Architectural design in any existing neighborhood is a complex and demanding process. In low to moderate income neighborhoods, these complexities are intensified by the presence of people who often harbor a sincere and justifiable skepticism of outsiders. Low and moderate income residents (particularly renters) are rarely paying clients, yet their lives are inextricably intertwined with the outcomes of development and construction projects in their neighborhoods.

This skepticism is built from a long history of experience. Governments, banks, developers, planners, local institutions, and of course architects possess the power to make decisions that directly affect the everyday lives of people in low and moderate income neighborhoods. Recent court decisions regarding local governments’ use of eminent domain to take an individual’s property for private development do not bode well for property owners in such neighborhoods.

Over time, a community can forget the power of collective action and stop demanding a seat at the decision-making table. Accordingly, design practice in low and moderate income neighborhoods is a niche in which not all architects have a role. It is vital that professionals practicing in these areas understand the difference between “neighborhood” and “community”.

Neighborhood and Community
Neighborhood and community are not synonyms. A neighborhood is a geographic area with defined borders: the physical place where people live their everyday lives. A neighborhood can be mapped and photographed, planned, built up, and torn down. Most architects feel comfortable practicing in this physical realm where design looks to objective context and personal creativity.

Community, on the other hand, cannot be designed. It is not built with bricks and mortar, but time and trust. Community is the web of interpersonal networks that develop between people who share a common interest. It does not by definition have a physical place, though a distinct neighborhood identity is certainly fertile ground on which to grow a community. St. Louis is filled with communities that claim a strong neighborhood identity: The Ville, Soulard, Old North St. Louis, and the Central West End, to name a few.

While design studios and classroom lectures can help students build a solid foundation in architectural theory and professional skills, formal architectural education does not typically equip young architects with the skills or experience to take on community development as part of their design process. Those with the desire and commitment to do so must acquire these proficiencies through alternate means.

The key distinction is this: one can practice architecture in a neighborhood, but must practice with a community. The former is product-oriented while the latter is process-oriented.

Principles of Practice
The ethical practice of architectural design in low and moderate income neighborhoods by definition includes community development as an integral component. Design in the absence of community development strips power from the community. On the flip side, community development without tangible results is not sustainable. An architect who wishes to undertake this type of work must be dedicated to the following principles of practice: collaboration, capacity building, and commitment.

Collaboration – An open and collaborative decision-making process is the most effective means of increasing community investment in a project. Community members brought on board through significant and meaningful opportunity to influence a project can enhance its chance of success. People who feel alienated or ignored may work to scuttle a project through back channels. A collaborative process helps ensure that people who want to participate feel heard and appreciated.

Most architects decry “design by committee,” yet the community development process is by definition just that. Without responsibility there can be no meaningful engagement. Without meaningful engagement, there can be no community investment in the outcome. Without the personal investment of community members, a project can most certainly not be considered community development. The collaborative process can be painful, frustrating, and time-consuming, but in the end is the only approach resulting in sustainable change.

Capacity-Building – In a collaborative scenario, the design process is just as important as the outcome. Accordingly, community members must have something to gain, above and beyond the eventual completion of the project, from their participation. The goal of capacity-building among all participants in the process, including the architect, helps to level the playing field. If each person enters as a learner as well as an expert then each person has something to gain as well as contribute.

Commitment – Particularly if the architect is not a neighborhood resident, it is imperative that he or she demonstrate an ongoing personal and professional commitment to the neighborhood – attending community meetings, volunteering, eating at local restaurants, and building personal relationships with community members.

The Collaborative Scenario
Design (both the process of design and the product itself) has the potential to support and sustain urban living; the architect can occupy a key position. A collaborative process recognizes that a neighborhood’s character encompasses more than just buildings. Other factors include social networks, care and maintenance of property, presence pf public space, ethnicity, outside perceptions of the neighborhood, infrastructure, civic engagement, and city services. “Design” should embody both the physical realities of a neighborhood and the process through which it developed.

In the standard technical assistant role, an architect is primarily responsible for creating the design and responding to client criticism. This design is based on the given program, the architect’s preconceptions and creative energy. Typically, the technical assistant architect is not brought into the process until “community” has already been developed. A community group must organize, plan, acquire land, and arrange funding before hiring an architect.

Conversely, a collaborative design process engages the architect as part of the community rather than a hired contractor. This approach has concrete benefits for everyone involved. Engaging stakeholders in meaningful dialogue about core community and neighborhood issues helps define priorities. Building useful skills and knowledge among participants enhances the group’s ability to take on increasingly complex issues and projects. Concrete action plans further community goals by focusing and coordinating effort. Community support increases the sustainability of tangible and intangible results of a collaborative process. Finally, a collaborative process strengthens connections between participants above and beyond the project at hand.

Changing Role of the Designer

Researchers and designers have produced a wealth of material relating to the physical design of space, use, scale, material, and density, and their relationship to the development of community. Much less thinking exists on the use of the design process itself as a tool for capacity-building in urban neighborhoods and communities. Within this context, the architect’s role must be redefined. If community development is conceptualized as an integral part of the design process, the role of the architect is broadened to that of participant rather than technical assistant.

The architect’s position changes into what can best be described as “design facilitator.” The design facilitator takes on four primary responsibilities: coordinating the team of participants, building social capital, participating in the process, and design production.

Coordinate the Design Team – This activity forms the project’s foundation. The participant group includes representatives from major stakeholder groups. Recruiting potential stakeholders to participate may be a difficult and time-consuming component of the project.

Build Social Capital – Everyone, including the design facilitator, must enter the process as both a learner and contributor. At the start of the process everyone must discuss what they expect to gain as well as add through participation in the decision making process. As part of my contribution, the architect helps the other participants to become more comfortable with the language and process of architectural design.

Participate – An architect arrives at the table with a specific set of skills, resources, and experience – for him or her to be passive throughout this process would be counterproductive. As a participant with particularly focused expertise, however, the designer must remain conscious of his or her impact on the group dynamic. The architect’s knowledge and experience in the design process helps guide the group towards consensus.

Design Production – Despite the emphasis placed thus far on process, the absence of measurable progress breeds apathy and eventually frustration. This problem can be alleviated by setting attainable goals for each meeting and realistic project timelines. It is also important that there be concrete interim results, something new to look at and react to at each gathering.

Merging Theory and Practice
Architects involved in community development must recognize the effects physical place has on individuals, neighborhoods, and communities. Sustainable community development happens only through the creation and maintenance of strong social, economic, and political networks.

The person who can remain detached from the emotion inherent in community development has no business practicing with communities working for systemic change. The role of the new architect working with low and moderate income communities towards neighborhood revitalization is that of translator and catalyst, advocate and activist.