Comments on: A neighborhood for the community…by the community

By: Henry Farkas

Henry Farkas — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:14:17 +0000

Remember the old saying that a camel is a horse designed by a committee? That can apply to a neighborhood, too. A talented small design team, whose members care about how livable a neighborhood is going to be, can do a fine job of putting in porches, shaded back decks, yards, nearby parks and schools, and nearby businesses that serve a residential neighborhood. You give a design an excellent “walk score” and people will go there. Nobody asked the neighbors to design the original plan for the Village of Cross Keys in Baltimore, or Columbia in Howard County. They designed nice residences, put them in nice neighborhoods, and people came to live there.

By: Barbara Samuels

Barbara Samuels — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:40:32 +0000

The idea of a neighborhood “planning itself” sounds very democratic but in my experience, the reality is often quite the opposite. As Teya points out, low-income communities undergoing urban renewal are rarely provided with the technical resources necessary to define options and to play a meaningful role in the on-going development process. The charettes I have attended in Baltimore City over the last decade have generally been designed to create a superficial “consensus,” while options were defined in advance by the government entities and developers involved.

On the other hand, where more middle class communities are involved, the charette and community process can become a vehicle that institutionalizes NIMBYism and excludes lower income people and affordable housing. For example, community charettes in Baltimore County that occured AFTER residents were displaced from a subsidized housing site, and the options for reuse of the site were defined to include only homeownership and elderly housing, thus excluding affordable rental housing open to all ages. The charette process becomes a cover for exclusion and absolves government officials of the responsibility for making sound (but politically uncomfortable) planning decisions to rebuild more inclusive communities.

By: K. Teya Moore

K. Teya Moore — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:32:42 +0000

Larry:

It all depends. Community stakeholders while critical are often “dependent” or rely on the expertise of others.

Amplification through legal counsel (pro bono or otherwise), architects and planning advocates oftentimes need to step in to step up for the community at-large.

One issue is who stands up to provide needed skills for the community during the devlopment process?

The MNCPPC or similar agencies fail(s) and most “advocates” are not in if at all for the long haul.

By: Silvia Blitzer Golombek

Silvia Blitzer Golombek — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:29:22 +0000

I greatly appreciate and agree with this “audacious idea” and would like to build on its main argument by adding: consult with the children who will be living in that neighborhood too.

A number of comments in this blog can apply directly to the issue that young people’s input (and I’m referring to 5 to 17 year olds)is not requested. See for example how the text below could be written or read with the younger residents in mind:

“These days, the creation of a new residential neighborhood is largely decided for, rather than by, the residents of the community, often based on decisions that have little to do with the experience of living in the community.”

Charrettes and other consultations aimed at designing programs, policies, and environments that will directly affect children’s experience rarely include them as contributors. However, there are quite a few examples of children participating in urban design initiatives, particularly in other countries, that support the “audacious idea” of including children (elementary school age included)in decision-making.