Project Management in Urban Design

Basics

Intro

Teaser: Basics
Theoretical-conceptual basics

Modes of Play

Coming into Play

Motive
Mobilising the brief
Lists
Processing Contingency
Coming into Play
Moving Fences

Play?

State of the art in research

How to Play

Preliminary Practice
Refining the Question
Intervene

Play

Doing

Baseline Survey
Organizing Agencies
Mini Golf

Reflecting

Importing Knowledge
Reflecting
Project Management

Recording

Making Videos
Notations

Displaying

Research Wall
Closing Ceremony

Understanding the Play

Moving beyond the question
Propositions in archives
A matter of re-assembling
Reflective Review: Begegnen

Project Closure

Project Closure

Repository

Sort by:

Entry date Issue date Category

Filter by: All (36)
–
–

Category: conception (15×) description (8×) manual (4×) reference (5×) synthesis (3×)
Contributors: Alexander Römer (2×) Andreas Meichner (1×) Anna Richter (3×) Anna-Sophie Seum (4×) Annika Bauer (3×) Atena Mahjoub (1×) Bernd Kniess (5×) Christopher Dell (4×) Diana Schäffer (4×) Dominique Peck (19×) Flora Fessler (2×) Franziska Dehm (1×) Johannes Schöckle (4×) Juliane Bötel (3×) Kirsten Plöhn (2×) Lena Enne (5×) Maja Momic (1×) Mareike Oberheim (4×) Marian Rudhart (3×) Marie Therese Jakoubek (1×) Marius Töpfer (1×) Milena Stoldt (1×) Negin Jahangiri (4×) Nina Manz (1×) Olena Pudova (3×) Pascal Scheffer (1×) Rebecca Wall (2×) Ronja Scholz (4×) Tomma Groth (1×) Yohanna Bund (1×)
Keywords: "Projects" (5×) action (1×) Communication (1×) Design (3×) Dokumentation (7×) Expertinnen des Alltags (1×) matters of form (3×) medium (4×) Minimal Structure (1×) notation (3×) planning (2×) problematisation (1×) Rothenburgsort (1×) stadtteilöffentlich (1×) Uncertainty (1×)

Dominique Peck has joined the Research and Teaching Programme Urban Design’s academic staff at HafenCity University in 2015. Being a UD alumni, his work has a focus on project management, design development and transposing formats in research, teaching and practice. Dominique was co-project managing the live project Building a Proposition for Future Activities and is now focused on his PhD Project Re-positioning Project Management in Urban Design.

Bernd Kniess is an architect and urban planner. Since 2008 he is Professor for Urban Design at HafenCity Universität Hamburg where he established the Master Programme Urban Design. He is interested in the negotiation of the contemporary city, whose planning principles he aims to diagrammatically describe and transfer into a relational practice as procedure.

Public space is where public life unfolds!
Stadtteilbeirat Rothenburgsort
Issues
The evening before
Exposé
Unbuilding
The Community of Deconstruction
From disciplines to disciplining
Learning from Las Vegas
Everyday Urbanism
Urban Design
Administered World
Open Form
Project Archaeology
Facilitate Uncertainty
Rules of Play
Workshop: Infrastructure
Cooperative Review Process
Project Days
Planänderung
Mediators
Conception
Interviews
Coproduction
Reflective Review
Performance
Talking Billebogen Atlas
Talking Stadteingang Elbbrücken
21. Situationen Rothenburgsort
Annäherungen an was?
Tod dem Projekt! Lang lebe der systemische Wandel
New Commons for Europe
Allesandersplatz
Die Stadt als offene Partitur
Give me a gun and I will make all buildings move

Play

Building a Proposition for Future Activities

Transposition 1: Project vs. Project Days
Transposition 2: Project Days vs. Planning Competition
Transposition 3: Planning Competition vs. Jury
Transposition 7: Completion of service phase 2 vs. Project Execution
References
HCU
HOOU
Imprint
Reflective Review
Column A
Jury chairman Christoph Heinemann discloses the project office behind the reviews in the cooperative review process Building a Proposition for Future Activities, 5 October 2017. Photo: Marko Mijatovic for the Research and Teaching Programme Urban Design. CC BY-SA 4.0

In addition to the process organization the district authority commissioned the Research and Teaching Programme Urban Design with the evaluation of the project. The call for an evaluation came from the Hamburg Parliament Document 21/6472). UD’s aim for this part of the commission was to operationalize the evaluation as a research and design transfer. UD argued to do so because of the model character of the project, which, for UD, entailed the documentation and evaluation of the processes and procedures with the aim to make pitfalls and potentials available for future projects organized by other parties.
This technique was originally developed as a part of the UD curriculum at HCU. Students are asked to assemble a provisional disposition of their entire body of work in order to enable themselves in discussion with others to grasp methods, tools, theories and motifs for their Urban Design Thesis Projects.

About column A

Focus-group-like discussions in planning processes are everywhere. Typical formats include inquiry colloquiums, public discussions, round tables, jury meetings, thematic workshops, markets of possibilities etc. All of these formats are planned discussions using a variety of modes of representation of states of projects to review the processing of a particular topic or (set) of milestones with the aim to learn about assessments and their effects for future projections. Classic conceptualisations of the focus group address the individual in public discourse and/or the opinion of a group. “Compared to other survey types, the biggest advantage of the group discussions is that they can work out collective orientations, so to speak. Only in conversation one sees oneself compelled to call one's own opinion and assert one’s arguments, by which deeper attitudes and a larger range of reactions come to light. The mutual influence of the participants and that between the moderator and the members of the group, which is regarded as a disturbing variable in standardized procedures, is a constituent part of the procedure in group discussions (Vogl 2014, 582).”
Recently, study programmes like Social Design, Urban Design and Architecture with a focus on Live Projects have transposed concepts and formats of group discussions from social and cultural sciences. The Handbook for Live Projects by the Sheffield School of Architecture defines the reflective review as a detailed, round-table exploration of the project with the project management and another reviewer where the project management has time to focus upon the processes of the project as well as its outcomes.

The reflective review is assessed on the basis of
The effectiveness the project’s organisational structure in relation to the project’s motive and the quality of design work carried out.
The appropriateness and creativity of any format used during the process
A reflection on oppositions, limitations and possibly better modes of realising the project
A reflection on wider implications of the project’s lessons learned in general and scopes of application represented by members of the project’s stakeholders in particular.

Project management in Urban Design is a set of practices unfolding in a variety of settings. Delicate issues are often discussed in private, or with a limited set of actors in a back-room setting. Reflective reviews present a ‘public’ setting for discussion and thus are able to make the explication of knowledge production processes available for discussion. The project manager must be aware of different roles enacted during the reflective review. These include: the moderator, the influencer, the opinion leader, the expert in a bubble, the generalist, the punk, the dummy, the reviewer and the projector.

Conduct
Openness is not arbitrariness. Here, similar to interviews, a briefing will be appreciated by all people and things related to the conduct of a reflective review. In relation to the briefing a guide is key to a prolific process of conducting a reflective review. Both formats function a facilitator between all actors to be included and the knowledge interest in a particular situation of a project.

Reflective reviews with a group of people are no shortcut compared to interviews with individuals. The organisation, transcription and analysis of a reflective reviews needs diligent researchers, assistants and production and post-production crew members.

Data privacy and protection
If research projects include the collection, processing or use of personal data, the rights of data subjects and in particular their right to informational self-determination must also be taken into account in a proportionate manner. An insight into the data protection principles in Germany can be found in the privacy policy of the Council for Social and Economic Data (RatSWD).

Metadata
Issue date: 09/02/2018
Entry date: 10/06/2020
Contributors: Dominique Peck
Keywords: Dokumentation
pdf
Related Content
  • Transposition 1: Project vs. Project Days
  • Transposition 2: Project Days vs. Planning Competition
References

Vogl, Susanne. “Gruppendiskussionen.” In Handbuch Methoden der Empirischen Sozialforschung, edited by Nina Baur and Jörg Blasius, 581–86. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2014. //www.springer.com/de/book/9783531178097.