Abstract
There is a lot that can go wrong in a planning process. The design can be wrong, the construction lacks confidence, the functionality of the design doesn’t meet future requirements and many other parts of a design may proof not adequate. In some cases this leads to opposing opinions and resistance. Realisation of the design delays and construction times are extended. Sometimes the design needs to be adjusted because there is no adequate solution for a risen problem. In many cases the people, which the design concerns, are not a part of the process, are not talked to or with or are only ‘consulted’ at the end. Often these people are seen as an annoying and necessary evil to be dealt with at the end of the planning process. Especially when these people become obstructive it causes frustration with the initiators of a certain plan. However, there are ways to overcome these and involve and communicate with the people that are concerned with the effects of planning initiatives. In this chapter some bad and good examples illustrate the necessity to shape the design process in a way in which people can participate and contribute to the process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Gulden is the former Dutch currency, replaced by the Euro in 2000.
- 2.
Cited from (own translation): Thomas Rosenboom, Publieke Werken, page 461–462.
References
Davy, B. (2008). Plan it without a condom! Planning Theory, 7(3), 301–317.
Florida, R. (2005). The flight of the creative class. New York: Harper Business.
Fryslân, P. (2007). Fryske Fiersichten, Ideeen en projecten voor Fryslân in 2030. Eindrapportage. Den Haag: Instituut SMO.
García, A. M., Ónega, F. J., Crecente, R., van Holst, F., Abts, E., Timmermans, W., et al. (Eds.). (2012). F:ACTS! Forms for adapting to climate change through territorial strategies; the handbook. Brussels: Interreg IVC.
Goldkorn, J. (2007). Property rights: The coolest nail house in history. Blogpost: http://www.danwei.org/bbs/property_rights_the_coolest_na.php. Accessed 18 Nov 2012.
Hulshof, M., & Roggeveen, D. (2012). De stad die naar meneer Sun verhuisde, over nieuwe megasteden in China. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij SUN.
Projectgroep IJburg. (2000). Stedenbouwkundig Plan Steigereiland. Amsterdam: DRO.
Ridderstråle, J., & Nordström, K. (2004). Karaoke capitalism. Harlow: Pearson education Ltd.
Rosenboom, T. (2000). Publieke werken. Amsterdam: Em. Querido’s Uitgeverij BV.
Stassen, B. (2001). Bedacht en gebouwd, 25 jaar Almere Stad. Almere: Dienst Stedelijke Ontwikkeling, gemeente Almere.
Timmermans, W., Cilliers, J., & Slijkhuis, J. (2012). Planning by surprise, the values of green spaces in towns and cities. Velp: Van Hall Larenstein.
Ward, A. (2012). Won’t sell up? Enjoy living in the middle of a motorway! Road is built around a house after elderly Chinese couple refuse to move. URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236746/Road-built-building-couple-refuse-China.html. Accessed 24 Dec 2012.
Weeber, C. (1998). Het Wilde Wonen. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Roggema, R. (2014). That Stubborn Mr. Vedder. In: Roggema, R. (eds) The Design Charrette. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7031-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7031-7_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7030-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7031-7
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)