Project Introduction

The project team has been busy these past few weeks with planning and executing the initial site visit. 

The process started with the development of engagement strategies, designed to gather input from Master Gardeners on their overarching vision for the site. Reading through David de la Peña's Design as Democracy: Techniques for Collective Creativity and IDEO's The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design: Design Kit, the team searched for methods that would work best for our current stage of the process of visioning. It was determined that a two-phased approach would work best for the Master Gardeners - a dot activity where community members selected their favorite use of the site, and a map activity where community members indicated where on the map they would like to see the program item. The mapping activity would also provide an area for participants to explain why they selected what they did. These methods together provided qualitative and quantitative data which helped inform the desired uses of space. For the Extension staff, the team decided to go with a focus group approach.

Before implementing these methods, the design team tested the activities with LAND 7050S classmates. Wording, images, medium, and organization of activities were all scrutinized, providing valuable insights for improvement. For example, the mapping activity initially contained a completely blank map where participants were free to provide input in whatever way they desired. Through input from classmates, the design team realized that it would be helpful to structure the activity a little more by providing some options for program areas and corresponding legend. Given that Karol had already conducted preliminary discussions with Master Gardeners on their goals and programming needs for the site, the team already had a fairly good idea of items that would come up; therefore this knowledge formed the basis for what we included as options on the map. At the same time, there was a desire to leave it open-ended enough at this stage so that any new ideas could be considered. Therefore, an option where people could provide their own answer was included. 

In the weeks before the visit, the design team finalized the materials and prepared for the day-long visit to the site. The plan was to meet with Master Gardeners, Extension Staff, and a local landscape architect. Additionally, the design team hoped to gain a better understanding of the site context via sidewalk intercept survey and a neighborhood walkabout. The day started with the sidewalk intercept survey, followed by site walk with the Master Gardeners, and visioning activities all of which took place on the Train Center auditorium. 

Since the Train Center is an ongoing construction site, there were some unknowns with trying to set up the visioning portion of the event.  The team was able to set up in the auditorium, but because there were no chairs or meeting materials, Master Gardeners were asked to bring their own lawn chairs for seating. The team created print-outs of project materials and used large-format boards to aid in our presentation. Because of COVID concerns, social distancing was another consideration. Fortunately, because of the large space of the auditorium, and open parts of the building due to construction, air flow within the space was fairly strong. 

After the visioning activities, the team took a lunch break with Karol, trying out the one of the local restaurants. With a busy afternoon planned, the team then continued on with a meeting with local landscape architect, meeting with Extension staff, and a neighborhood tour by Karol. 

The one-on-one and group conversations with the Master Gardeners and Extension staff provided a helpful look into how each user group would utilize the space. The Master Gardeners were excited about spaces for trial gardens, outdoor classrooms, and a diverse native plant palette. There were some fun ideas raised by the Master Gardeners that hadn't previously come up before. For example, one Master Gardener proposed the creation of a 'secret garden' in the nook behind the former play area. He reminded the group that while a low maintenance landscape was the goal, that we shouldn't let that lose sight of the "magic" of the site. Extension staff were more excited about practical aspects of the site, like casual flexible outdoor spaces that could be used to take their laptop outside during the day, places to eat lunch outdoors, and outdoor classrooms.  

After meeting with the project stakeholders, the design team began working on two design alternatives based of the feedback from the engagement exercises. There were not any major disagreements over what design elements were most important to the site so the decision was made to focus more on how the design elements were presented in relation to staff and the public. Alternative One was a more private oriented design. While people passing the site would be able to see into it, shrubs and other vegetation were used to create separation, emphasizing the private nature of the space. Alternative Two was more public oriented. It included a more permeable edge with multiple entryways and it moved the demonstration garden from the hill near the back of the site to the existing parking lot. This placed the demonstration garden directly adjacent to the sidewalk and road, making it more accessible to the public. One other major difference between the two alternatives was the patio area behind the building. Alternative One created a terraced amphitheater while Alternative Two did not terrace the hill, but instead expanded the existing patio. Several perspectives of different areas of the site were also created to give the project stakeholders a better idea of what the designed spaces might look like.

After completing these alternatives, the design team presented them to the project stakeholders for input. In general, they preferred the more private oriented design, but also wanted several elements from the public oriented design. The vegetative buffer along the site edge was preferred over the more permeable edge and terracing the hill was preferred to expanding the patio. However, having the demonstration garden located in front of the building was very popular with the caveat that the parking situation would need to be figured out before it was implemented. After the discussion, participants were asked to fill out a survey where they could give additional thoughts and feedback about the two designs. Unlike the initial engagement meeting, this one was done through zoom and the survey conducted through google forms.

One of the main takeaways from this phase was difference in design preference between extension staff and master gardeners. In general the extension staff was more in favor of the privately oriented design than the master gardeners. This highlights the difficulty of creating a design that addresses the wants of two groups of people whose day to day interaction with the design site may be very different. Extension staff will need to travel to the site to work every day, so their concerns were more focused on elements that would improve their daily work routine. Elements such as parking access and quiet outdoor workspace were more highly prioritized by them than by the master gardeners. While the master gardeners were also concerned with parking and privacy, they were more open to more public facing design elements such as locating the demonstration garden in front of the Train Center Building. Going forward, it will be important to balance the wants of different stakeholders when creating a final cohesive design.

In this phase, feedback on the two design alternatives was synthesized to create a single master plan as well as visual renderings of different areas in the design. An initial construction cost estimate was also derived. Elements from both alternatives were including. Some of the most prominent decisions were to have the demonstration gardens be located in front of the Train Center Building, to terrace the steep hill behind the building, and to integrate ADA access to the outdoor classroom into the stepped seating area instead of being a separate pathway. When estimating the construction costs, the site was broken down into four areas to give a better idea of how much each individual element would cost. Unsurprisingly, the most expensive elements were the retaining walls used in the terrace and stepped seating areas. They alone comprised well over two-thirds of the entire cost estimate.

After completion, the master plan and cost estimate were presented to the project stakeholders for any final input they might have. As a whole, the plan was well received, with the main concerns being the cost of the retaining walls and other hardscaping. Based on this feedback it was decided to try to reduce the amount of retaining walls used by modifying the terrace design.  During this engagement stakeholders were also asked about what site elements they felt were most important and should be prioritized if the design were to be implemented in a phased approach. To collect their answers, interactive polling through Mentimeter (https://www.mentimeter.com/) was used. This allowed participants to see answers in real time and have a better discussion of why they chose to prioritize certain elements over other. Participant responses varied widely with each site area receiving a similar number of votes. The variation only increased when discussing phasing in finer detail with some participants wanting to do the more disruptive site work, such as grading and earthworks, as soon as possible, while others preferred to prioritize the design elements that were easier to install and would quickly improve the appearance of the site.

There were a few main takeaways from this design phase, particularly regarding interactive polling and trying to implement a phased construction approach. As a whole, interactive polling was highly effective and allowed for a seamless way to collect input from meeting participants. It also served as a great ice breaker for continued discussion. One of its only drawbacks is it requires participants to have a basic comfort level in using smartphones and web-based technology. Another thing learned from the polling exercise is it can be difficult to identify phase priorities through simple polling questions. By their nature, polling questions usually do not have complex answer. This is good for organizing data, but when developing a phased approach to construction more complex discussion is often needed. It is difficult to break up an entire site into cleanly defined areas for phased implementation as it often makes sense to implement certain elements at different times, even if they are part of the same area in the design.