Experiential Engagement - An analysis in terms of Planning and the community

Do these people pictured represent the community or are they users of this place?
Are they free riders that just use the place and the community pays for it? The community not only deserves to have a say in their future, they can make a valuable contribution through their detailed understanding of the place.
We have a responsibility to contribute, collaborate and debate outcomes on behalf of the common good as well as individual interest.
The outcome of urban design is as much about means as ends. Of course we need to engage the community in the process rather than only ‘consulting’ them. Good communication between stakeholders is vital.

With the orientation of Planning now creating focus towards communities since the 1970's (Duffy and Hutchinson 1997) with an emphasis on partnership, empowerment and consultation. To me I feel that the process is still top down, in that the political process that controls planning, well here in Australia removes the notion of one of the three, empowerment.

Can this empowerment be sourced from the key stakeholders that are within the communities context. As in do the public know what they think is right, well cars and housing currently go together like jam on bread. It's not necessarily a good thing on mass. But the lifestyle of a suburban dweller is actually more connected and community aware than a inner city dweller, as Brueckner and Largey put it, as social interactions go down as the densities go up (2006).

Creating livable urban environments – places that are good to live, work, and play – starts with the community. A consultation process that’s well planned, well carried out, and the right style for the community, will let you learn what people value, what things they want changed, and want they want council to manage.

"No other expertise can be substituted for locality knowledge in planning, whether the planning is creative, coordinating or predictive” Jane Jacobs.

So does this mean that we can have a social, dynamic society without a governing body? This is where community auditing can be used as a method of consultation (Murtagh 1999). But this analysis has to be done without prejudice and with the community in mind. But what if this process is not done correctly? The problem with analysis is that it takes a slice of attitudes and could also fail with reinterpretation by what was said and not written down.

What if the voice gets lost or is misunderstood by trusted people in the chain of authority? Jacob talks of the importance of “hop-and-skip” relationships. This relationship within the community relates to Highgate Hill and West End. As part of the development process, signs are placed in the public realm.

Such signs give notice publicly advertising the fact that something is going on and here it is. You’re able to find out what is going on before anything happens. All details are available; there are no middle men to hide key factors or to mislead infringing interests.

Remember that consultation without action is meaningless. With the information you get from the community let the community know how you'll use it. Allowing communities to self govern as well as developing broader policy direction than to micromanage is the step forward in achieving this.

Fleshing out HOPSCA: What is it?

HOPSCA is a prescribed type of mixed use not permitted to be made organically like 
ancient or medieval mixed use centers over centuries.The ingredients of a HOPSCA are its 
SCALE of a minimum of 15,000 resident population in medium and high density living units. Minimum of 10ha land component. 

ACTIVE TRANSPORT NETWORK that incorporates active and passive modes, non-motorised and motorised networks. 

RESOURCE STREAMLINING of HOPSCA's will contribute to social cohesion, efficiency and sustainability through sharing of resources. But they also seem to be targeted at the middle to higher incomes and also displace the local community as they are artificially created communities which I found somehow disheartening as I would personally like to see a more social housing to be included.

I think HOPSCA's are a good way to create economic centers in areas that have a low cost so that the developer profits by creating them. I looked at possible locations for a HOPSCA around the city of Brisbane in Australia based on having empty land, sites that could fit one and the lands proximity to transport networks (roads or rail). What I have demonstrated is that it would be more successful if it was better matched with the local area, I think connecting to the community is the most difficult part. I think it's important to have the existing community benefit from HOPSCA. 

How can the requirements of the community be met by a HOPSCA?

Yes, more funds = more development. I wonder what the percentage of types there are. Perhaps it's Hotel 30%, Office 10%, Park 5%, Shopping 15%, Convention 10%, Apartments 30% of the space. Also, stages of development are also to be considered but they need to be self supporting. Unité d'Habitation, of course. 

Having uses in one building. Howards scale is very large, but not the scale of HOPSCA. It is more like Le Corbusier, perhaps in between these.

The hub of this is the predetermined mixed use of Hotel, Office, Park, Shopping, Convention, Apartments (HOPSCA) is that they are flexible in terms of scale of operation. Depending on how it is funded, is it public (Government) or private (Venture) created? Because of it's scale, it has a major influence in shaping larger Planning Policy. Some developments I have seen are done in stages, they respond to the markets need for office spaces or retail. So, predicting these market forces will shape HOPSCA. How they relate to the larger environment is also a matter of looking if they provide a gap in the market as well. So regionally you need to see it's context and it's catchment of influence for each service.

A HOPSCA can also be funded by the Government like Liverpool One in which business also made it happen. Everybody loves Profit :) I believe that people are considered after all people are customers as well. So are you saying that a HOPSCA is more about Real Estate than a TOD or mixed use is? On LinkedIN there's about 70 people that identify themselves with HOPSCA. Perhaps I'm an idealist when it comes to Planning.

1.- Houses = residents < They live in the complex. 
2.- Services = customers < Traffic from outside to the complex but also from residents. 
3.- Offices = workers < Majority of people that live in the houses go to the offices. 
4.- Transport = users <Visitors to the complex, but not a Transit Orientated Development. 

5. Parks = residents+users <These as well as visitors 
6. Convention = Residents < as well as Hotel guests 

7. Hotel = Residents < A majority would work and live within the HOPSCA 

In some ways it models what a small village is like. Perhaps making things simpler to understand is the key to having larger support by Governments. The term "City within a City" has been used also to make this clearer. It tries to provide services like a city on a smaller scale, but perhaps it needs to grow like a village to town then to a city so that it can be financially flexible. 


Perhaps the time/scale of such a development could be made like a growing town, bit by bit so that it can evolve like a city.



I would like to thank Mehmet Rıfat Akbulut; JOSÉ GUADALUPE PACHECO ESTRADA & Aman Trehan in discussing these on LinkedIN.