60
| Reciprocity
Design-Building and Technical Assistance
Based on needs and opportunities identified through the neighborhood planning process, various types of design projects emerged for affiliated Architecture and Landscape Architecture studios to work on. In some cases, the design work was exploratory, but in other projects either the community organization or ESLARP was able to acquire funding for implementation. As a result, the process evolved into a design-build strategy that was grounded in student engagement and volunteers from campus and community.14 A specific example is the development of a farmers’ market on an abandoned used car lot that was made possible through a HUD grant. In regular discussion with residents involved in the Winstanley Industrial Park Neighborhood Organization (WIPNO), planning students prepared a plan for the market and a training workshop series for new vendors, Architecture students designed and built affordable vendor stalls and repaired the marketplace’s structures, and Landscape Architecture students prepared a site plan for vendor use and other activities, including seating and a performance stage. During a single spring semester, the site went from a state of disrepair, through conceptual design, to opening and operation. Unfortunately, this was a short-lived project due to internal organization politics and disagreements over land ownership and control. Another longer term example is the development of the Illinois Avenue Playground in the Winstanley/Industrial Park neighborhood. The neighborhood organization, WIPNO, was eager to expand community support by developing a tangible project that met residents’ concerns and could be completed relatively quickly. Few of the neighborhood parks had play spaces for toddlers, so the construction of such a playground was a suitable project. Initial involvement of a landscape architecture studio produced GIS maps showing vacant land and sites most amenable to acquisition and assembly; however, when presented to the community, residents disregarded the GIS-selected sites for one that met community needs for safety and proximity as opposed to ease of assemblage. Students and residents continued to engage in a participatory design process to develop a site plan. Once the site was acquired, ESLARP faculty
and students coordinated donation of materials and volunteer events to complete the playground’s construction. ESLARP remained involved with the Illinois Avenue Playground for many years, assisting in cleanups and organizing for neighborhood involvement as the initial resident organizers, mostly seniors, were no longer able to care for the site. The planning and design projects developed in this model were intended for implementation by the community on a minimal budget. As such, they were often relatively basic designs meant to be easily built during several volunteer events involving students, community members, and others. Given this ultimate goal of non-professional construction, faculty and students had to sometimes grapple with the seeming contradiction in theoretical design explorations involving innovation and experimentation and the ultimate need for pragmatic simplicity and efficiency in materials and labor. In some cases, this intention was at odds with other aspects of design pedagogy that prioritized theoretical and award-winning concepts. Faculty often faced criticism when work looked ordinary, particularly when compared to other
Illinois Avenue Playground Site Design Proposal, developed by students and community residents, 1993.