Consensus Design - Myth or Method

Consensus Design: Myth or Method

Issues in Contemporary Architecture 2010-2011

Welsh School of Architecture – Year 3

! Elizabeth Venning 2011

Elizabeth Venning WSA3 2010-2011 !"

Special thanks to Hugh Salvesen for supplying the title, Margaret

Colquhoun for generously giving her time to discuss, explain and

show me around the Pishwanton Project, and Richard Shorter for

his invaluable phone conversation.


Summary

There is a demand for greater involvement of the public within the current socio-political context in the UK. Within Architecture,

‘Participation’ of users, clients and communities is likely to become more prevalent in the practice of architecture. There has been

a history of ‘Participation’ in planning and design since the 1960’s, however it has failed to become a major concern within

‘mainstream’ architecture. ‘Consensus Design’, a radical process that has originated from the work of Architect Christopher Day, offers a new way to approach Participation within an architectural context. A critical analysis of the theory of Consensus Design,

and its application to a development in East Lothian – The Pishwanton Project – gives a clearer understanding of how the process

works, and its potentials as well as its limitations. Inspired by personal experience of Consensual Methods of working, I am

interested to see if Consensus Design can offer a meaningful methodology that could be adopted by Architectural Practices and

become a key tool for 21st Century Architectural Design.


Contents

Introduction – Participation and Consensus Design

- The Pishwanton Project, East Lothian

Rationale – ‘Learning to Lead’

- The socio-political context

Analysis of the Idea - History of Participation

- Common benefits and problems of the process

- Consensus Design in context

- How is Consensus Design different from other methods of participation?

- The Process

Analysis of Pishwanton – Introduction to the Site

- Analytical record of visit (8th -12th December 2010)

- How is Consensus Design realised in the building?

- Where does Consensus Design fail to be realised?

Conclusions - How effectively has the theory been applied at Pishwanton?

- Consensus Design – Myth or Method

Participation and Consensus Design


There has been a history of ‘Participation’ in Architecture since the 1960’s. In general, it is the principle ‘that non-professionals –

client, user, community - are involved, to some degree, in decisions about issues which will affect them.1 Some see participation

as ‘an essential part of repairing the natural relationship between people and place’ that ‘enables the design and the production of

buildings [that are] more efficient and more dynamic.2 While others believe it is ‘something that.. gets in the way of professional freedoms, building houses and making architecture’.3

A danger of participation is that it can be used as a placebo, or temporary palliative, adopted by those in authority to maintain

stability4. Tokenistic methods can be more destructive than absence of participation altogether. Hope and expectations are raised,

and then frustration and distrust ensue when it becomes apparent that in reality participants have little influence on the situation5.

I am focusing my research on a method that I believe is not tokenistic, and therefore key to the future of participation in

architecture – Consensus Design. This method has emerged out of the work of architect Christopher Day and his collaboration with Goethean Biologist Dr Margaret Colquhoun.

I’m interested to understand:

1. How the process works, and what makes it unique,

2. How the theory is applied in practice,

3. Whether other architects can adopt Consensus Design.

4. Is Consensus Design a Myth or a Method

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

1 Rosie Parnell, ‘Consensus Design in Context’ in Consensus Design, (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2003), p. ix.

2 Nabeel Hamdi, Housing without Houses; Participation, Flexibility, Enablement, (London: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991), p. 47.

3 Ibid., p. 75. 4 Jeremy Till, ‘The Negotiation of Hope’, in Architecture and Participation, ed. by Peter Blundell Jones, Doina Petrescu and Jeremy Till (Oxon: Spon Press,

2005), p. 26.

5 Hamdi, p. 84


The Pishwanton Project, East Lothian

The Pishwanton Project in Scotland was the first development to be designed by Christopher Day using the Consensus Design

method. A key person in the development of the method, Dr Margaret Colquhoun, is also the Executive Director of the Trust that

manages the project. Therefore a visit offers a more in-depth understanding of the buildings, and a chance to interview Dr Colquhoun about her involvement in the process (See Appendix 7 - Interviews 1).

Figure 1 View of the Lammermuir Hills from the Entrance of Pishwanton


Rationale

‘Learning to Lead’

I’ve chosen to research Consensus Design in an architectural context because in the past I

have worked with consensus decision-making tools and have seen the positive benefits in another environment, namely in Education. (See Appendix 1- Learning to Lead, at the Blue

School6).

In this case, students, often under-valued by an academic system where education is ‘done

to’ you, got an immense sense of self-worth when their point of view was respected and

they had the power to influence change in their surroundings.

Architecture is often ‘done to’ the public, client or community, rather than ‘with’ them. I’m interested to see what happens when the relationship between architect and client is

changed.

The socio-political context

The current socio-political situation in the UK is also asking for more research to be done in

this area. The zeitgeist is moving towards an era of ‘participation’, ‘community

involvement’, and ‘public empowerment’. I consider this a reaction to the recent economic crisis and perceived failure and distrust of traditional hierarchical structures.

The coalition government’s “Big Society” could be seen as an attempt to change the

paradigm, achieving genuine participation in many areas of society, and bringing about

positive psychological, social, economic, and environmental impacts. Alternatively, it could

just be a means to placate the public, who are seen as disillusioned with the current

paradigm.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

6 Learning to Lead: http://www.learningtolead.org.uk/

Figure 2 Working on a Learning to Lead

Project


The current socio-political situation is relevant to Architecture. The Localism Bill (Dec. 2010) - a ‘cornerstone’ of the ‘Big Society’ –

has major implications for professional architects (see Appendix 2).7

Localism Bill:

- Encourages the public to submit their own planning applications, - Increases pressure on councils to adopt neighbourhood plans created by referendum

- Gives Community groups an increased power in reviewing and deciding on planning applications.

In future, Architects will need to satisfy the requirements of a whole community rather than a single client. Invariably, this will

mean developing successful methods of working with a large number of people, rather than a ‘self-selecting’ few.

The AJ’s view is that, notwithstanding ’change’ architects should carry on as they always have done, with the added ‘burden’ of

public involvement and ‘hearts and minds’ advertising campaigns 8. This cynical approach is irresponsible and arrogant. Pretty pictures and slick campaigns can still become awful buildings - destroying the trust engendered by ‘successful’ community

consultations. It also misses the opportunity inherent in this changing situation.

The attitude promoted by the AJ is shared by other Architectural publications. Architect Giancarlo de Carlo, describes how there is

‘hardly a magazine … that illustrates architecture taking the user into account. It is as if architecture were …not an actual place

inhabited by people in a permanent and continually changing relationship.’ 9

However, some contemporary architectural practises - SHoP, Muf Architects, Fluid and Architype - already advocate participatory approaches to design.

I am interested to see if the radical idea of Consensus Design can offer a meaningful methodology that could be

adopted by forward thinking practices, and become a key tool for 21st Century Architectural Design.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

7 Christine Murray, ‘Leader: Adapt to Localism or Die’, Architect’s Journal, 233 (2010) p. 18.

8 Murray, p. 18. 9 Giancarlo deCarlo, ‘Architectures Public’, in Architecture and Participation, ed. by Peter Blundell Jones, Doina Petrescu and Jeremy Till (Oxon: Spon Press,

2005), pp. 12-13


Analysis of the Idea

History of Participation

Participation in design and planning began in earnest in the 1950’s

when members of the public were first given the right of objection or appeal in the planning process (See appendix 2 - History of

Participation). Since then, methods of participation have evolved in

Government, Law and through the work of individual designers and

planners such as John Habraken and Giancarlo de Carlo, who held

strong beliefs that participation by a wide range of interested parties

was key to creating a better built environment. In this context, the

architect becomes a ‘cultivator of environments’, rather than a ‘maker of projects’.10

Common benefits and problems of the process

Participation reconnects people with their environment, giving users a

sense of ownership- a precondition to future successful stewardship, (use, care and maintenance) of a place 11. It helps to manage

the process of change, and therefore increases the longevity of the building/buildings.12 The process also benefits those involved,

who ‘grow in self confidence’ 13 and are empowered by the realisation of shared values. (see Appendix 4) So in terms of

environmental, economic and social sustainability participation is perceived as beneficial14.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

10 Hamdi, p. 47. 11 Fluid (Steve McAdam), ‘Your Place or Mine..? : A study on Participatory Design, Youth, Public Space and Ownership’, in Architecture and Participation, ed. by

Peter Blundell Jones, Doina Petrescu and Jeremy Till (Oxon: Spon Press, 2005), p. 251.

12 Hamdi, p. 47. 13 Jon Broome, ‘Mass Housing Cannot be sustained’, in Architecture and Participation, ed. by Peter Blundell Jones, Doina Petrescu and Jeremy Till (Oxon: Spon

Press, 2005), p. 75.

14 Till, p. 25.

Figure 3 'Planning for Real' method of Participation developed by

Tony Gibson


However some would argue that there are many reasons not to adopt participation in architecture.

Common objections: 15

1. Process takes too long.

2. Especially initially, people do not know what they really want even when asked - given the chance, people can make irrational decisions

3. People have neither the time commitment nor capability to get involved.

4. It ‘increases the burden of management on already overburdened administrator’; and

therefore creates ‘an excuse for professional incompetence’

5. Successful in neighbourhoods where there is social homogeneity, but in places that may need

it most, which are undergoing class or ethnic change, or are deprived socially, physically and economically - methods and techniques need to be tailored specifically to the circumstance.

There has not been a linear development in methods of participation as each has been the result of a

specific set of values of the architect/planner and the particular context.16 Consequently, techniques

vary widely from ‘tokenism’ to ‘full citizen control’ (see figure 4).17

However, in all cases, one or more of the following features are present:

# Decision-making is democratic. # The Process begins with ideas.

# Ultimate control of the interpretation of the submitted idea and realisation of the Architect/Planner.

So to summarise, participants generate many ideas, based on personal viewpoints. Inevitably some ideas oppose one another and

when they are attached to strong feelings, conflict can result. Designers organise the ideas, finding common themes, reconciling

differences, and mediating between opposing parties, then extracting the essence of what each party wants and re-presenting it in

a way that demonstrates it’s mutual benefit. The result is a process where conflict resolution and compromise are crucial, and

success dependant on the skill of the designer as mediator. 18

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

15 Hamdi, pp. 83-85 16 Parnell, p. xi. 17 Till, p. 25. 18 Christopher Day, Consensus Design, (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2003), p. 37.

Figure 4 Sherry Arnstein's Ladder of Participation

Elizabeth Venning WSA3 2010-2011 !"#

Consensus Design in Context

Consensus n. – General Agreement 19

Christopher Day’s process ‘involves a group of people - design and construction professionals, clients, users of architecture and anyone else who might be affected- who strive for consensus through design’20. The method evolved over three decades, out of

his investigation into the making of what he calls ‘beautiful places’; places that create harmony between past and future, project,

people, and place21. Day believes this is only possible through working with users.22

In this aspect, it is similar to other methods of Participation. ‘However, Consensus Design, was not ‘consciously built’ from the

History of Participation 23 and, unlike other advocates of participation, Day isn’t driven by the social or political potential of

participation, 24 but (uses the process) as a means to achieving better architecture. He doesn’t make the common mistake in participatory architecture of ‘equating the means with the ends.’25

Because it has not evolved in the same way as other methods of participation, Consensus Design has some distinct features.

How is Consensus Design different from other methods of participation?

Firstly, the Consensus Design process is not democratic. Christopher Day, and those who advocate Consensus Design do not

believe that a system where ‘the right of the majority to impose its will on the minority’ is ethical. 26 Day believes that democracy

in Architecture results in conflict and compromise, which is ‘neither necessary nor desirable’, as it will never satisfy the needs of both the client and designer.27

#########################################################

19 Definition on ‘Consensus’, Oxford English Minidictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) 20Parnell, p. ix. 21 Day, p. 52. 22 ibid, p. 32. 23 Ibid, p. 37. 24 Parnell, p. xi, 25 ibid., p. xiii. 26 Day, p. 19. 27 ibid., p. 17.

Elizabeth Venning WSA3 2010-2011 !!"

Instead, decisions are made collectively – everyone involved in the

decision listens to the whole situation, and eventually an agreement

is reached that satisfies everyone.28

Also dissimilar from other techniques, the process does not start with

ideas, but begins by ‘dissolving, preformed ideas’. It begins with the

study of place, which requires the discarding of preconceived ideas, agendas and personal subjectivity. This ‘withholding of

premature thought’29 creates a foundation for the project based on mutual agreement, which ultimately means that the process

can move quickly and effectively, avoiding conflict and time-wasting.

In Consensus Design, the process doesn’t work without the input of many people – first in understanding the place and secondly in realising the design. Consensus Design is about interpreting ‘the spirit-of-a-place’, and the ‘spirit-of-a-project’. ‘Group

observation gives a broader [interpretation] than any individual can30’

Similarly the process needs the views and experience of both professionals - who have extensive and wide-ranging technical

knowledge - as well as users - who have a more detailed but narrower understanding of the place and project. 31 The Architect is

an equal participant, meaning the process becomes ‘expert-facilitated’ as opposed to ‘expert dominated’.32

Traditionally the designer is in control of reinterpreting verbal ideas into form and sometimes, the effect of turning ‘idea’ into form - drawings or model- will impress the group, regardless of whether it is really a true embodiment of the idea. In compartison, in

Consensus Design, physical participation in marking out on site, drawing and modelling puts the control of the idea back into the

hands of the users. Communication is clearer and quicker, and everyone has responsibility for the design. This means that

participant input is more considered and more meaningful – and their power over the outcome is more explicit. 33

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

28 Day, p. 20. 29 Parnell, p. ix. 30 Day, p. 44. 31 Ibid., pp. 16-17 32 ibid., p. 114. 33 Ibid., p. 114.

!"#$%&'(')*&'+",,&%&-.&'/&01&&-'23&45.%6.72'6-+'285-9&-9$92'


Process

There are two phases of Consensus Design; ‘Scientific Observation with artistic sensitivity’ and ‘Artistic Creation through a

scientifically rigorous condensation process.34’ It is a complex series of stages, (see Appendix 5) that culminates in an intervention that aims to match people, place and project.

The first phase begins with an in-depth physical understanding of the site and ends with consensus on the ‘spirit-of-the-place’ as a

whole. The second phase begins with an understanding of the ‘spirit-of the-project’ and ends with a detailed physical

understanding of how the project should be realised on site (plans, sections, elevations, models, views etc.). In theory, the ‘spirit-

of the-place’ and ‘the-spirit-of the project’ should chime with each other, creating architecture that is in harmony.

‘There are shapes, colours, moods of light, and sounds that affect all people – at a pre-thought-preconscious level – in more or less the same way’35

The process relies on one fundamental idea; consensus is always achieved through the study of place. Inspired by the work of Dr

Margaret Colquhoun, Day believes that places have a universally understood language that can be found through close analysis.

Though different people will describe a place differently, perhaps even using contradictory language, the ‘spirit-of-the-place’ they

describe is the same. For example, a neighbourhood may be as both ‘friendly’ and ‘nosy’ but both adjectives are telling us the

same thing – namely that people in this place know each other well.

Similarly, Day also believes that people can usually agree on the underlying essence of a project – or put simply – what a building

should be used for and how it should respond to this36

To a degree, architects already understand both these two perspectives, albeit subconsciously.

#########################################################

34 Day, p. 45. 35 ibid, p. 21. 36 Ibid., p. 21.


Analysis of Pishwanton

Introduction

Pishwanton Wood - 60 acres of land at the foot of the Lammermuir Hills in East Lothian, Scotland - lies on a seam of red

sandstone, covered with a variety of glacial deposits. This diverse geology has lead to a range of natural habitats for animals. It also has a deep-rooted human history – an ancient track runs between hill forts to south and east with a burial mound at the

centre of the site. 37 (see Site Overview p 14) The Pishwanton Project is in the care of The Life Science Trust (see appendix 6), a

charity established in 1996 to oversee the management and restoration of the wood.38

On site, there are facilities for small-scale farming, and a craft workshop and outdoor spaces to train people in traditional skills

and provide therapy for those with special needs. There is a garden for herbs, and a Laboratory is under construction for the

practice of Goethean Science. Designs have been prepared for a Social Centre, permanent accommodation for a family, and staff,

and temporary accommodation for volunteers and clients.

Most of the key buildings are located along a route through the east of the site.39 The following pages are an analysis of this route,

and a key building at the head of the route - the Goethean Science Laboratory.

The following 12 pages are a record of my visit to Pishwanton from December 8th to 12th, 2010. Analysis continues on page 26.

#########################################################

37 Margaret Colquhoun, ‘Listening to the Mood, to the Atmosphere of a place’, in Landscape - Our Home: Essays on the Culture of the European Landscape as a Task, ed. Bas Pedroli (Stuttgart, Indigo), pp. 55 - 62

38 http://pishwanton.org/ 39 Colquhoun, p. 62.


Analytical Record of visit to Pishwanton (8th- 12th December 2010)

(all drawings and photographs Elizabeth Venning 2010)

- Site Overview

- Journey

- Detailed Analysis of the Goethean Science Laboratory

SITE OVERVIEWThis map shows the different thresholds and ‘mood boundaries’ on the site, and gives an idea of the diversity of Pishwanton Wood. Overlaid is the key journey that I have analysed.

15

14

9

13 2

4

56

67

8

10

12

13

* Map by Ulrike Stabe taken from ‘Threshold Map and Guide to the “All Ability Trail” - produced by Pishwaton Community wood.Mood boundary Map drawn during design process

Analysed Route

Point along route

Planned Buildings that are built:

Cruck barn,StableCompost toilet Craft workshopsGoethean Science Laboratory

Planned Buildings that haven't been built:Seed buildingGarden Orchard Social CentreStudent Accommodation

1

14

JOURNEYExperiences along a walk through Pishwan-ton Wood to the Goethean Science Laboratory and Church hill.

3.First view of the workshop. The large window looks out over your shoulder at the beautiful landscape. It encourages you to come and findthe entrance.

2.The old entrance to Pishwanton, now the ‘tradesman’s entrance’. Low slung back walls of buildings, some piled with logs say ‘not much to see here!’.

1. Approach to Pishwanton, with views of the Lammermuir Hills to the left. The subtle presence of the kiln shed alerts you to the beginings of a settlement.

15

6.The forest breaks down to smaller trees, and then a managed orchard, through which a gable of the workshop peers. Planting is oftenused at pishwanton the soften or enhance the transition between spaces.

5.As soon as you are through the gate, a path bends to the left, winding through the tall pine trees - follow me! These paths are disabled accesible, but as a rule, eveyone must stay on the path.

4. Main entrance to Piswanton. Gate posts bend inwards welcoming you, and mysterious structures ask to beexplored. This place was found to be the most appropriate site for an entrance by different volunteers taking part in landscape studies. 16

?

6.The workshop building wraps around a large open space where fires are lit and people have gath-ered to eat picnics and carry out manual work since before the workshop was built. The building looks to this space, as well as welcoming you in under it’s roof.

7.Walk past the Workshop and you arrive at the area desig-nated for residential accommodation for visiting students/clients and volunteers. At the bottom of the slope is the kiln shed that you pass on the road. Consensus broke down about the buildings on this site - largely becau-se the initial sizing of the programme wasnt carried out corr-ectly and so the building was designed at the wrong scale.17

9.To the right a dense pine forest, screaming with rooks, looms at your shoulder, offering glimpses to the wider hills. To the left is a sort of ‘breathing space’ - there is a garden situated in the large clearing, bounded by young beech trees. This is filled with herbs, flowers and vegetables in summer, that can be used for teaching and Goethean science.

8. The main path bends to the left following along a ridge in the land-scape that divides two contrasting spaces.

18

?

12.The first elevation you encounter directly is domestic and friendly. It underplays what is going on inside the building (architecturally and scientifically)

11.To enhance this gesture, the path is bordered by a mound of earth. The entrance of the laboratory is on the far end, an only reveals itself at the last moment (see later) to those who know where it is.

10. The approach to the Goethean Science Laboratory is a public right of way. However the building is veiled by trees, and turns it’s shoulder to the public - this is a private place.

19

Plan of Goethean Science Laboratory

1

2

1. Herb-processing workshop

2. Conservatory

internal and external routes

Seed Drying Sheds - removed from proposal

* Photograph of a drawing by Richard Shorter, Executive Architect for the Goethean Science Laboratory (not to scale) 21

Interior building gestures.The door opens into an enclosed space with two exits. Pass through the dominant exit and you are suddenly, and unexpectedly in a huge church like space (the laboratory) lit from the north by windows in the high roof and from the south through an expansive window. The curve that you experience exter-nally on the path, internally serve to bend you towards the view. The garden room that buffers the church like space from the outdoors is curved in order to give maximum views out. This gesture is less expressive when experienced from outside.

Transition Space Church/Laboratory Garden Room

22

Exterior building gestures.The building is low, and presents a blank wall for the majority of the path and although not unfriendly, doesn't welcome you in. That is until you meet the embrace of the hidden entrance.

Hidden Entrance Welcoming porch

23

Building and landscape

The process of modelling and testing by different people from all angles means that the building is in harmony with the surrounding landscape. Tree lines correspond to roof lines and eves.

On the Laboratory, larch from Pishwanton is used to clad the building. Colour and texture help to create a building that is ‘of the site’

24

Detail

1

1

2

2

3

4

5

4

5

3

DetailBuilding gestures translate easily into detail. The back and roof of the building are thick and protective,balancing on lime mortared masonry piers. In contrast, the front ‘seeing windows’ are open and glazed to the view. Locally sourced, natural materials and easily understandable construction techniques reflect the ethics of the client as well as the pragmatics of the project (it was worked on by over 400 volunteers).

Christopher Day’s initial design was deemed too ‘hobbit-like’. A participant in the design process, sculptor Hansjorg Palm drew a massive blue glass building in response. The end result is the achieve-ment of both gestures in one building. The laboratory’s exterior is humble and blends into the trees but the interior expands into a light churchlike space

25


How is Consensus Design realised?

Consensus Design has been realised in the architecture if it achieves its aims of matching:

place and project,

place and people,

people and project.

I believe that to a large extent, this has happened at Pishwanton

place and project

It is difficult to convey subjective experiences – i.e. the harmony between buildings and landscape, without visiting the place.

However, I hope my drawings and photographs give some sense of how the place feels. I believe there is a genuine achievement at Pishwanton in the way that buildings respond to the landscape and views.

With such an expansive greenfield site, it would have been easy to locate buildings arbitrarily, or for ‘selfish’ or utilitarian reasons

– such as right at the top of the hill to get the best view – or close to the road for convenience. However at Pishwanton, the

subtleties of the landscape have dictated where things should be placed – and although it may appear arbitrary in plan, on visiting

the site, each building, the activity it houses, and the journey to it, feel completely appropriate to its location. (See 4 and 6, p16)

place and people.

The way each building, and the landscape responds to you as you move along the journey is one of the clearest reflections of the

design process. Forms explicitly welcome or deter you. Similarly the buildings respond from each vantage point, to the landscape

behind. (see Building and Landscape p 24)

I doubt this level of sensitivity and the subtleties of form, gestures and detail could have been achieved so fully without the help of

many participants, who can each study the building from their physical and personal points of view.

There are examples where consensus was achieved between two different interpretations of the situation, creating a form that

fulfilled the needs of both. (See Detail p 25)

Elizabeth Venning WSA3 2010-2011 !$#

people and project.

In terms of the relationship between people and project, as I was there in

the middle of winter, there were few people present interacting with the

buildings and so there is little I can use as evidence. However the ‘humanity’ in the architecture - the way it responds to you, providing

comfortable places to sit by a window for example - is clear. I do believe

that the activities at Pishwanton are enhanced by the architecture.

Where does Consensus Design fail to be realised?

people and process.

There is definitely a missing element to my experiences at Pishwanton, and

that is the social affect that the process has had on those involved. The

people who have participated in Consensus Design at Pishwanton have been

from all parts of the world, all backgrounds and with a wide variety of skills

and interests. Their unifying feature is however, that except for Dr

Colquhoun and Christopher Day, they have all been involved for a temporary (sometimes even one day) period, and so have no long-term

commitments to the project.

Dr Colquhoun believes that anyone – including transitory participants - can

achieve a meaningful analysis of place. I agree, and believe this fact is

reflected in the place/project harmony at Pishwanton. However I feel that in

being transitory, people’s influence on the creation of buildings is somewhat

diminished.

Nevertheless, there are many examples where contributions from different

people affected the eventual architectural outcome at Pishwanton (for

example the changes to the Goethean Science Centre).

!"#$%&'(')*+",&'-.&'/%01-'23%4+.35'

Elizabeth Venning WSA3 2010-2011 !%#

process and style.

Christopher Day has a very distinct style and way of detailing architecture,

(the rounding of window and door corners is the most obvious example).

This is his signature on the design. In theory, another architect, should they have followed this process would have created buildings with equally

appropriate gestures and intentions but in their own style. I believe there is

the potential for different kinds of architecture to stem from the same

process.

Whether I or anyone else likes the end product at Pishwanton is irrelevant

to the validity of the process. No designer can be invisible and what is important is that the clients and participants of Consensus Design are

attuned to the aesthetic of the architect, and satisfied that they contributed

in a large part to the final outcome.

!"#$%&'6'7.&'/.081&%&,'2"*,39+'0*,',33%+'50%-":$;0%'-3'

/.%"+-35.&%'<0=>+'93%4'

Elizabeth Venning WSA3 2010-2011 !&#

Consensus Design – Myth or Method?

Consensus Design at Pishwanton has lead to a unique development comprising buildings that are sensitive to landscape and where

there is a genuine sense of matching place to project, and people to place. I also believe that these buildings are unusually

beautiful places to be in and around, (and should be visited). Consensus Design offers a method for working with people that is not tokenistic, but helps to create better architecture and a more sustainable built environment.

One of the key questions I wished to answer before I began my research was to what extent Christopher Day was vital in the

process, and whether others could be substituted in his role. It is obvious from the failings of the chalet designs (see figure 14

p20) that the architect is a key participant, but I believe that any architect, so long as they understand and adhere to the

fundamental principles of the process, could use this method in their work.

One of the main barriers to the process being adopted by architects more generally is with the architects themselves, and their preconceptions of the process. For example, an architect working for a London practice (personal communication), questioned if

this method would result in un-daring architecture.

I also came to the project with reservations that this process might be the preserve of ‘woolly hippy buildings on the top of

mountains’. However I have discovered that any type of architecture can arise from the process, as it is generated by the situation

and site. If these require daring or ‘statement’ architecture- as I presume would be the case one the site of the Twin Towers – the

Consensus Design process could produce radically different architecture as a response.40

Another concern is that Consensus Design can only succeed with clients who are already familiar with this consensual way of

working. For example the Steiner Movement in Education favours ‘consensus’ in a school environment, and unsurprisingly, Steiner

schools make up a large proportion of Christopher Day’s past clients.

However, my experiences at school have proven that radical ideas can be brought into mainstream application and the only way to

find out is to test them41. So long as the client is open to the idea, and open to changing the way they look at the world and work

together, there is no reason why it couldn’t be translated to any circumstance.

With the changing mood of the times, I believe people are going to be increasingly open to change, and eager to participate in decisions that affect them. If Architects are willing to adapt to meet this challenge, I believe that, Consensus Design can offer a

meaningful methodology for participation, and a key tool for 21st Century Architectural Practice.

#########################################################

41 Parnell, p. xiv.

Elizabeth Venning WSA3 2010-2011 '(#

Bibliography

Books:

Arnstein, S, ’The ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the Institute of American Planners, 34, No 4, 1969

Blundell Jones, Peter, Doina Petrescu and Jeremy Till, Architecture and Participation, (Oxon: Spon Press, 2005)

Crawford, M.C, M Comerio, JN Habraken and H Sanhoff, Out of Site: A Social critiscism of architecture, (Washington: Bay Press, 1991)

Day, Christopher, with Rosie Parnell, Consensus Design, (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2003)

Day, Christopher, Spirit and Place, (Oxfor d: Architectural Press, 2002)

Habraken, John, M. Comerio and Henry Sanoff ed., Participatory Design: Theory and Techniques, (?: North Carolina State university, 1990)

Hamdi, Nabeel, Housing without Houses; Participation, Flexibility, Enablement, (London: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991)

Journals:

Murray, Christine, ‘Leader: Adapt to Localism or Die’, Architect’s Journal, 233 (2010) 18

Images

Figure 2. Courtesy of Neil Mantell, Learning to Lead Link Teacher

Figure 3. ’Planning for Real’, Nabeel Hamdi, Housing without Houses; Participation, Flexibility, Enablement, (London: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991) p. 158.

Figure 4. Sherry Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Participation’, ’The ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the Institute of American Planners, 34, No 4, 1969

Figure 5. Christopher Day, with Rosie Parnell, Consensus Design (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2003), p. 20.

Figure.8 Day, p. 135.

Figure 9, ibid.,, p. 64

Figure 10. ibid., p. 84

All other images – Elizabeth Venning 2010

Elizabeth Venning WSA3 2010-2011 ')#

Appendix 1 – ‘Learning to Lead’ at the Blue School

‘Learning to Lead is a training and consultancy organisation born out of a concern for the lack of opportunity for

genuine student involvement in the life of school communities. The last five years have been dedicated to creating a

model of school community council to address this need, so that students can 'self-elect' to be a part of a supportive

organisation made up of student-led teams, in which they develop their ideas and are responsible for turning these

ideas into positive action.

Learning to Lead has piloted and developed this way of working in the Blue School, Wells, Somerset.

We train teachers to become ‘in school’ Learning to Lead Facilitators to provide each student with training courses and support to enable them to work collaboratively towards what they want to achieve.

When trained, the students meet and run meetings each week in teams to progress their projects.

In this process they learn:

team working and facilitation skills

agenda planning and minute taking

collaborative decision making

reviewing and planning

goal-setting and budgeting

the distinction between governance, management and action

the meaning of accountability, transparency and responsibility’.

From Learning to Lead website42

#########################################################

*!#+,-./#0123-#4./5266#./7#85923-:#;<9.5#=2#78#>#./#8?23?12=#8@#8,3#.AA38.B9C#D+8E23-25F#G2.3/1/H#58#G2.7#I8EE,/15J#K/5232-5#I8EA./J#

!()(L#M#955AFNN===O62.3/1/H5862.7O83HO,PN1/72QOA9ARE.1/S.T8,5U-,TS.AA38.B9V#W#.BB2--27#$59#X./,.3J#!())Y#DAO#)LO#

Elizabeth Venning WSA3 2010-2011 '!#

Appendix 2 – AJ Article

‘Leader: Adapt to Localism or Die. To survive in the big society, architects must be experts in PR, says Christine

Murray

What might have been a bit of empty rhetoric is real. This week’s Localism Bill is proving to be the cornerstone of the mooted ‘Big Society’. As the AJ whent to press, sneak previews of the bill reveal upheaval aplenty for the planning system, but more crucially,

the profession.

What does this mean? 1. Less work for architecs – public encouraged to submit own planning applications

2. Unpaid work for architects – council adopting neighbourhood plans adopted by referendum. Community groups will also have

increased power in reviewing and deciding on planning applications.

… Advice to architects…Localism is here, and they had better get used to it, and fast. In this new paradigm, architects no longer have just one client to satisfy, but a whole parish or neighbourhood. They will need to engage in community consulations at

several stages, to ensure their scheme has been adequately anointed.

Community consultations are not new but they are often an unloved aspect of the design process. Yes it can be a drag to explain

architecture to the plebs, but architects who do it effectively are those that will succeed in the big society. … every architect must

become a Kevin McCloud – making architecture accessible and exciting.

….Large scale projects will need to develop a public relations strategy at the earliest stages of design, working on behalf of the client from the outset to gain public backing. Communities must be involved at the doodling stage, to ward off negative knee-jerk

reactions to renderings and fly-throughs. And renderings will need to sell more than the architecture, showcasing playgrounds,

extra parking, and traffic calming, aka: crowd pleasers. Promotional material for an advertising campaign for a scheme in a

contested area could become part of the paid service an architect provides.

In many ways, Localism PR is already here. Take Chelsea Barracks – the initial slick renderings featured glass towers with hard

shadows and a manufactured landscape, while the revised masterplan is a watercolour like soft focus drawing that has been

successfully promoted to thousands of punters at town hall meetings. …. In the Big Society, ‘hearts and minds’ campaigns will become standard issue’.43

#########################################################

*'#Christine Murray, ‘Leader: Adapt to Localism or Die’, Architect’s Journal, 233 (2010) p. 18#

Elizabeth Venning WSA3 2010-2011 ''#

Appendix 3 – History of Participation in Architecture and Planning

Participation was born initially out of a reaction to the ‘dominant technical rational approach’ of modernism and was a call for

‘social justice and citizen empowerment’.

In the 1950’s people first became involved in the planning process. The public were given the right of objection or appeal to development plans concerning new construction and slum clearance. In reality the process was convoluted and success unlikely. It

was a start however, and in the 1960’s, inspired by public protest and grassroots pressure, the 1969 Housing Act ’ demanded that

people be consulted before rather than after final plans’. This was in response to new road construction that destroyed ‘hundreds

of thousands of homes nationwide’ and a symptom of growing community empowerment.44 During this early period ‘the utopian

ideals of design and planning professionals’ were countered by their lack of political power and so initial idealism was waning by

the end of the decade. 45

In 1974, participation became part of planning law. The government created a greater role for residents in planning decisions

regarding designated general improvement areas. Black Road General Improvement area No. 1 in Macclesfield (1968-1975) was

the first example of a project in which local residents, challenged and brought about change in a local authority’s redevelopment

plans. In processes ranging from tokenistic, with residents brought in to ‘confirm the convictions of designers’, to full integration of

people into the design and planning process, Architects and planners also began working with people on design proposals such as

Project Assist (1972) in Glasgow and the PSSHAK projects (1972 Stamford Hill/1978 Adeleide Road).46

In some instances, the institutionalisation of participation meant that it was ‘seen as an end rather than a means to creating a

more just environment’. So in parallel to this, ‘alternative community architecture’, that was as much a manifestation of designer

as the community, was developing in projects such as Erskine’s Housing at Byker (1970), Kroll’s Medical Dormitories in Louvain La

Neuve, deCarlo’s university expansion in Urbino and Habraken’s Support Structures for housing in the Netherlands.

The 1980’s, saw a less idealistic emphasis on ‘self-reliant economic and community development’. Also, activists, planners and

designers worked with residents and users ‘to develop tools that made participation processes more effective on the ground’.47

#########################################################

**#Z.E71#:#AAO#$"[$$#*\#0.3/266:#AO#QO#*"#Z.E71#AAO#$"[$$#

#

Elizabeth Venning WSA3 2010-2011 '*#

Participation also became part of the government’s social inclusion policy –‘though it still remains unclear what the intention is and

how it should be achieved.’ 48

Now in the 2000’s, participation falls under many banners - ‘neighbourhood planning, community based development, community

planning’, ‘public voice…’. Practitioners hold a range of beliefs, seeing participation as anything from ‘a political cause and mechanism for social change’ to the key to developing an accessible inclusive design method.49 Participation is also an important

part of the sustainability agenda. However, governmental advice on participation is vague; in ‘Sustainable Communities: Building

for the future’ (2003), one paragraph in 68 pages refers to participation:

‘…Effective engagement and participation by local people, groups and businesses, especially in the planning, design and long-term

stewardship of their community, and an active voluntary and community sector’. 50

#########################################################

*%#]388E2:##AO#"%O#*&#0.3/266:#AO#QO#\(#]388E2:#AO#"%O##

Elizabeth Venning WSA3 2010-2011 '\#

Appendix 4 – Quotes from Participants of Consensus Design Process

!"#$%&'?'@$3-&+'1%38'50%-":"50*-+'31'>/3*+&*+$+'<&+"#*>'

Elizabeth Venning WSA3 2010-2011 '"#

Appendix 5 – Consensus Design Process

!"#$%&'A'B$880%='31'-.&'>5;0:&C+-$,=>'5.0+&' !"#$%&'DE'B$880%='31'-.&'<&+"#*'F.0+&'

Elizabeth Venning WSA3 2010-2011 '$#

Process

1. Spirit-of-the-Place.

The ‘site’ is traditionally is seen as a place to impose architecture. Day sees the site as something you must work with in order to create architecture that is at home in its environment51. The aim is an ‘understanding of the past, present and future of the site at

multiple levels’ 52 in order that spirit-of-project and spirit-of-place can mutually enhance each other.

Levels of understanding:

1. Surroundings – how changes - such as in neighboring activities or regional socio-economics – will influence the site and the

future project53

2. First impressions of the site – intuitive, subjective analysis, which enables you to understand distinct parts of the site and divide

it into, sub-places54

3. Detailed analysis of place on four levels:

[ ‘Material level’ - physical observations based on sight, smell, touch and sound – disciplined, unemotive, and factual.

[ ‘Continuity level’ – Temporal study of the journey through a place and/or its history.

[ ‘Emotional level’ – the moods evoked by each sub-place.

[ ‘Essence/spirit level’ – the identity of the place which suggests itself subliminally.

Each participant is responsible for a sub-place and point of view on the site. No one else is to intrude on this. This place is studied through a progression down the levels. By the end, participants define the ‘Spirit-of-the-place’ using a phrase or number of

phrases.

#########################################################

\)#^.J:##AO#\)O#\!#0.3/266:#AO#1QO#\'#^.J:#AAO#\'[\*#\*#1T17O:#AO#\"O#

Elizabeth Venning WSA3 2010-2011 '%#

2. Artistic Creation through a scientifically rigorous condensation process- Spirit-of-the-Project

The second part of the process mirrors the first:

- The ‘spirit’ of the proposal is defined with a phrase - What the new intervention says must be an extension of what the place

already says – otherwise it wont feel at home there.55

- The moods that are needed to support this are identified

- The temporal relationships and activity that generate these moods are defined

- The physical buildings needed to accommodate the activity, and the gestures required to emphasise moods begin to ‘condense’

out of the process.

This design stage moves rapidly and requires the input and involvement of everyone.

1. Match the activities and moods to the moods of the sub-places indentified in place analysis

2. Mark boundaries between activities and moods on site, physically demarcating with stakes and string. Establish which

boundaries buildings would reinforce.

! Record with string on site, record plan on paper.

3. Identify spatial sequences that reinforce the moods by walking the key route and at each sub-place and threshold questioning which form gestures, rhythms, qualities of movement, walls, gateways, concealed places, and views are

appropriate to the mood.

! Strings and plan altered

4. Organising diagrams and pragmatic sizing of building area with estimated proportions used to make paper ‘buildings’, which

can then be laid onto the plan and distorted to create required gestures. Room dimensions checked.

! Strings altered, plan altered, section diagrams drawn

#########################################################

\\#^.J:#AO#'%O#

Elizabeth Venning WSA3 2010-2011 '&#

Plan is used to build a clay model that clarifies the relationships between buildings and routes. The model can be held up

against landscape to understand the relationship between the two.

People adapt the model - according to their point of view- to achieve the best mood.

! Strings, clay model, plan and sections altered

5. Decisions about detail - materials, colour, precise shape or size – are made.

‘Since.. decisions are founded on a deep understanding of place and initiative, … it takes little extra time and effort to

achieve consensus on details… [they] are no longer matters of individual preference to dispute but servants of aims we

have already agreed’.56

!Plan, sections and clay model refined. Elevations drawn and tested with chosen materials

6. Phasing of build planned so that even with one building, the project feels complete. Each new phase should build on the

mood of the last.

! Model recorded, then all but first phase removed and project ‘grown’ to check phasing sequence.

7. Model assed for environmental factors (sun, wind, noise) and area cost check

! Check on site

8. Drawings refined to communicate to others (i.e. planners/craftsmen). Largely done by Christopher Day, but others such as executive architect Richard Shorter also contribute drawings. Feedback from planners, craftsmen/building contractors,

engineers.

#

! Design adjusted

#########################################################

\"#^.J:#AO#$\O#

Elizabeth Venning WSA3 2010-2011 *(#

Appendix 6

Aims of the Life Science Trust:

- Restore/replant the Woodland

- Provide facilities for small-scale farming; goats, a horse and cattle - Create spaces to train people in traditional skills of homemaking, building, farming, forestry and gardening*

- Provide therapy for those with special needs through a relationship with nature.

- Provide permanent accommodation for a family and practitioners, and temporary accommodation for volunteers and

clients.57

#########################################################

\$#4.3H.325#I86_,98,/#./7#85923-:#;<26B8E2#58#01-9=./58/`C:#Da92#G1@2#+B12/B2#a3,-5:#!()(L#LOM955AFNNA1-9=./58/O83HN#V#W#.BB2--27#$59#

X./,.3J#!())Y#DAO#)L#

Documents

Consensus Design - Myth or Method