JGPotter & Associates Logo
Samples
Book
Booklet
Brochure
Grant Application
Magazine Article
Periodical
Position Paper
Slide Show
Video Script
Web Site
Contact
Home


Excerpt from
Grant Application
Writer: Janet Greenstein Potter

NOTE: The words Funder and Applicant have been substituted for the actual names.

Public Participation in Design
of the Urban Environment
Project Context and Relevance to Goals of the FUNDER

"We shape our buildings: thereafter they shape us. "
Winston Churchill, 1960
Architecture, infrastructure, and open space—combined with cultural and historical resources—create the physical character of an urban community. Although the design of the built environment affects virtually everyone, the process for creating that environment can be exclusionary: complex, hidden, highly technical, and often incomprehensible to ordinary citizens. The form, appearance, and function of Philadelphia's urban places have frequently been determined by political favoritism; closed-door planning; developers' notions of the very highest profitability; and hasty, unsophisticated decisions rendered by inexpert review commissions. Presented too late in the game to the citizenry, good projects are sometimes overwhelmed and defeated by rash, ill-informed opposition; while bad projects are rubber-stamped, despite intelligent, but unfortunately last-minute, public criticism.

Rather than this narrow, project-by-project, rudderless process, decision-making should be guided by long-term, comprehensive design and "quality-of-place" policies-developed and enforced with the powerful help of public participation. For the APPLICANT, the underlying component of advocacy is education. If the public is presented with a clear, well-rounded view of the issues-and is given sufficient time to digest the information and make comments-the process of planning for the built environment will become more efficient, inclusive, and effective.

Plan for Meeting the Need
Through its media presentations, ongoing public outreach, and themed advocacy campaigns, the APPLICANT will stimulate public participation in designing the built environment.

Anticipated Results
Procedures for planning and designing the built environment will gradually, but distinctly, become more broadly conceptualized, coherent, and democratic. The APPLICANT will observe and document the following changes in the public arena:
  1. Information will be disseminated rather than withheld, so that decisions affecting broad constituencies become inclusive rather than exclusive. For example, a good, well-developed process was the location and design of the Pennsylvania Convention Center and its proposed expansion. A shaky process has been the effort to locate the new sports stadiums.

  2. Complex issues will be conceptualized and presented in terms that laypeople can understand and care about. For example, people will learn why the quantity, location, and appearance of parking garages has a particularly significant impact on a "pedestrian city" such as Philadelphia, with its narrow streets and relatively small downtown area.

  3. Complicated projects, such as the Family Entertainment Center at Penn's Landing or the Philadelphia Parking Authority plan for a garage, cinema, and restaurant on Rittenhouse Square, will be openly and thoroughly aired from an early stage in their development and as they progress (if they do progress).

  4. The city's own experiences, as well as lessons from other cities, will be used routinely, rather than occasionally, to evaluate new proposals. Examples of projects in which this process has occurred are: the decision to reopen Chestnut Street to traffic; the redevelopment of Broad Street into the Avenue of the Arts; and the development of a riverfront park along the Schuylkill.

  5. Long-term projects will to be tracked over time to retain the continuity of ideas. For example, implementing the proposed plan for the Benjamin Franklin Parkway would require oversight across 30 years of design and construction.

Near-term projects will be tied to long-term implications. For example, the decision to allow construction of Liberty Place broke the informal "gentleman's agreement" not to build higher than the City Hall tower, and led to height and set-back recommendations in the Center City plan.

Evaluating Results
An annual report will analyze the amount and quality of public-process-related activity which occurred in the preceding year.

Report Title: The Status of Public Participation in Design Issues and Decision-Making about the Urban Environment

Examples of the indicators to be examined:

  • The Plan for Center City. Has it been updated? Are copies widely available to the public, for easy acquisition by citizens and developers? (Note: The typical time span between plans has been 20 years. To be current and relevant, the plan ought to be updated as part of an ongoing process, with publication every three-five years. The most recent plan for Center City is dated 1988 and, moreover, has been "out of print" for most of its existence.)

  • Regular meetings of public-policy bodies, such as the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, the City Council, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, and the Fairmount Park Commission. Are the dates, places, and agendas for their regular meetings widely publicized? Are the frequency of meetings and length of sessions sufficient to explore large or precedent-setting issues. Is public input welcomed and respectfully considered?

  • Neighborhood planning meetings between project managers for agencies, such as the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, and community groups. How frequently have they occurred? What were the topics discussed? Does the agency issue an annual report?

  • Appointees to boards of approval, such as the Philadelphia Historical Commission, the Philadelphia Art Commission, and the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Compared to previous appointees, how many members have backgrounds which include both expertise and a demonstrated interest in the board's sphere of consideration and activity? Are their résumés published and readily available?

  • The staff of the Philadelphia Historical Commission, in which seven people currently monitor 15,000 properties. Has its size increased enough to accommodate the city's needs?

  • Large and/or potentially controversial projects. How many are under review? Have they been adequately presented to the public, well in advance of final decision-making by bodies such as the Zoning Board of Adjustment?

  • Community development corporations and special-services districts. To what extent have they communicated with their constituencies about neighborhood design issues?

  • Urban-design-related media coverage. What increase or decrease has occurred in newspaper stories, editorials, letters-to-the-editor, magazine articles, radio shows, and television features on the topic of design excellence for the physical environment?

  • Contact with the media, elected and appointed officials, developers, and community groups. How frequent was communication between the APPLICANT and these parties? Who initiated the conversations-the APPLICANT or the media?
    END OF EXCERPT