Participatory Design and Howard Roark: The Story of the Detroit Collaborative Design Center

Part of the Urban and Landscape Perspectives book series (URBANLAND, volume 7)


Planners have often been criticized for expert-driven practice. “Professional planners, with their urgent need to act, move too quickly to models and inventories” and “tend to screen out the connections between the physical environment and its social meaning” (Tuan, 1977 and Appleyard 1979 in Mehrhoff, 1999, p. 61). Yet citizens perceive their communities as natural, economic and social entities, as well as spatial environments that are sources of delight, displeasure or despair (Mehrhoff, 1999). When processes of change are driven by experts, planning focuses too much on issues of land use and public finance, often ignoring environmental and design issues because they are difficult to quantify. When citizens are given an opportunity to engage in participatory planning and design, expert-driven planners are often at a loss as to how to proceed.


Participatory Design Participatory Planning Workshop Series Technical Assistance Provider Citizen Control 
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. Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 34, 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blake, S. dir. (2006a). Detroit collaborative design center. . .amplifying the diminished voice. Winnipeg (DVD): Sou International Ltd.Google Scholar
  3. Blake, S. (2006b). Knowledge, skills and attitudes needed by community designers. Plan Canada, 11(12), 43–45.Google Scholar
  4. Comerio, M. C. (1984). Community design: Idealism and entrepreneurship. Architecture and Planning Research, 1, 227–243.Google Scholar
  5. Cuff, D. (1991). Architecture: The story of practice. Boston: MIT.Google Scholar
  6. De Carlo, G. (2005). Architecture’s public. In P. B. Jones, D. Petrescu, & J. Till (Eds.), Architecture and participation. Oxford: Spon.Google Scholar
  7. Francis, M. (1983, Fall). Community design. Journal of Architectural Education, 14–19.Google Scholar
  8. Hester, R. T. (1983). Process can be style: Participation and conservation in landscape architecture. Landscape Architecture, 5, 49–55.Google Scholar
  9. Hochachka, G. (2005). Developing sustainability, developing the self: An integral approach to international and community development. Victoria: University of Victoria.Google Scholar
  10. Mehrhoff, A. W. (1999). Community design: A team approach to dynamic community systems. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Peikoff, L. (1993). Afterword. In A. Rand (1943) (Ed.), The fountainhead. New York: Signet.Google Scholar
  12. Sanoff, H. (2006). Personal interview.Google Scholar
  13. Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Till, J. (2005). The negotiation of hope. In P. B. Jones, Petrescu D, & J. Till (Eds.), Architecture and participation. Oxford: Spon.Google Scholar
  15. Towers, G. (1995). Building democracy: Community architecture in the inner cities. London: UCL.Google Scholar
  16. Wates, N. & Knevitt, C. (1987). Community architecture: How people are creating their own environment. Sulfolk: Penguin.Google Scholar
  17. Worth, S. (1981). Studying visual communication. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ManitobaWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations