Most of us in Charrettes (and in life, I’m guessing), work diligently to avoid facing Hobbesian decisions, or making a choice in which only one option is offered - and we may only refuse to take that option, a “take it or leave it” proposition.  So, in Charrettes at least, we begin with many choices, although often necessarily abstract and imprecise - say four ways to design a neighborhood, align a road, or create an economic development program. The choices can be generated by the stakeholders (best) and/or the Charrette Team.

These early “concepts” evolve into alternatives or schemes through the work of the Charrette Team, to more clearly define and communicate the attributes of the plan or program (since a Charrette can help design a town’s redevelopment or a program to achieve a more economically and environmentally sustainable region).  We create these choices for the public and/or so-called “stakeholders” so that they can compare and weigh the benefits and drawbacks of each, suggest revisions and refinements, synthesize the best ideas, and select their favorite or number one alternative.

At very least, these alternatives provide another option, the ability to rate each numerically or otherwise, according to preagreed “performance criteria” - economic, mobility, environmental, energy, aesthetic, etc. - and then allow a final selection or decision by others such as elected representatives, subsequent to the Charrette.

This process should be transparent - meaning that the goals and objectives, and their respective performance metrics - should be clearly solicited when and where appropriate, then communicated by measurable and well-defined text and graphics from beginning to end.  What’s more, the goals and metrics should be comprehensive - covering all essential elements of the plan or program - and both qualitative (e.g., reflects local culture) and quantitative (e.g., achieves economic targets).

This process separates Charrettes from the more conventional linear process of “design it, show it, and refine it” - too often a take or leave it proposition.  So, Charrettes should offer enough choices to satisfy the participants, a transparent and rigorous process for evaluating alternatives, and an agreeable method of deciding - that doesn’t have to take place during the Charrette.