Whether
intentionally or not, architects often practice in a way that rejects collaboration.
A diagram of the traditional or perceived model may be formed with the “architect”
at the apex of a pyramid with all others working below for the good of his/her
idea. What if filmmaking was viewed as an alternative model. Who is the author
of a particular film project: the screenwriter?, the director?, the producer?,
the actors?, etc.... Each bring their authorship to the process. Like film,
the making of architecture by its very nature is a collaborative process. In
this model, the “project” is at the apex with all of the various
contributors to the process below.
It is often heard that working collaboratively produces mediocre design. This
is because a collaborative process is confused with working through a committee
structure. There is a difference between design by collaboration and design
by committee. Design by collaboration celebrates difference, while design by
committee celebrates sameness. In a community design process that engages all
participants in a project, all are seen as providing a particular expertise
essential to its success. This expertise is acknowledged and used during the
process. In other words, we may be designers, which bring that particular expertise
to the table, but, we do not live in the neighborhood; we may not use their
particular program; we will probably not be the constructors; we may not be
te other stakeholders race or ethnicity; etc… The intent of this process
is to ensure that through active meaningful engagement, the design criteria
reflect the needs and concerns of all involved. It also fosters a commitment
and understanding of the project as a whole and of the necessary requirements
needed for its successful completion. However, this participatory process does
not seek consensus; but it does attempt to listen and incorporate all voices
at the table. Design by committee does attempt to find consensus, which leads
to the purpose of a “minority report.” Through difference, thoughtful
design that responds to more people can develop without foregoing quality. This
should not suggest that collaboration and participatory design processes ultimately
produce thoughtful design. Similar to the fact that the quality of a construction
ultimately lies in the hands of the constructor, the quality of design still
remains in the hands of the designer—since “design” is the
expertise we bring to the collaborative process. What a collaborative process
does do is connect the design and programming to the direct needs and desires
of those typically outside of the design activity. It challenges preconceptions
and stereotypes held by all participants. It also reveals and uncovers content
and information early in the process essential to high quality design. A skilled
set of designers can take this content to produce a thoughtful response.
