCities, an online magazine that focuses on the intersection between internet technologies and community engagement. She is a graduate of Northwestern University and the University of Cincinnati.
Formerly the lead for economic development in Jacobs Engineering’s planning group, at various points in her life, Della has also been an English teacher, a Main Street program charter board member, a historic preservation entrepreneur, and a small town journalist.