Page 1

AUDRC Research P4

A summary report on the research and development of innovative tools for community engagement, communication and collaborative design for planning and urban design policy and projects


AUDRC P4 A summary report on the research and development of innovative tools for community engagement, communication and collaborative design for planning and urban design policy Principal Author Dr Anthony Duckworth Contributors Grace Oliver

Foreword This report is part of AUDRC’s core research programme. It is commissioned by representatives of the funding agencies of AUDRC’s collaborative research agreement (Western Australian Planning Commission, Landcorp, Department of Communities WA). As such it focusses on applied research, the goals and objectives of which are to assist with the development and implementation of key planning and design policy.

ISBN: 978-0-6483070-5-1

AUDRC | University of Western Australia


Contents


Introduction | 6 / Aims, Objectives & Method | 8 // Projects 1 Citizen Block | 10 2 Diversify your Suburb | 18 3 Master My Plan | 26 4 My Best Home | 34 5 Streets Ahead | 44 //// Summary & Recommendations | 54 Key References | 58


Introduction

This report outlines the development and testing of a number of innovative tools for community engagement, communication and collaborative design to support the development of spatial planning and design policy.

Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


Introduction | AUDRC P4 6 | 7

The development, implementation and application of planning and design policy across a range of scales to meet strategic planning objectives requires the dissemination and incorporation of spatially related knowledge between a range of stakeholders. This knowledge can be complex and often requires demonstration of the policy development process as well as the spatial outcomes themselves.

carriage and implementation, creating the conditions for community-led planning.

Stakeholders can range from professions with specialised knowledge through to the general population who may initially have a limited context for being able to understand and contribute to policy development and application.

The development of built environment planning and design policy is important as cities grow through population growth and migration. Getting the policy settings both correct and supported is critical to be able to either uphold or improve the quality of life for existing and new residents.

Effective engagement which achieves the objectives of both dissemination/incorporation of spatially related knowledge and doing this in a broadly inclusive and collaborative manner promises to not only get the policy components right but to also generate broad support to assist with its

Alternatively a lack of inclusivity and engagement in the development of planning and design policy can create the conditions for stern resistance during implementation and application.

The research and development activities outlined in this summary report are presented as tools to help achieve this.

Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


/ Aims, Objectives & Method

The broad strategic goal addressed in this project is the realisation of state government plans for a more compact and sustainable city form. This is significantly dependent on the effective formulation/development, communication and implementation of planning and design policy. A significant part of meeting this goal is therefore to ensure that those who hold agency in the accomplishment of these stages are able to contribute in an effective way and also feel that they have contributed. This is complex as the built environment is a shared and common resource whether used to achieve economic gain or as a ‘container’ for our everyday lives. This acknowledgement of the broad importance and interest/investment in the built environment presents a significant part of the participation challenge – in some instances there may be a vast array of voices that need to be heard and integrated into the process. The research aim is to provide tools to help achieve broad support for new spatial planning and policy measures. The research objectives are: 1. To develop tools to assist in obtaining effective contributions from a variety of stakeholders in the development, implementation and application of planning and design policy 2. To ensure that stakeholders genuinely participate in these stages at an appropriate level of involvement. 3. To instigate a collective approach to the development of public policy, to build trust between stakeholders and generate tolerance and limit opposition.

© AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019

To explain each of these objectives in greater detail: Effective Contributions require the following: Learning & Education To ensure different stakeholder types possess enough knowledge (baseline) to be able to communicate spatially about policy settings. Spatial Input & Invention Tools that are able to be used to explore spatial ideas and implications given different baseline knowledge level and for results to be communicated in a timely manner. Experimentation To avoid singular solutions and allow testing of different approaches and scenarios. Genuine Participation requires: Inclusivity The opportunity for effective contribution is inclusive of different ages, and abilities. Appeal the perceived cost of participation is lowered, or participation is genuinely appealing/inviting. Involvement Be offered to participants to achieve a sufficient level of involvement in the decision making process (Refer figure 1). A Collective Approach requires: A Format for contribution and participation which enables and encourages sharing of ideas, group reflection as well as building trust amongst often diverse stakeholder groups.


/ Aims & Objectives | AUDRC P4 8 | 9

Method Based on the specific needs of the objectives identified above the research project explored the potential of using Serious Games for playful participation in urban planning and design. The types of Serious Games explored were physical, scaled and interactive. Physical Serious Games were focussed on as they provide the ability to: • Meet learning and education needs in an enjoyable and accessible (inclusive) manner • Be tailored to meet specific spatial concepts for people with different baseline knowledge and requiring different levels of involvement • Lower the perceived cost (disincentive) of participation – high appeal. • Promotes sharing of ideas (collaboration) through playful interaction with no material interest. • Allow quick exploration of different scenarios (experimentation). Significance This project builds on existing strengths developed and currently under development at AUDRC in the use of innovative methods for community and stakeholder engagement. Typically these have involved interactive physical models to both communicate and test spatial planning concepts such as with The Freo Alternative1 in 2015, Pimp my Suburb for the 2017 State Planning Conference, more recently a series of Co-design workshops for the 2017 Vic Park Urban Forest Strategy and a TOD Activity Corridor workshop for PATREC

as part of the 35th Conference of Australian Institutes of Transport Research (CAITR). The research project builds on the acknowledgement of the Planning Ministers Award at the 2017 PIA WA Awards for Planning Excellence for the community engagement undertaken as part of The Freo Alternative. The potential of the approach to generate community-led planning outcomes was also demonstrated with the ministers approval and gazettal of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme Amendment No.63 (the Freo Alternative) in February 2019. Structure The report presents the development, testing and reflection of five differenmt prototypes of physical Serious Games. These are each presented in terms of: • Description • Objectives • Methods & Design • Activities & Gameplay • Workshops • Discussion • Results Against Objectives • Feedback from Participants • Application & Policy Relevance The format is intended to give an overview of each of the specific projects and their performance. At the end of the analysis of the different projects is a summary which contains a framework of elements for conceptualising the design of physical Serious Games for use in the development of spatial planning and policy.

1 Recipient of Planning Ministers Award and commendation for Community Consultation category of 2017 PIA State Awards for Planning Excellence

IAP2’s PublIc PArtIcIPAtIon sPectrum The IAP2 Federation has developed the Spectrum to help groups define the public’s role in any public participation process. The IAP2 Spectrum is quickly becoming an international standard.

PromIse to the PublIc

PublIc PArtIcIPAtIon GoAl

Inform

consult

Involve

collAborAte

emPower

To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions.

To obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions.

To work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered.

To partner with the public in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution.

To place final decision making in the hands of the public.

We will keep you informed.

We will keep you informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and aspirations, and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision.

We will work with you to ensure that your concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in the alternatives developed and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision.

We will look to you for advice and innovation in formulating solutions and incorporate your advice and recommendations into the decisions to the maximum extent possible.

We will implement what you decide.

© IAP2 International Federation 2014. All rights reserved.

Figure 1 IAP2s Public Participation Spectrum Table © AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


// Project 1: Citizen Block

CITIZEN B LOC K Š by Anthony Duckworth-Smith for AUDRC

Alliances and Partnerships: Property Collectives (VIC) Katherine Sundermann Architect

Description A 1:100 scaled interactive model tool to allow different households to plan and organise preliminary spatial layouts related to Citizen Led and Cooperative type housing development. Objective The model was attempting to provide a visual and spatial device through which people who were interested in forming a development group could come together and test their willingness to enter into this kind of arrangement and also explore the trade-offs and practicalities of such a collaborative approach to housing. Method and Design Participants pre-registered their interest with Property Collectives and also indicated which of the five budget ranges they would like to be assigned to and any preferences for private parking. These budget ranges were based on the Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019

cost of previous projects by Property Collectives and also preliminary feasibility of a site in Melbourne’s inner-north. The budgets ranged from $500k to $1.3M. The floor space and overall site model was based on a major 3m x 3m grid and a minor 3m x 1.5m grid. The minor grid of 3m x 1.5m was also useful for balcony, gardens and outdoor areas. The major grid dimension was selected as it is useful for standardising site elements such as parking and courtyards but also sufficiently abstract for floor space representation. Too much detail in terms of floor space representation, ie trying to make accurate room sizes and code different uses within dwellings etc tends to make participants focus on layout design rather than engage in a collaborative process concerned with site design, orientation, shared spaces, circulation and apartment position. The blocks were constructed in small (3m 3m x 3mht), medium (3m x 4.5m x 3mht) and large (3m x 6m x 3mht)


// Project 1: Citizen Block | AUDRC P4 10 | 11

sizes. The blocks were painted in vibrant and distinguishing colours (figure 2). The colours were selected to communicate a playful feeling, to increase the appeal and lower the perceived cost of participation. Following this participants were assigned a number of blocks which approximated a floor space allowance related to their individual budget (figure 3). Participant Purchase Floor Space Allowance Budget (m2) $500k

58

$700k

82

$900k

106

$1.1M

129

$1.3M

152

Figure 2 The colourful scaled blocks created for the project.

Table 1 Itemisation of floor space allowance and participant purchase budget amounts.

In addition to the private dwelling blocks a set of communal blocks were given to each group. These could be used for shared and enclosed facilities. A series of clear acrylic floor plates were designed and constructed in consultation with the project partners based on a 7 x 5 arrangement of the 3m x 3m grid and a perimeter of 1.5m depth representing the minor grid for balconies and planters. The circulation was arranged as a central point stair and elevator (figure 4)

Figure 3 Assignment of blocks for typical budget amounts.

The floor plates were based on the conceptual masterplan for the site in Stewart Street, Brunswick which was arranged as a series of four individual blocks (figure 5). The participants were split into four groups. Each group was allocated a range of budget preference amounts to give a spread of scale and possible building type. Activities and Gameplay The gameplay involved a collaborative group visioning exercise followed by a facilitated building exercise. The visioning exercise asked participants to write down three features that they would like to see in the shared and/or communal areas on separate note pages. These were then fixed to a large sheet of paper and grouped into thematic clusters.

Figure 4 Acrylic floor plate used in model. Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


D D

Kingfisher

Gardens

CC

AA

BB CERES Community Environment Park

Stewart St

reet

SITE LAYOUT

Figure 5 Masterplan of the site in Stewart Street, Brunswick. Stewart Street, Brunswick, 1:500@A3 Citizen-led Housing Developments Workshop Katherine Sundermann 24.02.18

Following this each participant was given three votes represented by round stickers and asked to vote on which cluster or specific feature they most supported. Participants could vote as many times as they liked on each cluster or feature (figure 6). This exercise allowed introduction and interaction of group members and set the context for a collaborative approach and the need to consider shared areas as a key component of the citizen-led housing development process. These preferences for shared areas could then be taken forward into the next stage of the workshop which was the collaborative or Co-design activity. The site was split into four tiles each with a proposed housing block. Each of the four participant groups received a tile. The Co-design activity asked participants to initially unpack their block allocation, take notice of the building orientation and site features. Following this commenced a building exercise (figure 7) where participants were able to place their blocks on the ground plane and gradually build up a building proposal. Participants were also given the option of placing balconies, planters, garden areas and trees either as a private or communal feature. © AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019

Vehicles were also included so that private and the potential for shared parking could be discussed. Workshops Workshop 1 (32 participants) – 18 March 2018, North Fitzroy Library, Melbourne (VIC) Workshop 2 (28 participants) – 18 April 2018, Melbourne School of Design (VIC)

Figure 6 Cluster and voting of individual group visioning exercise.


// Project 1: Citizen Block | AUDRC P4 12 | 13

Figure 7 Workshop 1 participants, North Fitzroy Library, Melbourne, Victoria

Discussion The format created an engaging activity with a high level of participation. Perhaps the most significant outcome was the realisation of many participants that the citizen-led housing process produced a series of challenging decisions and trade-offs: • Who is prepared to be on the ground floor? • Where should the communal facilities be located? • Who receives preferred northern orientation? • What are the impacts of shared facilities on private amenity? • Who receives private parking and how should this be allocated? • How can benefits be given to those who forgo preferred orientation? Whilst many participants entered into the process with a collective and optimistic spirit it became clear through the Co-design process that this form of housing required perhaps greater levels of negotiation and compromise as opposed to traditional purchase arrangements. Several participants indicated that they had potentially changed their mind about embarking on such a project. The developer was pleased

with this outcome as it can often be a long and expensive process to ‘weed-out’ those who are intrinsically not suited to this kind of development approach. Results Against Objectives Effective Contributions Learning & Education Participants learnt about the spatial challenges and decisions/trade-offs that needed to be made in a citizen-led development process. Developers learnt about the range of people interested in the approach and their suitability Spatial Input & Invention The tools were successful in allowing spatial exploration by community members with little or no design training or ability in a two hour workshop format. Experimentation Participants were able to explore different arrangements although the static nature of the model as floor plates were fixed in place made multiple scenarios more difficult to develop. (figure 8) © AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


Figure 8 Workshop 1 participants start to place their blocks on their site.

Genuine Participation Inclusivity The tools and method was easily followed by a range of ages and baseline abilities. Appeal The tools were readily taken up and participants were seen to be enjoying the process. Involvement Participants were involved at Involve and Collaborate levels of participation. Collective Approach The participants were clearly engaged in a collective decision making process, were sharing ideas and took part in group reflection and feedback.(figure 8) Feedback from Participants A short feedback survey was completed at the end of the exercise. Two of these questions related to the experience of Co-design activity. A summary of comments is provided below and used as evidence as performance against the © AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019

research objectives by highlighting the relevant objective/s at the end of each quote.

Q3 How did the collaborative design (Co-design) exercise with the blocks help with this? ‘Invaluable – having a physical model to work with clarified the reality of the compromises.’ (Education & Learning) ‘the blocks brought the core philosophy and motivations to life’ (Education & Learning, Involvement) ‘the ability of the blocks to involve everybody’ (Inclusivity) ‘Visualise the outcome, the importance of orientation’ (Learning & Education, Spatial Input & Invention) ‘Ability to visualise and meet and interact’ (Spatial Input & Invention, Inclusivity, Collective Approach) ‘The exercise of placing blocks really demonstrated the way that trade-offs play out’ (Education & Learning, Spatial Input & Invention)


// Project 1: Citizen Block | AUDRC P4 14 | 15

Figure 9 Workshop 1 participants present their designs. North Fitzroy Library, Melbourne, Victoria

‘Hands on and visual learning, more powerful than words and ideas’ (Education & Learning, Spatial Input & Invention) ‘The use of modular volumes freed up the creation of new ideas and possibilities’ (Spatial Input & Invention) Q4 What general comments do you have about the workshop? ‘Engaging, educational, Education, Appeal)

transformative’

(Learning

expectations and collectively design site plans. For example Baugruppe type projects. It provides a tool to assist with an alternative housing development pathway. It could be used in social housing project developments to assist with site planning and to foreground occupier specific spatial needs. It creates a collaborative design environment for housing projects generally.

&

‘Really enjoyed the process, the ability to negotiate with others in the group’ (Appeal, Collective Approach) ‘Great way to connect with others who have similar interests and aspirations’ (Appeal, Collective Approach) ‘Fantastic experience, really eye-opening’ (Education & Learning, Appeal) Application and Policy Relevance The research project could be applied to any citizenled housing development project to manage participant © AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


Figure 10 Workshop 1.The completed final models arranged on the site.

Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


// Project 1: Citizen Block | AUDRC P4 16 | 17

© AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


// Project 2: Diversify Your Suburb (Pimp my Suburb v2)

Alliances and Partnerships: PIA State Planning Conference 2018 (WA) PIA National Planning Congress 2018

Description This project extends the middle ring suburb intensification Co-design model which was successfully developed as part of The Freo Alternative. The development was to incorporate real time calculations into the process so that key planning controls could be reported back to participant groups. Participant groups were challenged to triple the density of their suburban tiles using standard pieces. Objective The objective is to investigate what design outcomes may be suitable for intensifying middle ring suburbs. In particular to explore what are the key trade-offs and understand what priorities participant groups establish. Ultimately the process was to deliver feedback to each of the groups on the types of planning controls that were put forward during the designs which could inform future planning policy.

Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019

Method and Design The process uses a 1:200 customisable scaled model. The model layout is based on a typical middle ring Australian suburb and comprises twenty separate tiles which are combined to make the entire suburb.(Figure 11) The model uses a base 5m x 5m grid with a 1.25m setback channel against each property fence line. Individual lot structures are either 17.5m wide x 47.5m deep or 12.5m wide x 47.5m deep. All of the existing elements are moveable – dwellings, trees, fences. Character cards were created to represent new households moving into the area (figure 12). Additional block pieces based on the 5m x 5m grid comprised new dwelling floorspace blocks ranging from 25m2 to 100m2 and new covered parking blocks. A series of 5m x 5m tiles were provided which represented communal spaces, gardens, deep soil zones and sustainable infrastructure. Additional small trees were also available to be used.


// Project 2: Diversify Your Suburb | AUDRC P4 18 | 19

Figure 11 Twenty separate tiles combined to represent a typical middle ring Australian suburb

Figure 12 Character cards used to represent new households shown on a participant group design. Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


Figure 13 Game pieces information sheet

Figure 14 ‘Score card’ used to record key data.

The game pieces are shown on Figure 13. In addition to the model elements a system of recording, analysing and presenting each participant group design was developed. This involved group participants completing a ‘score card’ at the end of the design session (Figure 14). This created key data inputs into for a series of calculations which were uploaded into presentation slides to give feedback on key planning controls/metrics. The slides reported both before and after conditions as well as indicating the range represented by all the designs (Figure 16). The controls/ metrics reported on were: • Density (dwellings per hectare) • Efficiency (floor space area per dwelling) • Parking Ratio (bays per dwelling) • Open Space Ratio • Deep Soil Zone (proportion of private site area) • Communal Space (proportion of private site area) Activities and Gameplay The activity involved a short introductory presentation followed by a 60minute Co-design exercise. The Co-design exercise asked participant groups to incorporate additional © AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019

households into the suburban lots using the pieces provided. Following completion of the individual group designs each participant group completed the score card. The individual models were then collected and returned back to their original locations on the overall suburban neighbourhood model. All participants were then encouraged to view and discuss the outcomes with each other (figure 15 ). Workshops Workshop 1 (32 participants) – 10 May 2018, Perth Convention Centre, Discussion The event proved successful in terms of incorporating a feedback dimension into the activity. Planning controls/ metrics were reported back to the participants at the end of the Co-design exercise and then sent to the participant groups afterwards. The idea was that the designs could be used to spatialise and inform possible policy controls for suburban infill.


// Project 2: Diversify Your Suburb | AUDRC P4 20 | 21

Figure 15 Combined models and group feedback

Figure 16 Examples of planning/control metric calculation output slide

Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


Results Against Objectives Effective Contributions Learning & Education Participants learnt about the spatial challenges and decisions/trade-offs that needed to be made in suburban infill developments. Participants were able to spatialise abstract planning controls/metrics such as Open Space. Spatial Input & Invention The tools were successful in allowing spatial exploration and allowed participant groups to explore innovative and alternative layouts of suburban lots including the opportunities afforded by lot amalgamation.(figure 17-18) Experimentation The moveable nature of the model materials allowed participants to explore multiple options during the Co-design exercise. Genuine Participation Inclusivity This particular workshop involved professional planners, so a broader concept of inclusivity could not be tested. Appeal The tools were readily taken up and participants were seen to be enjoying the process. Involvement Participants were involved at Involve and Collaborate levels of participation. Collective Approach The participants were clearly engaged in a collective decision making process, were sharing ideas and took part in group reflection and feedback. Feedback from Participants A short feedback survey was completed at the end of the exercise. One question related to the experience of Codesign activity. A summary of comments is provided below and used as evidence as performance against the research objectives by highlighting the relevant objective/s at the end of each quote. Q1. What aspects of the workshop were most useful? ‘Opportunity to interact, get creative.’ (Spatial Input & Invention, Collective Approach) © AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019

‘Teamwork, spatial aspects of working with models – enhanced spatial awareness.’ (Learning & Education, Spatial Input & Invention, Collective Approach) ‘Hands on approach and flexibility.’ (Inclusivity, Involvement) ‘Loved it! Very tangible and useful dialogue/sharing of ideas’ (Appeal, Learning & Education, Collaborative Approach) Application and Policy Relevance The tool was developed initially as part of a community engagement strategy to help realise a local planning scheme amendment to permit small infill housing in the City of Fremantle. It initiated as a policy development tool. It has broad application in the communication and education of infill opportunities and constraints in suburban areas. Particularly through the development of the feedback and analysis of designs it can be used to identify community and stakeholder-led spatial controls and settings for planning, policy and project development.


// Project 2: Diversify Your Suburb | AUDRC P4 22 | 23

Figure 17 Example of individual group participant design process and exploration of alternative layouts of suburban lots Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


Figure 18 Left: The individual group designs. Right: The typical Australian middle-ring suburb for comparison. Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


// Project 2: Diversify Your Suburb | AUDRC P4 24 | 25

© AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


// Project 3: Master My Plan

Alliances and Partnerships: Planning Institute of Australia (PIA), Landcorp, PIA Young Planners Network

Description This research project involved combining a precinct scaled Co-design process with an urban performance analytics digital interface. The project investigated if and how Codesign could be developed at a larger precinct scale, particularly to help inform community and stakeholder led development of masterplanning. Objective To create a system of rapid prototyping and evaluation of conceptual urban design masterplans in a multi-disciplinary and collaborative workshop environment. Method and Design The project involved the design of an interactive scaled physical 3-D Co-design tool which could be easily translated into an existing digital mapping platform. The key was that the individual modules or elements in the physical ‘gameboard’ both approximated physical structures in the Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019

urban environment and could also be readily translated into the digital mapping interface. This required consideration of both the typical elements used in a conceptual design exercise for the given context and identification of the key input parameters for the calculations performed in the digital analysis. A scale of 1:1000 and a base grid of 20m x 20m was chosen for the Co-design model. This scale still allows an appreciation of vertical scale of built form elements but can also be used to approximate the smallest elements, for example road reserve widths. This scale also allowed the size of the game board to be manageable for typical regeneration site dimensions - 500 to 1000m. The final model elements reflected a range of different building types, land uses, vegetation and open space uses (figure 19).


// Project 3: Master my Plan | AUDRC P4 26 | 27

Figure 19 Example of different building types, land uses, vegetation and open space uses in completed models. Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


Figure 20 Example of key spatial theme used in initial presentation to non-design participants.

Activities and Gameplay Participant groups of approximately 6 to 8 persons were charged with developing a conceptual Masterplan for an urban regeneration site. They were given a brief which included site analysis and development context. The participant groups were not from a design background so they were also given a presentation on three key spatial themes for consideration in their preliminary design: 1) Movement Networks, 2) Density/ Activity Distribution and 3) Open Space Structure (figure 20). Following this the groups started to make collective decisions about the organisation and patterns of the key spatial themes constructing a preliminary conceptual Masterplan. After the initial Co-design period each of the groups was invited to input their design into the urban performance analytics interface (figure 21). This allowed the participant groups to receive feedback on the performance of their preliminary design against a range of criteria including: • Accessibility of Public Open Space (POS) • Accessibility of Public Transport • Dwelling Diversity • Land Use Diversity • Development Feasibility © AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019

Following this participant groups returned to refine their design based on feedback and then were able to obtain a revised series of measures. The final stage was for participant groups to present their final design and report on some of the qualitative aspects they had tried to incorporate (figure 22). Workshops Young Planners Connect Workshop (40 participants), PIA National Planning Congress, Perth Convention Centre, 9 May 2018 Discussion The workshop was a dynamic interactive process. The workshop ran for four hours which gave sufficient time for group design activities, feedback, reflection and design refinement. Previous workshops with other Co-design activities usually have a much shorter timeframe. This session indicated the benefit of additional time to consider quite complex spatial design exercises. The translation of the physical design into the digital mapping software and display was relatively primitive as it involved a tracing of the design. This was quite time consuming and could clearly be improved with a more sophisticated approach of capturing and inputting the design.


// Project 3: Master my Plan | AUDRC P4 28 | 29

Figure 21 Example of individual group participant design process using the urban performance analytics interface.

Figure 22 Combined models and group feedback. Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


Results Against Objectives Effective Contributions Learning & Education The model elements allowed participants to understand the basic decisions needed to construct a preliminary Masterplan. Land use types were given a scale and discussion could take place regarding suitability and applicability of different land uses. Participants were able to understand the implications of building scale in relation to local context. The digital interface offered significant opportunities for learning and education as participants were able to see the quantitative implication of their design choices. In particular feedback on development feasibility allowed the groups to consider the relationship between scale, yield and open space and the balance this presents in a master planning exercise. Spatial Input & Invention The physical model allowed participant groups to create their own design responses and it was clear from the variation in designs that groups had been developing their own approaches to the arrangement of the uses and elements on the site. Experimentation The moveable nature of the model materials allowed participants to explore multiple options during the Co-design exercise.

Feedback from Participants A feedback survey was completed at the end of the exercise. This was quite a long form with detailed questions. Twenty two participants responded, some of the highlights of this survey include: • Fifteen of the respondents rated the workshop as excellent, six good and only one average. • All of the respondents rated that they would recommend the tools to their colleagues. • At least twenty out of the twenty two respondents (90%) either agreed or strongly agreed that the tool was effective in visualising a range of spatial information, helping to identify problems and planning goals for the site and modelling different design concepts and scenarios. One question related to the experience of Co-design activity. A summary of comments is provided below and used as evidence as performance against the research objectives by highlighting the relevant objective/s at the end of each quote. What aspects of the workshop were most useful? ‘Opportunity to interact, get creative.’ (Spatial Input & Invention, Collective Approach) ‘Teamwork, spatial aspects of working with models – enhanced spatial awareness.’ (Learning & Education, Spatial Input & Invention, Collective Approach) ‘Hands on approach and flexibility.’ (Inclusivity, Involvement)

Genuine Participation Inclusivity This particular workshop involved professional young planners, so a broader concept of inclusivity could not be tested. Appeal The tools were readily taken up and participants were seen to be enjoying the process. Involvement Participants were involved at Involve and Collaborate levels of participation. Collective Approach The participants were clearly engaged in a collective decision making process, were sharing ideas and took part in group reflection and feedback.

© AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019

‘Loved it! Very tangible and useful dialogue/sharing of ideas’ (Appeal, Learning & Education, Collaborative Approach) Testimonials ‘I would like to thank you, Claire P, Claire B and Paula again for all of your help to make Wednesday’s session a huge success. It was wonderful seeing our idea come to fruition using your map table and interactive models. The feedback for this session has been overwhelmingly positive, which reflects the importance of what AUDRC and UWA/UPA are doing with the different mapping models.’ Event Organiser PIA. ‘I really enjoyed this session - I think it is a great way to easily communicate and explore the competing ideas/concepts when regenerating a site. With the physical co-design tool it is a really powerful tool to reduce jargon and actually start doing.’ Participant


// Project 3: Master my Plan | AUDRC P4 30 | 31

Figure 23 Example of individual group participant design process.

Application and Policy Relevance The development of a ‘Precinct Design’ guide in the new state planning policy for design of the built environment (Design WA) reinforces the emphasis of the potential of this tool. It is also potentially applicable to Transit Oriented Development locations and could be used for stakeholder and community led engagement for investigating integrated transport and land use planning in such locations. This creates the possibility that the tool could be used to inform planning and station precinct development associated with the state’s METRONET public transport expansion program. The potential of the combination of Co-design activity with real time quantitative feedback has been recognised through UWA research accelerator funding and will form part of AUDRC’s key research activity in 2019. The development of a planning support tool which can integrate a range of performance considerations such as amenity, quality of life, health and resource use but also is able to link these to an easily understood and manipulable spatial interface promises to provide a unique platform for optimisation of conceptual plans for precincts.

© AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


Figure 24 The urban performance analytics digital interface. Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


// Project 3: Master my Plan | AUDRC P4 32 | 33

© AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


// Project 4: My Best Home

Alliances and Partnerships: City of Cockburn, Department of Communities (WA)

Description My Best Home is a Co-design project to try and identify the needs and options for future housing for seniors in the City of Cockburn working with the local authority and with the aid of a Department of Communities Housing Innovation Grant. Many seniors live in larger single homes and are looking for different patterns of living as they age but also want to remain in their local neighbourhoods. This project explores their wishes and hopes and then allows them to make propositions for housing options and to then identify constraints and challenges in achieving these. Objective The objective is to discover the preferences for housing options for members of the existing suburban communities as they age and to use this to identify how planning policies and development practices may need to change to accommodate these.

© AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019

Method and Design The methodology was developed to be delivered in three stages. The first stage involved a survey of residents aged 50 years or over. The second stage was a housing needs priorities workshop (figure 25). The third stage was an investigation of the living and spatial planning options. The survey asked if respondents identified as Movers – those that are actively looking for a new, more suitable home; Planners – those that hadn’t decided about their future living environment but were interested in considering different options; or Stayers – those that wished to continue to reside in their current dwelling. The survey also asked residents to provide information of the house features that they thought were most important for the future. The information from the survey stage was used to inform the first workshop (figure 26) which invited residents to physically come together to contribute to the development of the project.


// Project 4: My Best Home | AUDRC P4 34 | 35

Figure 25 Workshop 1 participant group discussing and prioritising their housing needs and priorities

Figure 26 Workshop1: Housing needs priorities workshop at the Cockburn Seniors Centre. Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


Figure 27 Workshop 1. Drawing of familiar suburban home with key dwelling features identified. The intention of this workshop was to relate some of the survey findings but also to create a shared dialogue around housing needs and preferences. This workshop was focussed on individual experience as this gave participants the opportunity to share stories and form a collective group. A large drawing of a familiar suburban home was developed (Figure 27) which identified key dwelling features resulting from the survey and a literature review. In addition participants were asked to bring along images of parts of their home that they liked to the workshop.(Figure 31) © AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019

The third stage of the project involved a workshop which focussed more on the spatial implications of transitioning the most common living environment – a single suburban home. This required consideration of both a future ‘pattern of living’ and a ‘housing option’. The ‘pattern of living’ described the household structure and relationships and the ‘housing option’ considered specific alternatives for adaptation or construction of dwelling space.


// Project 4: My Best Home | AUDRC P4 36 | 37

The five patterns of living (Figure 26) developed were based on literature review and discussion and analysis from the first two project stages: A. House Share: Unfamiliar Relationship - This could be a situation where you share a home with another independent person. B. House Share: Familiar Relationship - This could be a situation where you have a family member or friend living with you.

C. Independent Living - This could be a situation where you choose to live independently, in the house of your choice. D. Community Living - This could be a situation where you are living in a small community minded group of private houses and shared spaces. E. Multi-generational Living - This could be a situation where there is a diversity of ages living with you. This could be other family members.

Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


Figure 28 The five patterns of living(top) and the six housing options presented to participants

The six housing options (Figure 26) were based on research and empirical knowledge of development and building practices: 1. Adaption and Modifications - Modifications to the interior design of existing house. Building extents remain unchanged. 2. Extension of Existing House - Additional rooms attached to existing house. 3. Ancillary House - Addition of small Granny Flat located on the same lot as the existing house. 4. Retain and Build - Subdivision of existing lot and addition of 1 or more new homes. 5. New Build 1 - Knock down existing house to build a new house 6. New Build 2+ - Knock down existing house to build 2 or more new homes. These could be arranged as a small community. A physical and interactive 1:100 Co-design model (Figure 29) was created based on a typical suburban home (this was very similar to the layout used in the first workshop). Different coloured and different sized blocks were used to represent different uses. The model pieces could be moved around and stacked to create different layouts and uses.

© AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019

Parking as well as flat tiles for driveways and gardens could also be placed on the lot. Activities and Gameplay In the first workshop the large drawing acted as a kind of game board (Figure 30). Participants were asked to consider what characteristics were most important to them by placing a limited number of coloured hearts on the drawing focused on three areas: • The home interior; • Private outdoor spaces, and; • Street life. In order to test preferences the participants were then asked to consider the event that they were moving into a different living environment and couldn’t accommodate all of their needs, and then asked to remove one of their ‘votes’. The intention behind this exercise was to generate discussion about needs and preferences, the removal of a valued attribute created a means by which participants could discuss their preferences to the group rather than just a voting exercise. In addition the images of their individual homes provided another way in which different attributes could be discussed and evaluated. Groups presented a summary of their discussions and facilitators recorded their feedback.


// Project 4: My Best Home | AUDRC P4 38 | 39

Figure 29 Interactive 1:100 Co-design model of typical suburban home.

Figure 30 Workshop1 participants and facilitator using the ‘game board’ and placing their votes using the coloured hearts. © AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


Figure 31 A sample of the photographs collected from workshop 1 participants, indicating the features of their home that they liked In the second workshop three different yet integrated activities were undertaken. The first activity involved participant groups discussing and prioritising the different patterns of living options. This was undertaken by a voting exercise using the heart shaped post-its.(Figure 32) Each participant was given two hearts to vote on a pattern of living either separately or together. Following this the group ‘elected’ one pattern of living for consideration in subsequent activities. The second activity involved discussion regarding the different housing options. Initially all of the options were presented however then the choices were limited as only certain options were suitable for the pattern of living which had been prioritised in the first activity. Participant groups discussed the housing options which were available and then asked to perform a similar voting exercise to the first activity using the heart shaped post-it notes. At the conclusion of this activity each group had identified a preferred housing option to match with their pattern of living for continuation into the next activity. In the last activity the facilitators constructed an example model of the pattern of living and housing option match from a previous schematic design. Participant groups were then asked to either modify the schematic design or produce Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019

their own on a blank base using the different coloured use blocks (Figure 33). Following this collaborative design activity each group presented their design investigations back to the participant group and the values and attributes embedded in this feedback were recorded. Designs were also documented. Workshops Workshop 1 (45 participants), City of Cockburn, 30 October 2018. Workshop 2 (20 participants), City of Cockburn, 9 April 2019. Discussion The method and design changed considerably during the course of the project. The project team was continuously questioning the objectives of the workshops whilst responding to feedback from the survey and workshop activities and then reflecting on the best ways to achieve the objectives given the time frame and format. The first workshop focussed more particularly on the dwelling environment. This provided useful data in terms of the variations in individual needs and requirements. It also revealed that there were assumptions in the methodology regarding the ways in which households were, and would


// Project 4: My Best Home | AUDRC P4 40 | 41

Figure 32 Workshop 2 individual participant group discussing and prioritising the different patterns of living options

Figure 33 Example of individual participant group collaborative design process Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


continue to be structured in the future. This led to the development of a different brief for the second workshop. Rather than focus directly on the home attributes it became apparent that one of the driving forces behind the suitability or otherwise of an existing home was the way in which people would like to live – what we termed ‘patterns of living’. So this was chosen as something to explore in the second workshop.

levels of participation.

In the second workshop the Co-design elements using the physical models were tailored so that participants could explore whatever preference in terms of pattern of living and housing option they wanted. This meant that the system of interactive model making had to be adaptable to different potential combinations. This was solved by creating a series of schematic designs for each of the possible combinations(Figure 34) but only constructing and presenting the selected ones during the workshop.

Workshop 1 85% of participants expressed that they found the workshop exercises easy to participate in and easy to understand.

Results Against Objectives Effective Contributions Learning & Education Participants learnt about the various options both in terms of possible household structures and housing options. They were also able to learn about how housing needs may change through different life stages. Spatial Input & Invention The tools were successful in allowing spatial exploration by community members with little or no design training or ability in a two hour workshop format. Experimentation Participants were able to explore the relationships between different patterns of living and possible housing options both in terms of discussion and interactive model making. Genuine Participation Inclusivity This particular workshop involved more senior citizens, so a number of decisions were made to ensure that the materials used were clear and legible as well as able to be moved and handled effectively. Appeal The tools were readily understood and taken up and participants were seen to be enjoying the process. Involvement Participants were involved at Inform, Consult and Involve © AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019

Collective Approach The participants were clearly engaged in a collective decision making process, were sharing ideas and took part in group reflection and feedback.(Figure 35) Feedback from participants

‘The design of the house was fantastic’ (Appeal) ‘Great to hear other perspectives, share ideas with others and have the experience of professionals.’ (Learning & Education, Collective Approach) Workshop 2 ‘Great morning and great seminar’ (Appeal) ‘This was a really very informative and well presented, thoroughly enjoyed session’ (Learning & Education, Appeal, Involvement) ‘Would like to see a demonstration model in Cockburn for Community Living’ (Spatial Input & Invention) Application and Policy Relevance This project charts a new direction in engaging senior citizens in predominantly suburban areas in terms of their housing needs. The method works to both raise awareness around future living and housing options as well as harvest and investigate spatial concepts around senior living. The project could however be applied to a range of different living scenarios where specific needs can be articulated, for example accessible or multi-generational housing. The broader methodology and approach developed during the course of the project therefore could apply to a range of housing policies and projects.


// Project 4: My Best Home | AUDRC P4 42 | 43

Figure 34 (Left) Typical suburban home plan (Right) Example of schematic design combination for the ‘Community Living’ pattern of living options and the ‘New Build 2+’ housing option

Figure 35 Workshop 2 group reflection and feedback. © AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


// Project 5: Streets Ahead

Alliances and Partnerships: Town of Victoria Park, Vic Park Collective

Description This project outlines a community engagement strategy concerned with the future of the public realm along main street environments. It is concerned with exploring the place potential of environments which have been predominantly designed to accommodate movement priority of vehicles. It therefore considers human activities as the generators of spatial action - social interaction, active travel, economic exchange and dwelling. The project is designed to tease out the spatial and programmatic elements of this place based approach from the community and to use these in a collaborative design exercise to explore their potential and location. Objective The Objective of the engagement process was to develop a vision and associated community led tactics for consideration and incorporation into a future outline action plan to manage and improve the public realm along Albany Highway. Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019

Method and Design The engagement methodology was prepared in response to this objective. The intention for the engagement process was to generate both Involvement and Collaboration in the formulation of a vision for Albany Highway, principally along the main street environments in the local centres of Victoria Park and East Victoria Park. The methodology is essentially composed of three parts. The first part involves a preliminary capturing of community led values and ideas. The second part involves the formulation of a community led vision. The third part involves the exploration and testing of programmatic and spatial ideas using Co-design. Part 1 was undertaken as a collective community event whereas Parts 2 and 3 were held together in two different locations reflecting the two different geographic focus areas of Victoria Park and east Victoria Park.


// Project 5: Streets Ahead | AUDRC P4 44 | 45

Figure 36 Values & ideas capturing at the Collective Conversations event.

Figure 37 Cluster analysis of feedback from Collective Conversations event. Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


Part 1: Value and Ideas Capturing As an initial stage the community was involved in a process of harvesting values related to the existing environment and then thinking about ideas for the future. This was undertaken in ‘town hall’ style environment during A Vic Park Collective community run event titled Collective Conversations (figure 36). Initially guest speakers discussed the potential of main street environments and place based approaches to urban design. Following this community members (around 80 in total), were asked to write down answers to three questions: 1. What is the best existing quality of the main street? 2. What would you most like to see changed? 3. What do you see as the biggest driver of the future. Part 2: Vision Setting The vision setting was designed and facilitated by Vic Park Collective representatives during a 60 minute interactive group brainstorming exercise during the first part of each of the workshops. Initially this involved diving into greater detail of the initial values and ideas capturing, focussing on the precincts targeted in each workshop. These would form some of the more specific spatial and programmatic ideas that could be tested in the subsequent Co-design stage. The Visioning exercise asked participants to group there responses under three themes: 1. How is Albany Highway in Vic Park/East Vic Park perceived now? 2. How would they like to see Albany Highway in Vic Park/ East Vic Park emerge in the future? 3. What are the highest priorities for linking the Vic Park and East Vic Park cores? Part 3: Co-Design This part of the engagement process allowed workshop participants to represent some of their ideas spatially using a unique 1:100 scaled interactive model of a section of the main street environment. The model utilises a 3m x 3m base grid so that elements are modular and yet can be approximately translated to real world scale. The model was designed so that participants could introduce a range of uses and elements which were derived from Part 1.The elements could be organised into the following categories and are illustrated on Figure 38: 1) Building Use • Frontage Cards (existing) – a coloured card was placed into the frontage element of each building to signify existing use according to: Offices, Shop-services, © AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019

Shop-convenience, Shop-specialty, Restaurant, Café, Bar/Pub. • Frontage Cards (new/proposed) – golden coloured cards were provided which could be written on and inserted into existing buildings to propose new or innovative uses. 2) Paving, Surfaces & Footpaths • Funky Paving - colourful 3m x 3m tiles which represented ‘funky paving’ and • Softscapes – 3m x 3m tiles which represented more permeable surfacing options such as grass, gardens and woodchips. 3) Activities & Uses • Activity Tokens – these were overscaled figures which had different postures and colours to represent activities of Easy Walking, Events & Play, Meet Up and Sit & Rest. • Alfresco – a 3m x 3m tile with a silver dot was used to identify alfresco areas. • Pop-ups – a number of blue blocks of approximate dimensions of caravans and shipping containers were provided that could be used to identify temporary and moveable uses. • Flags – a number of flags were provided which could be written on with ideas from the community. 4) Travel & Traffic • Cross walks – 3m x 3m zebra crossing tiles which could be combined to identify longer crossings. • Shared Zone – 3m x 3m tiles which a blended priority, and are perhaps more oriented towards pedestrian and active use. • Bicycle Priority – tokens of overscaled bicycles were provided to indicate a desire for bicycle priority. • Slow Points – Upright street stands with red signs were provided to indicate a desire to slow down vehicular traffic. • Public Transit – scaled tram/trolley bus carriages with a thread to represent an indicative alignment. 5) Street Furniture • Lighting – light poles were provided to allow an accentuation of lighting where needed. • Planters – small raised planter boxes were provided to indicate areas where formal planting may be appropriate. • Seating – small scaled blocks representing bench seating were contained within each pack.


// Project 5: Streets Ahead | AUDRC P4 46 | 47

6) Development • New Building – blocks of single storey of typical frontage dimensions and varying depths were supplied in each Co-Design pack. Activities and Gameplay Co-Design activities of approximately 60minutes duration were run in both the Vic Park and East Vic Park workshops following the vision setting exercise. Each of the models represented approximately 300m of Albany Highway and extended back approximately 24m from the property frontage. Each of the models was split into a number of sections each representing a particular street condition. Groups of four to six persons were formed and assigned an individual section. They were then briefed on the elements that could be utilised in the Co-design process. Part 1: The Golden Opportunity The first part of the Co-design exercise involved using the innovative and new use cards. Participants were asked to identify any buildings that the thought could be used in new or innovative ways, to support local economic development or to support civic and cultural activity. Participants could write down their ideas or intentions on a golden card (figures 39-40) Part 2: Participatory Design – Going Public Following this the groups were challenged to represent their vision using the model elements. This part of the session involved groups discussing future potentials and possibly integrating these with some of the new and innovative uses they had identified in the first part of the Co-design activity (figures 41-42). Participants groups were also given a set of rules for this activity. Following this part of the activity participant groups were each given five minutes to feedback what they had achieved and how the process unfolded which informed the results and analysis. Workshops Workshop 1, LJ Hooker Victoria Park, 18 November 2018. Workshop 2, Jewel of The Park, East Victoria Park 25 November 2018. Discussion The project was aimed at eliciting specific communityled recommendations to support an outline action plan for Albany Highway. The Co-design component of the engagement process was developed in response to community input from previous engagement activities.

This project confirmed the value of this multi-step approach. Firstly to source ideas and values from the community and then to analyse these and utilise them in formulating tailored approaches to Co-design. In particular this process enabled the design of the ‘Golden Opportunity’ activity Results Against Objectives Effective Contributions Learning & Education The scaled model provided the community with the opportunity to understand the restrictions on space and the interaction of different spatial elements. For example the relatively complex competing nature of street furniture, parking, trees, shopfront entries and awnings. Spatial Input & Invention There was significant input with regard to different approaches to the programming and physical structure of space. Participants were able to suggest alternative uses for underutilised areas or different programming ideas for carparks and carriageways. Experimentation The organisation of the Co-design activities into different groups promoted experimentation. Pieces and elements were able to be easily moved and there was significant participant reflection and modification during and Genuine Participation Inclusivity The model provided an inclusive interface for engagement. Participants varied in terms of age and abilities. Participants were from a range of backgrounds including business owners, real estate and local residents. Some planning and design professionals also took part. Appeal Participants were actively involved in the process of engagement. Involvement A range of levels of involvement were evident from participants during the Co-design activity. Some participants were comfortable to observe and be informed whereas others wanted to be involved at a level of collaboration.

© AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


Collective Approach Participants worked collectively around the model, sharing ideas and reflecting as agroup. Feedback from participants Q: Did you find the 3D model helped you engage with the opportunities and challenges? ‘Yes, it was great to be able to work collaboratively with other members of the community and visually see what the street could look like.’ (Appeal, Collective Approach, Spatial Input & Invention) ‘Yes, its easier to execute vision into ‘real life’ practice’ (Education & Learning, Spatial Input & Invention) ‘Very helpful , very fun!’ (Involvement, Appeal) ‘Always! Tactile and prompts interactive environment’ (Collective Approach) ‘Yes, this helped us to verbally explore our ideas before agreeing and also to reimagine new concepts and ideas. It got us to work together and collaborate.’ (Education & Learning, Spatial Input & Invention, Collective Approach) ‘Yes, needs more time- more detail, more exploratory possibilities. Good start for exploring a programme - not adequate for design’ (Involvement, Appeal) ‘yes, gave a visual for size and design possibilities’ (Education & Learning, Spatial Input & Invention) Application and Policy Relevance The design of streets to create places for people, whether as part of a new precinct development or the revitalisation of an existing thoroughfare has received increasing attention in Perth and other Australian cities. This is particularly the case as these environments are viewed as key public spaces where various human activities which foster community and local economy are undertaken. The Streets Ahead project provided a prototype for exploring how community led design can be incorporated into the visioning and value setting process for these types of locations. The project provided proof of concept for a main street environment. Subsequent development could incorporate specific measures and also introduce cost constraints so that participants have a sense of priority for investment. © AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019

The application of the approach and design would probably best be suited to specific project locations as a bespoke design was used although the grid and elements are typical of main street environments in Australia and so could be reconfigured and adapted to other locations. It may also be worthwhile to consider the visioning and design as a two step process. A more abstract higher scale model might be useful to initially record values, constraints and opportunities, with less of a spatial design requirement. Subsequent Co-design activity using lower scaled models with specific modular design elements could then focus on particular priority areas that emerged from this.


// Project 5: Streets Ahead | AUDRC P4 48 | 49

STREETS AHEAD PARTS GUIDE SHEET EXISTING BUILDING USE CODES

Office

Shop-services Shop-conven. Shop-specialty Restaraunt

Cafe

Bar/Pub

PAVING, SURFACES & FOOTPATHS

Funky paving!

Softscapes

ACTIVITIES & USES Events & Play

Easy Walking

Alfresco area

Meet Up! Sit & Rest

Activity Tokens

Pop-Ups

Flags - you tell us!

TRAVEL & TRAFFIC Bicycle Priority

Cross-Walks

Shared Zone

Slow Points

Raised Parking

Public Transit DEVELOPMENT

STREET FURNITURE

Lighting

Planters

Seating

New Building Anthony Duckworth-Smith

AUDRC

Figure 38 Elements designed for Co-design interactive model © AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


Figure 39 Model prior to Co-design activity showing shopfronts with existing building use cards inserted (Workshop 1).

Figure 40 Model following Co-design showing where ‘Golden Opportunity’ cards have been inserted (Workshop 1). © AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


// Project 5: Streets Ahead | AUDRC P4 50 | 51

Figure 41 Participants engaging in Co-design activity and physical model (Workshop 2).

Figure 42 Section of completed model showing changes to surfacing/programming and incorporation of human activities Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


Figure 43 Model for East Vic Park prior to commencement of game play - note two sections of model.

Figure 44 Model of East Vic Park prior to game play - both sections conjoined (prior to separation) Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


// Project 5: Streets Ahead | AUDRC P4 52 | 53

Figure 45 Participants engaging in Co-design activity and physical model (Workshop 2).

Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


//// Summary & Conclusions

The research project has created number of prototype tools to engage community and stakeholders in the development, implementation and application of planning and design policy across a range of different built environment scales.

Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


/// Summary & Conclusions | AUDRC P4 54 | 55

Summary A number of different tools are presented in the report representing the various opportunities and partnerships that have emerged during the course of the research project. The original ‘innovative tool’ was the Serious Game designed for the community engagement phase of the development of an alternative local planning policy to stimulate and permit more diverse (and smaller) housing options in the City of Fremantle in 2016/17. This tool has since evolved (see Diversify your Suburb p18) however the policy proposal for Fremantle was successfully gazetted in February 2019. It could be claimed that the physical model was instrumental in helping to achieve community support for this ground breaking policy. The focus on the research and development of the tools has been around the use of physical interactive scaled models which allow groups of stakeholders and/or community members to contribute collectively to the development of spatial outcomes (what is also referred to as Co-design). This tactile process visualises and communicates the complexity and need for compromise in spatial planning as well as making material concepts which can be abstract and difficult to comprehend for many. Co-design is a participatory engagement method which seeks to get multiple stakeholders involved in a design process. This can be for the production of services, programmes or objects and places. The aim of Co-design is to facilitate the development of options and solutions which are broadly supported across multiple stakeholder and community groups to give them the best chance of being implemented and maintained/upheld through often lengthy development, delivery and operational phases. In this sense Co-design strives to mitigate the power of conventional top-down, authoritative approach to design (representative) by incorporating a more unfolding ‘evolving organisation in time and space’ (Tan and Portugali, 2012) which satisfies multiple users (deliberative). To achieve this aim methods of Co-design need to meet the following objectives: • Allow effective contributions from stakeholders – which usually requires education and learning with respect to key concepts and performance measures of the system under scrutiny and also to allow for people to easily input different combinations of parameters to explore and experiment with these concepts and measures. • Encourage genuine participation – be broadly inclusive, appealing and allow choice as to level of involvement.

• Enable a collaborative approach – foster sharing of ideas and collective reflection as well as building trust amongst often diverse stakeholder groups. The use of games, ‘Serious Gaming’ or ‘Game-based Learning’ is one Co-design methodology which can be used to help achieve these aims and objectives. Games can promote collective reflection (Devisch et al., 2016), group play can promote open communication and therefore contribute to trust building (Laurian, 2009). Both of these are factors which help with learning. Games and play can be very inclusive and appealing as well as offering different levels of involvement, particularly if they are open-ended (Krek, 2008). Meeting the objective of ‘easily engaging with the parameters of the system under question’ requires game design and development, a process whereby ‘abstract concepts are converted to artefacts (the final game) that generate actual play experiences’ (Larsen, 2018). The design process can be understood, similar to most design challenges in terms of a series of related stages of idea creation (concept), principles of operation (game mechanics), prototyping, critical review and production. Key elements to be considered across these stages include goals, rules, mechanics (scale and modularity), feedback (performance), interactivity (interfaces and tactility), storytelling (context), aesthetics (style, graphic language, colour), polish (style) and feel (haptic and sensory perception). Therefore whilst the choice of ‘gaming’ and play potentially addresses many of the key objectives of Co-design there is considerable design effort needed to produce the actual physical (or digital) artefact through which interaction takes place to enable these to be met. Each one of the five projects documented in this report is analysed in terms of its performance against these objectives. Overall it would appear that the method of Serious Gaming performs well against the research objectives. In each of the projects many of the participants demonstrated learning outcomes, almost always created spatial ideas using the game elements and were allowed to experiment easily with different options. There was a high level of inclusivity during the application of the models, participants enjoyed the process indicating a high level of appeal and could choose their level of involvement. By their interactive nature and design the tools promote collaboration and sharing.

© AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


The effective performance against the objectives is underpinned by the significant amount of design thinking and prototyping in creating the games. The project has resulted in identifying the following framework of elements for conceptualising the design of physical Serious Games for use in the development of spatial planning and policy: Goals This can also be identified as the aim. It is necessary to understand what is hoped to be achieved and this also needs to be tested against practicalities such as the length of the engagement session and number of participants. For example in some instances the gameplay can be skewed toward learning and education objectives - raising awareness of the spatial challenge. In other activities the emphasis could focus on the sourcing of specific design ideas. Alternatively the game can be used as a means to start an important dialogue between parties who normally wouldn’t be able to express spatial ideas or even be involved in a collaborative design process. Rules or Gameplay The rules and/or gameplay are the steps which need to be followed by participants in order to progress through the game. This element is also linked to the game objective – particularly whether or not the game is open-ended or has a particular end point or solution. This is a critical determinant which also feeds back into other design decisions. Consideration of game progression is also an important aspect of this element. Is there a structured sequence or is play more free-form and evolving? Can players reset or is the process of play accumulative? Element Themes The Element Themes are the key spatial or programmatic elements that are to be incorporated into the gameplay. These are essentially components of the urban environment which are to be represented in some form and incorporated into the model design. These can ‘soft’ such as new functions or activities or ‘hard’ such as landmarks, building volumes and paving. The themes are specifically arranged and included to help achieve the overall objectives of the Codesign activity. These can also be sourced from inquiry with existing community members or stakeholders. For example the cluster analysis of the key questions presented to the community in the Streets Ahead game directly influenced the formulation of the Element Themes.

© AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019

Mechanics Mechanics refers to the interaction of a number of the physical elements of the design such as size, scale, extent and modularity. The choice of scale of the model/game is critical and relates to the spatial concepts which need to be examined and explored. For example when designing the suburban infill game the scale was determined by the need to examine interactions with neighbours as well as explore common controls which influenced built form on individual lots. The extent or coverage is determined by the scale and size, the need for participants to physically interact with the model and requirements for an overview of the built environment typology. For example with the Streets Ahead interactive model/game the extent was determined by a combination of the need to represent the depth of the buildings fronting the main street, provide adequate distance to explore the potential of side road connections, allow participants to reach across the model when placed on a table and provide sufficient length to represent different interests along the main street town centre environment. There are two main considerations with respect to modularity. There is the division of the overall game or model and the functional grid for the design of the context and model elements. The division of the model is often determined by both practical and functional requirements. The practical requirements are often related to transport and manoeuvrability. The functional requirements relate more to the appropriate division of the site into sub-modules, allowing for an appropriate representation of the context under investigation. The design of the pieces relates to their spatial parameters such as typical scale/size, integration with the game grid, user handling and durability. In addition cost and production time need to be factored into design considerations. In some instances the type of piece needs to be considered in terms of the element theme it is trying to achieve. For example how do you represent a ‘soft’ theme such as use? Often these decisions are part of an iterative design process, prototyping and critically reviewing different options. Interactivity The degree of interactivity refers to the way in which participants (or users) physically engage with the game. For example is it team or solo play? Are players required to move existing items, given new items or able to select new items?


/// Summary & Conclusions | AUDRC P4 56 | 57

Aesthetics The visual style or ‘look’ of the game can convey a particular emphasis and even inform the way in which users interact. Public participation has to manage a wide range of tastes and preferences so a relatively easily understood and familiar language is appropriate. In some sense avoiding a highly stylised design is appropriate. For example the use of colourful blocks seems to be well received as it is a familiar form and aesthetic. Contrasting colours can be easily differentiated by participants and easily coded in supporting material. Polish Polish is linked to aesthetics and refers to the degree to which the physical elements are finished. It may seem like a superficial element to consider but can have significant impacts on user’s willingness to interact and feel comfortable physically touching or altering pieces, which may actually be an important part of the game design. Feel This is another important design parameter because it can influence the degree to which participants interact with the game, which is of course a critical aspect. Making pieces easy to hold and pick up or enticing to touch can have a significant bearing on the degree to which users physically interact with the game. Texture and pattern can provide further layers of meaning and symbolism to assist with reinforcing themes. Critical Review One of the most important stages of the process of formulation is to trial the gameplay and review it in terms of straightforwardness, legibility, playability, physical ease and ability to meet goals. This review takes place continually throughout the tool/model/game development stages. It is often relatively easy to develop pieces to address certain themes but with more pieces the gameplay can take on a complexity which makes it difficult to follow and can impinge upon time constraints. Often strict editing is necessary and priorities need to be established in order to keep the process comprehensible and focussed. The production of the tool/model/game is itself a complex design exercise which needs to be mindful of and synthesise a host of factors such as the Co-design objectives, likely duration of engagement, physical and human tactile constraints and overall complexity of the activity. In many instances pieces are deleted, combined or reinvented following critical review.

Professional Application There is scope for professional application of the models however this would require considerable investment of time and resources. Development and prototyping would need to be organised with a strategic vision in mind. What are the chief applications and what is needed for each of these. It may be possible to improve individual models and games on a step by step basis. Conclusions The use of interactive models (and Serious Games) for Co-design promises to contribute to the successful development of spatial policy, plans and projects. Evidence from the projects undertaken would suggest that it is able to meet a host of objectives related to effective engagement. As a method it allows genuine contributions from whoever is being consulted and provides a format for creating new shared dialogue and eliciting important spatial input. To be effective the design of the tools requires time in terms of conceptualising ideas, prototyping and critical review. Although a game may appear simple, this is evidence of significant design input and testing. Production can also be time consuming as physical elements need to be cut and painted however there is the potential for this to be automated. In addition the models are often bespoke for particular locations although there is the potential for further refinement to investigate how tools for certain urban contexts could be standardised. The tools have limitations in terms of the number of people who can effectively engage. This is limited by the actual size of the model (the play area/s) and the optimum number of participants in a team or group. It has been observed that teams greater than 4 persons tend to limit the opportunities for involvement. Feedback is essential in terms of understanding the success of the methodology in meeting the objectives. Currently the focus has been on developing the models and gameplay. There is room to improve the quality and consistency of the feedback, which would also provide valuable information with respect to potential improvements to the various approaches. There is also the potential for the inclusion and capturing of more qualitative information which could be used in setting design briefs. Overall the tools developed have proven to be highly effective. Other professional companies and individuals © AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


have started to adopt this method. Given the resource investment required in terms of further improvements and refinement it seems prudent to select a limited number of tools for further development and application. There is also significant potential in linking the process with quantitative performance which would allow evidence based assessment of options, providing the potential for rapid prototyping and refinement as well as a powerful platform for education and learning.

Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


/// Summary & Conclusions | AUDRC P4 58 | 59

© AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


Key References

Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


Key References | AUDRC P4 60 | 61

CARPENTER, J. & BROWNILL, S. U. E. 2008. Approaches to Democratic Involvement: Widening Community Engagement in the English Planning System. Planning Theory & Practice, 9, 227-248.

LARSEN, L. J. 2018. Juicing the game design process: towards a content centric framework for understanding and teaching game design in higher education. Educational Media International, 55, 231-254.

DARINA, D., CHRISTO, D., GENNADY, A. & GALIA, A. 2015. Gamification in Education: A Systematic Mapping Study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18, 75-88.

LAURIAN, L. 2009. Trust in Planning: Theoretical and Practical Considerations for Participatory and Deliberative Planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 10, 369-391.

DEVISCH, O., POPLIN, A. & SOFRONIE, S. 2016. The Gamification of Civic Participation: Two Experiments in Improving the Skills of Citizens to Reflect Collectively on Spatial Issues. Journal of Urban Technology, 23, 81-102. EKIM, T. 2014. Negotiation and Design for the SelfOrganizing City. Gaming as a method for Urban Design. A+BE: Architecture and the Built Environment, 4, 1-454. KREK, A. Games in Urban Planning: The Power of Playful Participation. In: SCHRENK, M., POPOVICH, V. V., ENGELKE, D. & ELISEI, P., eds. REAL CORP 008, 2008 Vienna. CORP - Competence Center of Urban and Regional Planning.

MAYER, I. 2014. The research and evaluation of serious games: Toward a comprehensive methodology. British journal of educational technology., 45, 502. PORTUGALI, J. 2012. Complexity Theories of Cities: Implications to Urban Planning. Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age: An Overview with Implications to Urban Planning and Design. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. TAN, E. & PORTUGALI, J. 2012. The Responsive City Design Game. Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age: An Overview with Implications to Urban Planning and Design. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


Acknowledgements

Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


Acknowledgements

| AUDRC P4 62 | 63

Project 1: Citizen Block Project conducted in conjunction with Tim Riley of Property Collectives and Katherine Sundemann Architect.

Project 5: Streets Ahead Project commissioned by Vic Park Collective through Town of Victoria Park place grant.

Project 2: Diversify Your Suburb Incorporated into Planning Institute of Australia State Conference (WA) 2017 and National Planning Congress 2018

Vision Setting facilitated and documented by the Vic Park Collective

Model originally developed in conjunction with the City of Fremantle for ‘The Freo Alternative’ 2015-18. Project 3: Master my Plan Projected conducted in collaboration with Dr Paula Hooper (UWA, Urban Performance Analytics (UPA)). Landcorp - research and development partners for UPA. Workshop run as part of Young Planners Connect event at Planning Institute of Australia’s National Planning Congress 2018.

Co-design workshops jointly facilitated by Vic Park Collective and AUDRC. VIC PARK COLLECTIVE: Andrew Brodie, David Lindner, Heather Johnstone, Flavia Pardini Premises provided by: L J Hooker, Victoria Park Jewel of the Park Indian Restaraunt, East Victoria Park AUDRC contributors and support Grace Oliver Pat Bendall Kate Childs-Dowling Aidan Smith

Project 4: My Best Home Overall project led by Rachel Pleasant of City of Cockburn. Supported by Department of Communities Housing Innovation Grant.

Dr Anthony Duckworth is Assistant Professor at the Australian Urban Design Research Centre (AUDRC). He is a senior researcher, practitioner and teaches in the Master of Urban Design Programme (UWA). © AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


AUDRC

Australian Urban Design Research Centre Š AUDRC | Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2019


AUDRC Research P4

A summary report on the research and development of innovative tools for community engagement, communication and collaborative design for planning and urban design policy

Profile for The Australian Urban Design Research Centre

AUDRC Research P4: Innovative Tools for Community Engagement  

This report outlines the development and testing of a number of innovative tools for community engagement, communication and collaborative d...

AUDRC Research P4: Innovative Tools for Community Engagement  

This report outlines the development and testing of a number of innovative tools for community engagement, communication and collaborative d...

Profile for audrc
Advertisement