Community Theatre as a Catalyst for Urban and Cultural Regeneration in Poor Areas of Detroit ©

Faculty: Joongsub Kim

Course Timeline: This is a fall term studio beginning on August 30, 2003 and ending on December 12, 2003.

Number of Credit Hours: 7 credit hours

Brief explanation of where the studio falls within the curriculum sequence: Sophomore students are required to take IDS1 (Integrated Design Studio 1) in the fall term and IDS 2 in the spring term along with other required courses (e.g., World Masterpieces, History of the Designed Environments, College Physics, Electronic Method). They then must take IDS 3 in the fall term and IDS 4 in the spring term in the junior year simultaneously with Structures, Building Systems and Environmental Systems. Students in the junior class are introduced to urban design and building systems in IDS 3 (urban design and landscape design in IDS 4), where they learn the material as part of the architectural design studio. Senior students will take Advanced Architectural Design Studio and Allied Design Studios.

Pre-requisites to the studio: The most crucial course that must precede this studio is IDS 2 (Integrated Design Studio 2), which should be taken in the last semester (i.e., the spring term) of sophomore year.

Approximate Number of Students: 16

Pedagogic Framework

This studio consists of three distinctive but related components: architecture (4 credits), urban design (2 credits), and building systems (1 credit). This applicant, acting as a lead studio instructor, will teach both the architecture and urban design components and the second instructor will teach the building systems component. Although each component will be taught according to a different time schedule because of College of Architecture and Design curriculum and contact hours requirements, this instructor will coordinate the three components regarding major studio activities (e.g., joint review sessions, community presentations).

Moreover, the studio's location is an important factor given the (interdisciplinary) structure of the studio and its project content (i.e., community theatre: see Project Overview). The studio will be taught at The Detroit Studio, located a short drive from the project site. It is a community-based satellite studio of the College of Architecture and Design at Lawrence Technological University, Michigan. The Detroit Studio will act as a community outreach studio and a community learning lab to actively engage the community and diverse stakeholders in the proposed project.

Project Overview

The project responds to the changing needs and growth of The Detroit Repertory Theatre and the poor surrounding neighborhood by working collaboratively with the Theatre and other stakeholders through community-based design. The audience of this non-profit theater is mostly black - an intergenerational mix of low-income, middle management, and professional families in Detroit and surrounding areas. The Theatre's neighborhood needs serious help fighting urban decay. As a community-focused entity serving its neighborhood for decades through various outreach programs, the Theatre addresses the neighborhood's quality of life. In particular, the goal is to develop a Community Theatre serving children and families. The new theater will take a crucial step towards creating a pedestrian-friendly Cultural Village to serve the cultural needs of the community, provide jobs for indigenous artists, expand the Theatre's influence, attract healthy commercial and non-commercial growth in the neighborhood, and improve the quality of life for its residents.

Core Objectives

1. To expose students to a diverse range of architectural curricula and practices
2. To explore a holistic inquiry into the built environment using interdisciplinary, community-based, and collaborative strategies
3. To help students understand how design becomes meaningful for and interlaces with a community, through interacting with people from diverse political and socio-economic backgrounds
4. To develop an understanding of well-grounded design practices by engaging social scientific research; by weaving together theory and method from the arts, sciences, and humanities into architectural inquiry; and by weaving together theory and practice
5. To explore socially responsive, consensus-based, and deliberative design practices and processes that promote participation, social learning and community building

Clients and/or user consultants involved

1. The Detroit Repertory Theatre: The majority of its audience is African American, an intergenerational mix of low-income, middle management, and professional families in 13 counties of Southeast Michigan including the City of Detroit.
2. The Muslim Center: This includes the Mosque and Community Center for the Muslim population in the neighborhood where the Theatre is located. It is a community-focused organization that has been actively involved in neighborhood revitalization in the area.
3. The Focus: HOPE: This is a non-profit, educational institution near the project area. It offers educational programs in engineering, science, and business for youth, adult, and continuing education serving low-income neighborhoods in Detroit; and a broad range of professional/expert supports for neighborhood revitalization.
4. The Davison, Rosa Parks, and Linwood Neighborhood Block Club Associations: These African American-based organizations comprise mainly elderly or long-term residents who meet on a regular basis to address a broad range of community-related issues and concerns. The project site, the Theatre, and its neighborhood are part of these associations.
5. The Woodrow and Davison Business Associations: Members include Hispanic, African American, or Asian American small business owners in the project area. They strive to promote neighborhood-based, homegrown, small businesses that meet the needs of their neighborhoods.
6. Five local schools: These include elementary, middle, and high schools in the Theatre's neighborhood. The students who go to these schools are mostly African American or Hispanic. They have expressed an interest in collaborating with the Theatre and other community organizations to revitalize the deteriorating neighborhood.
7. Six local churches: The churches are comprised mainly of an African-American congregation. Many of them are community-focused entities that strive to further improve and strengthen the quality of life in the neighborhood and across the community through various outreach programs.
8. The Detroit Studio Advisory Board Members: The advisors are well known experts in the areas of architecture, urban design, landscape architecture, urban planning, and community design in the City of Detroit and the State of Michigan. They represent diverse educational, professional, or governmental organizations. They will be invited to participate in key studio events such as reviews, presentations, design charrettes, and focus group sessions to share their insights.

Approach to the Proposed Studio Process and Content

To address the ideas from the aforementioned reports (e.g., Boyer's and Mitgang's), lessons from four previous projects carried out by other scholars serve as a theoretical underpinning and necessary practical tool for the proposed studio

1. Placemaking (Schneekloth and Shibley, 1995) The authors argue that placemaking embodies a set of tasks performed to support practice: creating an open space for dialogue about place and placemaking through good relationships with place constituencies; seeking the dialectical work of confirmation and interrogation; facilitating the framing of action. Such placemaking can be realized in part through a conversation-based, "constructive" design process to promote more active community participation.
2. Interaction of Programming and Design (Dogan and Zimring, 2002) The authors argue that the relationship between programming and design is interactive. Programmatic issues and design issues should be clarified together. Accordingly, during this interactive process both client and architect assume significant responsibilities and clients have the potential to play crucial roles in design. The interactive model suggests that the architect-experts should facilitate the opportunity for clients to play a co-partner role in identifying challenges and opportunities that the project presents and in developing or evaluating design alternatives.
3. Consensus Design (Day and Parnell, 2002) The authors contend that when professionals design places for people, many things obvious to the residents are overlooked; when places are designed by laypersons, the design can suffer from a lowest-common-denominator effect; when places are designed by both together, conflict often ensues. However, as the authors argue, co-design is not doomed to conflict or banality if it is managed correctly. Consensus design teaches us how to reach agreement within a specific time frame with diverse groups of people. Consensus design can involve people in meaningfully shaping where they live and work. Consensus can influence social stability, personal health, and building longevity, all of which in turn affect environmental costs.
4. The Deliberative Practitioner (Forester, 1999) Citizen participation in such complex issues as the quality of the environment, housing, and urban design often provokes anger among stakeholders and power plays by many - as well as appeals to rational argument. Forester shows how skillful deliberative practices can facilitate practical and timely participatory planning processes. He draws on political science, law, philosophy, literature, and planning to explore the challenges and possibilities of deliberative practice. Forester's ideas are relevant to architecture since the design context is often fraught with differences, conflicts, and inequalities. A design process can shape opinion and create value, transforming not just material conditions but human relationships. This book demonstrates the significance of public deliberations that give space to plural voices and strengthen democratic practices. Adversarial situations are not predetermining. In the context of design solutions they can be negotiated towards collaborative action. Deliberative design should be a process of learning together to craft strategies towards greater community good.

Drawing upon these previous findings, I intend to create a design/research studio utilizing interdisciplinary, community-based, and collaborative approaches to architecture and urban issues. Furthermore, I will explore architectural design conceived as a set of "deliberative" design practices. To this end, the studio will focus on the use of architectural design as a tool to promote social learning, negotiation, conversation, and community building. The project area will be the living laboratory for exploring fresh perspectives in community design, for fostering healthy cultural reform, and for revitalizing the urban environment. The studio will serve as a civic design forum for debating contemporary design paradigms, developing arguments for new urban theories, and testing theories. To accomplish this, this studio will, in addition to including the typical focus group sessions, charrettes, neighborhood presentations, crits, and workshops, engage in social scientific research (interviews, a survey, observational studies, Post Occupancy Evaluation, and archival research). Research activities include testing hypotheses, evaluating existing facilities, conducting feasibility studies, and formulating design principles. Social scientific research will also be utilized to evaluate student work and studio outcomes (e.g., testing a design hypothesis through a community survey). These activities help students understand how design becomes meaningful for and interlaces with a community, through interacting with people from diverse backgrounds and exploring how theory and practice are woven into a holistic view of and inquiry into the built environment.

The Detroit Studio has engaged in many of the aforementioned strategies. My experience directing The Detroit Studio as a community-based and interdisciplinary studio/research lab will help me to successfully complete the proposed studio.

I will also consider the Community Theatre a catalyst for social construction via bridging between architecture and planning; between theory and practice; and between the perspectives of laypersons and professionals. To advance this goal, I will conduct research on the role of a local community theatre as a magnet for revitalizing the distressed areas of a major city. A few successful examples have been identified (e.g., a cultural village), with more rigorous fieldwork on national cases to be conducted during fall term 2003. The findings will be used to promote the community theatre as a local anchor/driving force behind the rebuilding of deteriorating urban neighborhoods in other future projects, and as a theoretical foundation for the proposed studio.

The students' final project consists of (1) a design proposal for a new community theatre (the architecture/building systems components: an individual assignment) and (2) a cultural village proposal covering a number of blocks around the Theatre (the urban component: a group assignment).

Documentation of the studio outcomes involves not just the final product but also the process (what steps we take, how we arrive at consensus, how we resolve conflicts or differences of opinion in design, what disagreements we have, and how we use disagreement to promote consensus). Readers will be able to use such "process"-based information as a practical, precedent-setting educational resource.

The studio activities will be shared with the entire University via the Detroit Studio's new Website. This is in addition to the Junior Year Integrated Design Studio Forums, where each studio section reports ongoing studio progress to the entire College. The aforementioned focus group sessions and a community charette will be another special occasion where other students and instructors are welcome to participate

Responses to Reviewer's Questions

1. Incorporate ways to better understand the unique needs of the subgroups within the target area. The primarily African-American audience includes children and older people as well people with disabilities of all ages.

   The following is an overview of “a multi-faceted” system that I have already incorporated into the proposed studio to deal effectively with the issues raised in the first question, and implementation of its approach is already under way. Since the week of August 25th, the students have been conducting site, local, and regional analyses of our project area. This assignment pertains to the first component of this comprehensive approach. Part of this assignment deals with demographic analyses of the site and its neighborhood. One of the main goals of the analyses is improved understanding of key demographic characteristics (e.g., identification of dominant age groups and various subgroups). The class and the Detroit Repertory Theatre (our studio client) already met together and are scheduled to have a few more meetings to compare notes regarding the findings of research by students and the theater. This is a way to cross check both groups’ findings, to benefit from one another’s perspectives, and to capture a reasonably accurate demographic picture of the project area.

   The second component of the aforementioned multi-faceted approach is using the initial findings of the demographic analyses as a base from which to reach out to various local community organizations (e.g., block group associations, small business owners’ associations, non-profit organizations, schools, churches, etc.). With the assistance of these groups, we hope to be able to identify and understand the unique needs of the subgroups within the target area. The class is scheduled to have a first meeting with some of these organizations on Wednesday, September 10, at the studio. Additionally, the participants in this first meeting will discuss future meeting schedules and agendas regarding understanding of the needs and concerns of the subgroups and the community at large.

   The third component of the multi-level approach is conducting in-depth interviews with representative samples of each of the subgroups regarding their needs. The interview questions will be developed by this author, the students, the client, and other organizations based on the outcomes of the second component above. The questions are developed in such a way that the participants’ responses can be properly analyzed and documented. The interviews will be conducted by this author and students between now and the time of the midterm project review. The overall outcomes of the interviews will be shared with all participants throughout the semester.

   The fourth component of the multi-level approach is utilizing social scientific methods to explore the needs of the subgroups. An effort is already underway by this author to develop a questionnaire survey. This process is more comprehensive and structured than the aforementioned in-depth interviews, which are more focused, small-scale, and face-to-face based. The main goal of the survey is to reach the larger population in the target area, especially the groups who are underrepresented or reluctant to participate in the in-depth interview sessions mentioned above. The preliminary questionnaire is to be developed on the basis of other fieldwork and the interviews with the client group and other stakeholders. The questionnaire will consist of questions ascertaining the needs, concerns, issues, or expectations of the subgroups. The students, the client, and the community groups will review the draft survey. The questions are developed so that the participants’ responses can be properly analyzed and documented. It is my plan to have at least two pretests in late September before conducting the final survey in early October, prior to the midterm. The actual number of pretests is subject to local circumstances, which are not always predictable or stable (e.g., the level of participation of community groups, rescheduling or cancellation of meetings, etc.). The studio has a plan to conduct follow-up interviews with some of the survey participants who are willing to be interviewed. Although the studio would like to take these steps in the order in which they are described above, that is not always possible due to ever-changing local situations. The studio attempts to respond to local conditions in a reasonably flexible manner. The overall outcomes of the final survey will be shared with all participants throughout the semester.
   

2. Confirm that there will be direct experience with the clients as well as readings.

   This author/instructor met with the clients alone only prior to the start of the semester. These meetings involved reviewing and finalizing the studio project (contents and scope), the semester schedule, pertinent school curriculum issues, publication issues, and other administrative/logistical matters. Once the semester begins, the students will have or begin to have direct contact with the studio clients and other stakeholders in all site tours guided by the clients, interviews, the survey, meetings, presentations, focus group sessions, design charrettes, desk crits, and the public reception of the final project. A majority of these activities is already in the course schedule. Some clients’ meetings and interviews are initiated/coordinated by the students themselves, as they deem necessary. The number of participating community groups in this author’s previous proposal is justifiable because relationships between The Detroit Studio and some of the stakeholder groups have been formed over time through various community outreach efforts by the students and instructors, including me. Although all of the listed groups expressed interest in collaborating with the studio and the clients on the proposed project, there is no absolute guarantee that all of them will remain committed due to their hectic schedules, their changing priorities, or unforeseen circumstances in the remaining semester. The students in the proposed studio will have opportunities to interact with all the listed community groups as long as they do not drop out.

   Readings: key reading materials have been assigned throughout the semester in both individual and small group assignments. Some reading assignments are given upon deliberation of this author’s lecture on key issues. Students are to write papers and essays on certain key readings. Regarding other reading assignments, the students are required to engage in group or class discussions via an Internet-based Blackboard Group Chat Room or at the studio. The sources of the readings include three assigned textbooks, various scholarly articles, and Internet pieces concerning architecture, theatre, art, building systems, urban design, and community development. Also included are the works of Boyer and Mitgang and four previous projects carried out by other scholars mentioned in my original application for the award (i.e., Placemaking, Interaction of Programming and Design, Consensus Design, and The Deliberative Practitioner).
   

3. Please clarify the nature of the approach that will be taken to the review of the students’ work

   The following describes the philosophy and process used for the implementation of the “holistic” assessment of the students’ projects at the proposed studio. The assessment approach is holistic; it incorporates various measures that are inclusive, balanced, and multi-dimensional. Since the studio will act as a community outreach studio and a community learning lab to actively engage the community and diverse stakeholders in the proposed project, it will provide ample opportunity for various participants to assess the students’ work according to an approach that is interdisciplinary, both process and product-based, both incremental and comprehensive, both formal and informal, both theoretical and practical, and both architectural and social-scientific.

   In doing so, the studio embraces not only conventional (or traditional) but also non-conventional studio review processes (thus the “holistic” assessment approach proposed here), although the latter is more crucial in promoting the goals of the proposed studio. Rather than completely rejecting a typical, traditional review process where students present their work to design expert juries/critics for their comments in front of all those present, the studio invites these critics to the public arena where their views, points of focus (e.g., an emphasis on aesthetics, or on form-making) and review approaches can be contested and contrasted against the views of other stakeholders such as the studio clients, local community organizations, local officials, and the lay public. This public forum will be a place where disagreements, conflicts, and miscommunications are displayed, where all assessing parties will have to learn how to reconcile differences among participants of diverse backgrounds and between theory and practice. In this way participants learn how to arrive at consensus in a timely manner on what is considered a successful or desirable response to the issues that the target community and the client group face. The key does not necessarily lie, however, in achieving one ultimate design solution or result for all concerned parties, but rather in promoting each participant’s ability to manage differences, democratic decision-making, and collective agreement in an expeditious manner through various review and deliberative processes. Additionally, to ensure the success of this consensus-based approach, all participants are reminded of the decisions or outcomes of the previous review session. This will help them determine the appropriate direction to take in subsequent review sessions.

   More specifically, both midterm and final term reviews will be based on the participation of design expert/critics, the clients, local community organizations, and city officials. Also already incorporated into the schedule throughout the semester are numerous less formal or progress reviews, such as weekly assignment progress reviews, a pre final review, and individual desk crits—where students would have more informal or casual but nevertheless focused and personalized attention and input from not only design expert critics but also laypeople (i.e., studio clients, community agencies, residents) as well as municipal officials. Arguably, this type of informal review in a non-threatening atmosphere also responds well to those students who are introverted but equally talented and who do not always perform well in a traditional style review process. Moreover, such casual, individual-based reviews can benefit non-traditional student groups in a seemingly diverse student mix in the proposed studio (e.g., currently enrolled students include whites, blacks, Asians, females, males, single parents, Vietnam vets, etc.).

   Community-based design charrettes and focus group sessions provide different but invaluable venues for reviewers to test the students’ design hypotheses and to review their preliminary design alternatives through hands-on collective exercise and thematic group discussion among the class, the clients, community organizations, and other professional experts.

   Students are assessed in terms of both their individual design work and group work. Moreover, attendance, participation, contribution, and professional conduct comprise 15% of the total course grade. This is to assure the students that a community-based studio requires individual initiative/dedication to promote collective efforts and responsibility for achieving the common good of the studio.

   On the whole, grading in each major review or other selected reviews will be based on the combined assessment scores of students’ work as judged by all participating reviewers—design experts (1/4), the studio client (The Detroit Repertory Theatre, 1/4), local community organizations (1/4), and this author (1/4). The questionnaire will be used for all reviewers to document their comments or grades for each review. The overall outcomes of the assessment questionnaire will be shared with all participants throughout the semester. Also considered in the determination of a final course grade is each student’s progress throughout the semester. Overall student progress will be aggregated and incorporated into the publication of the final studio projects. This is one way to ensure the documentation of the process in which studio progress has been made.

For more information contact Joongsub Kim at j_kim@ltu.edu

Read the Forum on this topic

Citation: Kim, Joongsub (2003). Community Theatre as a Catalyst for Urban and Cultural Regeneration in Poor Areas of Detroit ©. Retrieved (Enter date here), from Universal Design Education Online web site: http://www.udeducation.org/teach/asj/kim.asp