I had an interesting discussion with the students at our D.C. training this month. We were debating the trade-offs of workshops in which a select group of stakeholders participate in virtually the entire event participating in the design sessions elbow to elbow with the professional design team.

We talked about the obvious advantages of having a group of special stakeholders immersed with the design team. These people gain an in-depth understanding of the design as well as being true co-authors of the plan. My colleagues and NCI curriculum contributors, Sandy Wiggins and Jennifer Rezeli, use this method for their sustainable design charrettes. They find that this method is the most effective for “changing mindsets,” an essential goal of sustainable projects.

Although the NCI charrette model certainly does not preclude this approach, the method taught in our classes is different. In the NCI multiple-day charrette, stakeholders typically participate in a series of intermittent design session and reviews that are spaced over the multiple days. Primary stakeholders, decision makers and other gatekeepers are typically involved more than the general public but all have a chance to review and participate at key decision points. Community members may come to two or three evening meetings throughout the charrette, while agency staff may come to those plus two or more meetings during the day.
In D.C. we discussed how the first model assures a very well informed set of project champions while the second approach may result in broader, less in-depth education of a much larger group.

So the question is, does the first approach limit the potential for broad, long-term community support, or can this smaller group carry the message and the project?

Does the NCI intermittent meeting approach offer more opportunity for a broader community involvement while the continuous, immersed participation limits the potential for shared learning to those who can afford to take the time to participate full-time?

Perhaps the immersed approach lends itself to small projects like community centers or campus planning. In fact, I believe that Sandy and Jenn use the first approach for these types of projects. The intermittent NCI method may be best suited for larger community projects. Then, of course, there is the potential to do both, which I believe Sandy and Jenn have also done.

The other aspect of this discussion is the debate around delegated community participation practiced in Australia by Wendy Morris and Chip Kaufman and, I believe, espoused by Andres Duany versus the open model.
I welcome a vigorous discussion about these differing approaches.