My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD10354
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
DayForward
>
1
>
FLOOD10354
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 10:13:12 AM
Creation date
10/24/2007 10:03:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Mesa
Community
Grand Junction
Stream Name
Colorado River
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Title
A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Waterfront Redevelopment and Design - A Case Study of the Colorado Riverfront
Date
6/1/1988
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />.. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />Chapter VI <br />The Grand Junction/Colorado <br />River Design Team Process in <br />Review <br /> <br />Karl G. Metzner <br />Grand Junction <br />Planning Department <br /> <br />When Planning Department staff first considered a design <br />team concept, we were unsure where it would lead, or if it <br />would accomplish the desired objectives. Almost anyone in <br />planning or design can point to cases where outside "experts" <br />failed to produce desired results. We wanted the team to be <br />comprised of individuals from different disciplines, but didn't <br />know how well such a team would function. Fortunately, the <br />professionalism and dedication of our team members, com- <br />bined with extensive local support for the overall effort, <br />resulted in a process that exceeded expectations. <br />Significant contributions were made by every member of <br />the design team, but it was the integrated final product <br />resulting from those contributions that was of greatest value. <br />Ronald Fleming looked at the project from the perspective <br />of how people use and relate to public spaces. He identified <br />opportunities to provide a "sense of place" that would attract <br />people to the project, and suggested ways to connect the <br />various design elements together. <br />This was woven into Urban Edges' understanding of the <br />design and function of recreational facilities, so that both <br />passive and active elements were interrelated into the design. <br />Grant Jones contributed his knowledge of working with the <br />river environment so that all elements would be compatible <br />with, and complementary to, the natural setting prevalent <br />along most of the river. Retaining this natural element in close <br />proximity to the central downtown area provided a unique <br />and desirable feature to the project. <br />The Waterfront Center provided the important final piece <br />to this cooperative effort by identifying various implementa- <br />tion strategies which will make the plan a reality. These <br />strategies allow the different aspects of the project to be under- <br />taken as opportunities permit, while providing amenities that <br />can stand alone until later connected. <br />It has been mentioned previously that the planning strategy <br />changed as the team process progressed. In any process, such <br />changes should be allowed and encouraged. Each team will <br />differ, based on the background of its members. It's impor- <br />tant to let team members function in ways they find most <br />effective, even if they deviate from the original strategy. <br />We found that, in our case, the process was as important <br /> <br />as the product. The process provided the means for bringing <br />together differing local viewpoints more creatively. The inter- <br />view portion of the process seemed to have been as valuable <br />for those being interviewed as for the team members <br />themselves. Responding to questions posed by team members, <br />participants were able to focus more intensely on the river <br />and its effects on the community. Often, new perspectives were <br />found to many of the ideas normally taken for granted. Com- <br />munities considering a design team process should not <br />overlook the opportunity for using the process to strengthen <br />public support for the project. The public reception and <br />presentation meetings were only part of the community <br />involvement process. The media were encouraged to par- <br />ticipate, and this concentrated exposure helped to reinforce <br />community commitment and enthusiasm. <br />A design team comprising individuals from outside the com- <br />munity will invite a fresh perspective, so critical to the develop- <br />ment of innovative concepts and eliminate possible local bias <br />in project development. Also, someone who visits the com- <br />munity for just a few days is more likely to be honest in his <br />or her assessment, since there are no local loyalties to uphold. <br /> <br />Public Presentation - Duane Holmes, Dick Rigby, Ann Breen and <br />Grant Jones <br /> <br /> <br />35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.