The Design Charrette

  • Rob Roggema


The term ‘charrette’ is originally from France. At the end of the nineteenth century the Architectural Faculty of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts issued problems that were so difficult few students could successfully complete them in the time allowed. As the deadline approached, a pushcart (or charrette in French) was wheeled past students’ work-spaces in order to collect their final drawings for jury critiques while students frantically put finishing touches on their work. To miss ‘the charrette’ meant an automatic grade of zero.

In this chapter the design charrette is defined and the key characteristics and benefits are elaborated. Further, the diversity of design charrettes is explored and the key dimensions of charrettes are defined. Finally, a proposal for framing design charrettes is launched.


Design Team BRIC Country Single Building Future Vision Sustainable Energy System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adger, W. N. (2003). Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Economic Geography, 79(4), 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Broadland Land Group. (2010). The Belmore Park Charrette. Norwich: Broadland Land Group. From Accessed 26 Sept 2011.
  3. Condon, P. M. (2008). Design charrettes for sustainable communities. Washington/Covelo/London: Island Press.Google Scholar
  4. Condon, P., Owen, S. M., & Miller, N. (2009). Sustainability by design, City of North Vancouver, 100 Year Sustainability Vision. Vancouver: City of North Vancouver. At: Accessed 26 Sept 2011.
  5. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. London: Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Davy, B. (2008). Plan it without a condom! Planning Theory, 7(3), 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DLG. (2005). Presentatie Schetsschuit Haarveld. Haarzuilens: DLG.Google Scholar
  8. DLG. (2009). Schetsschuit Middengebied Eindhoven-Helmond. Naar een Robuuste Groenblauwe Infrastructuur. Tilburg: DLG.Google Scholar
  9. García, B. (2005). De-constructing the City of Culture: The long term cultural legacies of Glasgow 1990. Review Issue of Urban Studies, 42(5/6), 1–28.Google Scholar
  10. Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multilevel perspective and a case study. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1257–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Geels, F. W. (2005). Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(6), 681–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 24–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink, the power of thinking without thinking. New York/Boston: Little, brown & Company.Google Scholar
  14. Grontmij. (2010). K2: Klimaat en Krimp in Rurale Gebieden in Noord Nederland. Assen: Ontwerpatelier Grounds for Change, Provincies Friesland, Groningen en Drenthe.Google Scholar
  15. Lab R+E+M. (2008). Grounds for change. Assen: Dierenpark Emmen, Provincie Drenthe.Google Scholar
  16. Lennertz, B., & Lutzenhiser, A. (2006). The charrette handbook. The essential guide for accelerated collaborative community planning. Chicago: The American Planning Association.Google Scholar
  17. Mitchell Waldrop, M. (1992). Complexity, the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York/London/Toronto/Sydney: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.Google Scholar
  18. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nyseth, T., Pløger, J., & Holm, T. (2010). Planning beyond the horizon: The Tromsø experiment. Planning Theory, 9(3), 223–247.Google Scholar
  20. Opticon Design Inc. & Lisa Wise Consulting Inc. (2009). Our Flagstaff. Land development code rewrite: Charrette summary report. Flagstaff: Flagstaff City Council.Google Scholar
  21. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  22. Polman, H. (2010). Een duurzame A28. Assen: Ontwerpatelier Grounds for Change, Provincie Drenthe en Regiovisie Groningen-Assen.Google Scholar
  23. Provincie Drenthe. (2006a). Grounds for change Hunzedal Borger. Assen: Provincie Drenthe.Google Scholar
  24. Provincie Drenthe. (2006b). Grounds for Change Typisch Vries in Drenthe “de ruggen op, de beken uit”. Assen: Provincie Drenthe.Google Scholar
  25. Provincie Drenthe. (2008). Grounds for change: Typisch Vries in Drenthe: “de ruggen op, de beken uit”. Assen: Provincie Drenthe.Google Scholar
  26. Roggema, R. (2009a). DESIGN, Hotspot Climate Proof Groningen (Final report). Groningen: Province of Groningen and Climate Changes Spatial Planning.Google Scholar
  27. Roggema, R. (Ed.). (2009b). INCREASE II, Proceedings of the second international conference on renewable energy approaches for the spatial environment. Groningen: UIBE and Province of Groningen.Google Scholar
  28. Roggema, R., & van den Dobbelsteen, A. (2006, April 17–21). A green heart in a red belt. A Bridging to the Future Design Charrette in Jinze, Province of Shanghai, District of Qingpu, Jinze Town.Google Scholar
  29. Roggema, R., Mallon, W., Sergeev, V., & Swaving, G.-J. (2008). INCREASE I; Towards a climate proof energy system in Groningen. Spatial impact of adjustments to the future energy system. Groningen/Wageningen: Provincie Groningen and Klimaat voor Ruimte.Google Scholar
  30. Roggema, R., & Boneschansker, O. (2010). INCREASE II; Final report of the second international conference on renewable energy approaches for the spatial environment; Towards a zero fossil energy region in 2050. Groningen: UIBE and Province of Groningen.Google Scholar
  31. Roggema, R., Martin, J., & Horne, R. (2011, December, 6–9). Sharing the climate adaptive dream: The benefits of the charrette approach. In: P. Dalziel (Ed.), Proceedings ANZRSAI conference. Canberra. Canterbury: AERU Research Unit.Google Scholar
  32. Scottish Sustainable Communities Initiative. (2010). Charrette series report. Brochure accessed September 26, 2011, from
  33. Sikkema, J., & Lucius, A. (2010). Van dierenpark naar mensenpark. Assen: Ontwerpatelier Grounds for Change, Provincie Drenthe en Gemeente Emmen.Google Scholar
  34. University of British Columbia. (2004). The Squamish Downtown Waterfront (DRAFT) Concept Plan. Squamish and Fraser Basin Council Vancouver. From Accessed 26 Sept 2011.
  35. Van Dam, F., & Noorman, K. J. (Eds.). (2005, May 25–30). Grounds for change: Bridging energy planning and spatial design strategies (Charrette Report). Groningen: Grounds for Change.Google Scholar
  36. Van den Berg, A. (2010). Kiemland. Assen: Ontwerpatelier Grounds for Change, Provincie Drenthe en Gemeente Meppel.Google Scholar
  37. Waddenvereniging. (2009). Schetsschuit Zuidwest Ameland. Veiligheid en Natuur Hand in Hand. Harlingen: Waddenvereniging.Google Scholar
  38. Waddenvereniging. (2010). Schetsschuit Texel. Naareen Klimaatbestendige Waterhuishouding. Harlingen: Waddenvereniging.Google Scholar
  39. Wolfram, S. (2002). A new kind of science. Champaign: Wolfram Media.Google Scholar
  40. World Bank. (2012). Categorisation of countries based on income classes. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Landscape Architecture, Van Hall LarensteinWageningen UniversityVelpThe Netherlands
  2. 2.The Swinburne Institute for Social ResearchSwinburne University of TechnologyHawthornAustralia

Personalised recommendations