Arbeitsbericht 163 (HU Berlin): Quartiere neu denken - Arbeitskreis ...

28
In another article it can be read that to get this strategy to function in reality there must
be a belief in it, and people have to trust the fact that the design of a neighbourhood
can create a genuine community. There must be a confidence in the opportunities with
improvements in the physical environment, and the possibilities that come with it such
as solutions of social problems (Antoine 2007 p 139). This way of thinking only fits a
special category of people which makes it exclusive, excluding some groups of people.
The strategic decision to implement the trust and confidence in the residents’ minds,
and also other city members can be argued to be found in the charrette workshops that
New Urbanism uses to develop their new projects. The charrette is a tool for the organi-
sation of New Urbanism to get an interactive planning process. It functions as a design-
based planning workshop where all required information is discussed and specialists are
present. The charrette functions in three steps; in step one, information is the main goal.
It lasts for two to six months and includes meetings, education from the society and
potential residents, publicity and promotion. Step two has the design in focus. Here,
workshops are held to test possible alternatives depending on the geography, agency
interests and input from the public. This is then presented in a plan that, in step three,
will further be tested and publicly reviewed. The charrette has mainly been used while
planning redevelopments or new communities. The organisation of New Urbanism
means that they through the charrette and its workshop model that are supposed to
function as a participatory model are able to make a reconnection between architecture
and art of the buildings with creating and developing the community (Bond/Thomson-
Fawcett 2007 pp 449; 454-455). Participators from the New Urbanism organization,
however, have said that the process is not about showing an option to say yes or no to
but rather a possibility to find out what the people really want (Bond/ Thomson-
Fewcette 2007 p 464). A statement based on the discussion above should be seen
sceptically. It could be stressed that the charrette is more or less a yes or no process
since the city and residents wanting to develop a New Urban area do not have much
free space since the ten principles in the Charter of New Urbanism are to be followed as
well as the other decisions already being made in the Congress of New Urbanism. A will
of controlling can be seen at the same time as they state that the development is on the
residents’ conditions.
New Urbanists have often made a connection between their pure physical and architec-
tural planning with the soft theory of community planning. This connection is some-
thing that Toker (2007) based on several other research questions (pp 310-311; 317-
318). Also Harvey (1997) questions the community term in connection with New
Urbanism, he suggests that the assumption of New Urbanists’ planning design automati-
cally will create a better America and provide the residents in those areas with a correct
moral order is instead directly talking against the thoughts of community. Antoine
(2007) has shown in studies that physical space and its discourse has drawn people