Comments on: Critique: Tower District Streetscape Design Charrette

By: Nicholas Miconi

Nicholas Miconi — Wed, 19 May 2010 22:10:37 +0000

I think it is great that the Tower District is getting a face-lift. It is too bad that the Tower resident were misrepresented. I do believe it was a great idea to get the community involved with the design layout. I am sure you are right that they already had designs in mind for this project, but what is nice is that that would be a starting point for them and when asking the community what they want would add to it; since they live there and know what is going on. Moreover, it would be very easy for them to implement those ideas into their design. The only problem asking residents what they want is that there might be many unrealistic ideas. What I am saying is that most might know what it takes to do certain things or what the laws say you can and cannot do. Whatever the case might be it sounded like fun and many good ideas. The idea of the skit-making exercise would have been a fun and good insight to the Towers interactions. I agree if you had those table focus on one certain part of the project there would be many ideas repeated. In addition, you are not giving the people their full creative process. I know I would not be able to stick to one part. My mind would start thinking of other parts and I would build off that. It is too bad there was not enough time. In addition, I have to agree with Jeff F. Getting the community involved lets the designers become part of the community. It is bad that only the middle age people showed up. To make it work I believe that it should have a diverse group. It is their community and sad that they did not want to have an input on the design. I believe that the designers had neat ideas in mind for the Tower District and whatever comes of it will be great.

By: National Charrette Institute: Day One (Sort Of) « TheAnthroGuys

National Charrette Institute: Day One (Sort Of) « TheAnthroGuys — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:47:59 +0000

[...] a few things that made me want some more formal training in charrette methods. One was the Tower streetscape charrette that Kiel and I both blogged about. If you read our critique, you will see what we found lacking [...]

By: Josh F

Josh F — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:52:29 +0000

I am surprised that there wasnt more diversty in those that went to represent the Tower District. I do not live in Tower but have family that does and they love it. One of the reasons that they love it so much is the diversiy that exists there. Now with this big of an event that could possibly change so much in such a well estabished community, it really was a shock to me that there wasnt more diversity in the turn out. I think it just goes to show the time we are in. Its not about people in a community anymore, its all about individuals. No body cares unless its going to effect their personal income. I was disapointed in the people of the tower district for ot representing themselves better.

By: JeffF

JeffF — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 06:02:18 +0000

I have mixed feeling about the design charrette. I definitely agree that the turn out of a mostly middle age white males was a problem. The sample size definitely should have been a more representive sample of the diverse population of the tower district. One of the main purposes in my opinion of this event was for the designers to get a feel for the citizens of Fresno, and the lack of diversity at the event kind of negates this purpose. Your ideas on how to alleviate the problem of lack of diversity at the charrette were good in my opinion. While effort would have had to be put out to accomplish this, the diversity problem at the event could have possibly been elimated if your ideas had been implemented for the event.
I liked that the two Tower advocates from Fresno got to give the introduction. This could have been beneficial to the designers in getting a feel for the city of Fresno as well as a feel for the citizens.
Despite some problems with the charrette I think it was great of the designers to take the time to interact with the citizens of Fresno. People got to voice there opinions and ideas and its great that they could be heard. I dont have a problem with the experts taking an hour to discuss their goals for the project before listening to the attenandees though, after all they are the experts. I don’t see a problem with the designers wanting to transfer knowledge to the people at charrette. And I think the idea that “everyone is a designer” is a little over the top. In the end, while input from the city is helpful, I don’t want too much influence in the design process to be included from the citizens. I feel more comfortable letting the experts do their jobs. People with expert experience in their field can do a much better job than novices who have no design experience whatsoever. Just my honest opinion.

By: Lisa C

Lisa C — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:24:05 +0000

I feel the critique of the process on Saturday night is right on. We do have great people here in Fresno that could design the Tower Design Streetscape and what better people than the people who live here in Fresno. Yes the participants were mostly 50 and white, yet they too have a say as to what goes into the community. The youth are transitory at this stage in their life and would appreciate the streetscape as they get older and more invested into the community. I am grateful that new things are going on at the Tower, but it still needs to be combined with the needs of all of Fresno.

By: CelinaG

CelinaG — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 02:16:11 +0000

I was very upset to learn that the Tower District residents were misrepresented. I suppose Fresno in general was misrepresented if the majority of participants at the charrette were middle aged white men since that in no way represents Fresno’s residents. I have to wonder how this meeting was advertised and how actual Tower residents were suppose to know what it was about. It doesn’t sound as if MW Steele was truly committed to involving the participants ideas and suggestions but rather were required to show interests as an agreement with the city or owners representative. If MW Steele truly had a plan already designed prior to meeting with the community residents which is understandable for a large project such as this then those plans should have been made public at the charrette and made available for criticism and change. Maybe MW Steele could have drafted more than one plan and allowed the participants to pick and choose which aspects of the designs they felt would truly benefit the Tower. This is just another example of how underrepresented a community can be.

By: Steele Returns With Draft Tower Streetscape « TheAnthroGuys

Steele Returns With Draft Tower Streetscape « TheAnthroGuys — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:06:45 +0000

[...] July 30, 2009 in Uncategorized | by anthroguy On Tuesday night, MK Steele returned to the Tower District to present a first draft of a redesigned Tower streetscape. The draft design is in part the result of a design charrette that Steele and the city put on last Saturday. [...]

By: andreadelcore

andreadelcore — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:04:43 +0000

Nothing against San Diego, but I find it unfortunate and irresponsible of the city to hire from the outside when there are capable people in the city, not to mention the Tower.

That should help the local economy.

By: anthroguy

anthroguy — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:31:34 +0000

Thanks, Bradley, for your comments. You are right that recruitment is time-consuming — sometimes, it’s the most time-consuming aspect of a research project. But, it doesn’t have to be that onerous. When my colleague, TheAnthroGeek (the other half of the AnthroGuys) and I do projects like this, we usually leverage students in our classes at Fresno State to work on recruitment. It’s valuable experience for them — they get to see a real project go down from the ground level — and their service keeps costs down. This is part of the “hire local” theme you rightly saw in this blog post. Thanks again. –Hank Delcore aka AnthroGuy

By: Eileen Walsh

Eileen Walsh — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:41:39 +0000

This critique is completely right on! I don’t know you guys or your work, but reading this critique makes me realize you are probably brilliant. I probably feel that way because you’ve articulated everything that I felt was wrong at the Saturday event. The set-up felt rather condescending. For instance, Mark came around during the third drill, looked at the street “furniture” my table had in place on our aerial photo, and told us there was another cut-out we had missed. He directed us as we shuffled through all the paper and cut-outs until we found the one he was referring to (sidewalk bubbles at intersection), then he seemed satisfied and moved on without any conversation about it. Not too directive.