Crafting consensus on controversial parks.

Winning approval for a controversial park may seem like an exercise in frustration and futility, but if you follow a team process of building public consensus, you can mollify even the most vociferous opponents.

A case in point: While our landscape architecture and planning firm was creating one park in the Denver metropolitan area, the neighbors scrutinized our plans very carefully. During the construction stage, one neighbor opposed the park because he thought people would stand on a berm and look over his fence into his yard. To accommodate him, the area was completely regraded so no one could possibly see over his fence. Several months later, during a walkthrough of the park before it was officially opened, we noticed that neighbor had replaced his high fence with a split-rail fence so he could see the park. We wondered whether this neighbor saw the irony in the situation. On the other hand, the low, see-through fence indicated that we had done our job; the park was accepted as an asset to the neighborhood by one of its harshest critics.

In recent years, we have developed a reputation for being able to handle controversy and build public consensus. In numerous projects, we have shown that you can win approval for controversial parks and get even the most vocal opponents working toward a common goal of designing a park that they will use and feel proud of.

Design Concepts, founded in 1981, has worked on some 90 park projects, ranging from small playgrounds to large multi-million-dollar community parks. These include ball field complexes, wildlands and natural parks, school parks, wetlands parks, and bike and pedestrian trail systems. The vast majority of these parks -- and the most successful ones -- have been planned and designed through a consensus-building process with the public.

The Public Process

The key is developing a public process in which all the stakeholders -- including the park's neighbors, other potential park users, and town officials -- feel that you have listened to their concerns and desires for the park and that these issues have been considered carefully. Through public meetings, design workshops, and other ways of communicating ideas, you can create a list of priorities and possibilities and show why some elements should be included and others not. By working through the design process together, you give citizens a chance to be heard regarding what they feel is important for their park. The final design may be quite different from what some individuals or groups had hoped for, but by that time, most participants will have come to understand why. Whether individual wish lists are accommodated becomes less important because everyone who participates in the public process comes to realize that design by consensus meets most people's needs.

The traditional method of park design is for a public agency to hire a landscape architect, laying out the requirements and limitations. When the design is completed, the agency and landscape architect present it for public reactions. Sometimes the public review stage never happens; the park gets designed and built and the public never has the opportunity to participate or express their opinions. This method is often called hiring the "genius designer," which can be quite rewarding for the designer because of the high degree of creative control. In this role, park designers should be able to expect that the public agency will act as a buffer and protect them from controversy.

More and more, however, we've found that in our area of metropolitan Denver and Boulder, a well-educated public expects and demands to be involved in virtually every project that includes public money. Parks and open space are extremely important to all Colorado residents; being in touch with the outdoors and access to recreational opportunities are at the top of the list when people express their views about the high quality of life here. Colorado is the fourth-fastest-growing state, and many new residents have chosen to live here because of the natural beauty and recreational opportunities available in the Rocky Mountains. Even recent arrivals have an image of Colorado that they want to maintain, and that affects park planning. What's changed from the traditional park-planning process is that we now bring in the public early on, and we bring citizens together in a context where they can hear everyone else talking about the issues.

Questionnaires and door-to-door canvasing may work for some projects, but for controversial ones, it's best to get people together face-to-face in public meetings at which we serve as moderators or facilitators. This accomplishes several things. Participants in the process -- even if they attend only one public meeting -- are able to hear firsthand about what the project could entail, which reduces the chance of misinformation. They also have the opportunity to express publicly what they want or what they object to, and to know that they will be provided a willing ear. Perhaps most important, they also listen to their neighbors and other interested parties express their views, which may serve to validate their own views, but also may extend their thinking. People are generally more willing to acknowledge the opinions and needs of others when they meet face-to-face in the context of a public meeting.

When should you use the consensus process? First, figure out what the project needs; not every project will fit with the consensus process. Projects that involve creating pure art or making a statement are unlikely candidates. In these cases, public consensus will dilute or mutate the design intent. In the case of pure art, the public process can bring the concept down to its lowest common denominator. But the consensus process is ideal for communities that favor public involvement and for any park project that seems to present inherent conflicts.

Steps Toward Consensus

Our first real experience with a difficult public process was Rogers Park, a neighborhood park located on 30 acres of an old homestead in Fort Collins, Colorado. The community needed ball fields for little league and soccer. But there was a great deal of resistance by neighbors who wanted to retain the property's pastoral qualities, which included mature trees and an old barn. As is so often the case in park planning, it was clear that everyone wanted to play ball, but not in their own backyard. We held a public meeting with neighbors, coaches, city staff, and community leaders. From this experience, we learned our first two guidelines:

* Don't become personally involved. It's hard not to take sides or become defensive. To build consensus, you must listen and remain calm, civil, empathic, and open minded.

* Bring people to consensus through the creation of ideas. Lead the discussion into new directions by offering uninvolved suggestions or compromises. We began to take pieces of ideas -- instead of a baseball diamond, which some people didn't want, and a separate soccer field, each playing field might serve more than one purpose.

As it turned out, the baseball field didn't get built at Rogers Park (the barn was renovated for a picnic shelter and restrooms, and a soccer field was added). But the process we engaged in helped the city conclude that it needed a citywide youth athletic complex, which now is being planned.

Coyote Gulch Park, a 42-acre park and school site in Lakewood, Colorado, for which we developed the master plan and Phase I construction documents, involved a controversial public approval process. Working with the City of Lakewood, Jefferson County Schools, nearby

Standley Lake Park

Westminster and Arvada

Standley Lake Park, a regional park and nature preserve opened in 1996 in metropolitan Denver, features a reservoir that supplies water for 200,000 local residents and farmers and provides a protected habitat for nesting bald eagles.

Challenges: Three previous master plans had failed. Time was running out on an agreement to develop a regional park. In addition, many parties had control or an interest in the site. The lake was owned by six governments (the cities of Arvada, Northglenn, Thornton, and Westminster, plus Jefferson County Open Space and the federal Fish and Wildlife Service). The land around the lake was owned by three of those government entities and a private firm, the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company. The public-approval process indicated two priorities: keep the lake as natural as possible, but also provide areas for recreation and relaxation. Quickly the debate developed into whether the park should be a quiet nature reserve and fishing hole, or a wide-open playground for power boats and jet skis?

Given a tight deadline, Design Concepts and DHM Design Corporation of Denver helped find common ground. A large portion of the property is now a preserve that supports nesting eagles, with fencing across the lake, no trails, and protected food sources. The park also provides quiet fishing spots and areas for power boats, camping sites and wetlands, water slides and a wave pool, volleyball courts, and bike trails. residents, and sports leagues, we were charged with designing the joint schoolpark site, which would share a field and parking. Residents in the affluent, developing neighborhood had been accustomed to the site as open space, and even though it had been designated for a future park and two schools, they were fiercely opposed to change. At the very least, they wanted the maximum amount of native area preserved. In addition, many of the neighbors moving in objected to the idea of public schools there; they didn't want the traffic and noise.

Through a series of public meetings, we came up with the solution: Move the schools to the farthest possible part of the site, drawing traffic and noise away from neighbors and buffering them with the park. The plan left a maximum amount of native area and retained wildlife corridors for hawks, coyotes and foxes, while adding recreation features such as play structures, a picnic area, and a bike/pedestrian path. Consensus about Coyote Gulch Park was that it enhanced, rather than diminished, the neighborhood's quality of life.

Define Your Enemies

Anyone who can shoot down a project is a potential enemy. The further along in the process they shoot it down, the more damaging it is to the agency that's building the park, and the more expensive it is. The most likely place to shoot down a project is in the last phase, when opponents, including some who have never before spoken out about the project, emerge with objections they take to the parks and recreation department, the city council, and state representatives. By seeking out the problems early on, you won't get blind sided after you've invested large amounts of time and money.

Through an invitation from the University of Hawaii, we gave a series of seminars in 1996 on involving the community in the public process. The audiences included a wide spectrum of Hawaiian public officials. One of our main points: Don't avoid your enemies. Define them. Listen to them. The first thing an opponent will try to do is make you angry. If you are kind and civil, the citizen eventually will come back and talk about the issue without anger. Our experience shows that the more opponents are brought into the planning process, the more likely the project is to be a success. An opponent-turned-supporter is your strongest ally.

Consider that most participants usually have a single issue that concerns them. The typical participant will attend a meeting to get his or her one point across. When you convene people in a public meeting to explore the issues, they start to hear other points of view, and they realize there are broader issues -- and a context -- beyond their one concern. If they don't have the opportunity to hear this -- if you attempt to discuss concerns through door-to-door canvasing, phone conversations, or letters -- they remain focused on their own issue.

It's important to keep anger from side-tracking a meeting; try to deflect it. Acknowledge what angry speakers say, and thank them for their comments without reacting emotionally to their tone. Maintain your neutral position. When confronted with questions or concerns about issues over which you have no control, suggest, "I don't know the answer to that, but Joe Public Official is here and can respond to that." (Of course, we brainstorm with public officials before the first meeting so they won't feel put on the spot. Our job is to make public officials look good.)

Another way to deflect anger is to reveal the "givens" early on in the process -- for example, at the beginning of each meeting when you're describing the scope of the project and how the public process will work. If the project has limits or requirements from intergovernmental agreements or city policies -- no power boats on the lake, for instance -- mention them before you begin discussing wish lists or objections. In one park project, the neighbors did not want playing fields. We told them the city council required us to put in one playing field, and invited them to take up the issue with the council. On another regional park project, many citizens wanted features such as baseball fields that were inappropriate for the site, a historic farm with steep, heavily wooded riverbanks, wetlands, and exposed uplands. Our task included a process of educating the public (and dealing with their disappointment) on why some features -- nature trails, an amphitheater, a living-history farm, a picnic area -- were possible and other features that they wanted would not work on the topography of the site.

Reach Out to the Public

Provide multiple methods for citizens to learn about meetings. This can include announcements in the local newspaper, public notices, and warmly worded (as opposed to official-sounding) invitations. Local radio and cable television are among the best avenues. In one public meeting for a city wide parks master plan, three-quarters of the room said they heard about the meeting on the local-access cable channel. We also maintain a web site on the Internet where people can find out about our projects.

Give everyone the opportunity to be heard. Do this through repetition: Provide multiple opportunities for citizens to air issues. The public agency may want three public meetings; hold six, at different times and on different days of the week so that almost all citizens have an opportunity to make it to a meeting. Let the public know how many meetings you will hold, and at which of those they will be able to engage in the consensus process and to review and discuss preliminary plans. Schedule and publicize an open house for the final consensus plan before it goes to the city council or other government agency for final approval.

Let people know they have been heard. In handouts and on issue boards displayed at the front of the meeting room, we list every question or concern that's come up at previous meetings, in order of priority according to the number of times the concern has been expressed, and the responses to them. Simply seeing that their concerns have already been addressed -- even if they haven't been resolved -- will satisfy two-thirds of potential opponents. The issue boards publicly express concerns so that even if the problem can't be solved right away, it is on the table for future discussion. These issue boards also help the public acquire a long-term view: They might not get a ballfield this time around, but maybe next. It motivates citizens to ask for what they want.

Build Trust

Building trust is as much a part of the process as building the actual park. People have an inherent distrust of any government agency and to some extent the developers and designers they may hire.

Fort Morgan, a town of 10,000 residents on the Colorado prairie, hired us to create a master plan for a park out of two miles of land it owned along the South Platte River. A flood in the 1960s had changed the river's course, and a large levee was constructed that separated the park completely from the river, orienting it instead to the interstate highway along its south border. For many years, the land had been fenced or walled off, with some of it leased for cattle grazing. To begin the public process, we sent citizens warmly worded invitations to a public meeting about creating a new riverfront park. Only 17 people showed up; they said that they had never had access to the town riverfront, and had never had the opportunity to express their frustration and resentment over that. The town government had no idea how people felt.

Over the next few months, as people began to visualize a park on this once inaccessible land, they became excited by the idea of what it could do for their children and the town. By the end of the design process, we had 200 people showing up at meetings, and the town officials were heroes. Now, much of the riverfront is an outdoor-learning laboratory where 5,000 children each year explore restored wildlands through new trails, lakes and ponds. Local families fish and picnic, and interstate travelers enjoy camping sites.

Riverside Park represents a huge commitment for a town the size of Fort Morgan; over five years, the town spent $6 million out of its relatively modest budget. For a community that small to create a park of that scope, the whole town needed to be involved.

In the case of North Boulder Community Park, in Boulder, Colorado, communication in the planning process had to be very open. The city's handling of a subcommunity development plan several years before had created a lot of distrust and resentment against the city and the public process. As the design firm, we were bound by certain requirements, which were approved by the city council. In addition, there was a previous master plan for the park that had not been implemented, and in the interim, new subdivisions had been built, which created some different needs. Some residents wanted a traditional park with lots of grassy areas, play fields and courts. Others wanted a passive park with extensive natural areas.

The city began the public process with information meetings, and we then led several public meetings where we presented no preconceptions on park programming, but just listened to concepts of what the park should be like. At workshops/design charettes, participants used kits with cutouts, foam board, and other materials to build their ideal park.

By the time the public process ended, we were able to design a park with most of the attributes requested by neighbors. These included native areas, community gardens, ball courts, a multi-purpose green, and a hang-glider/paraglider landing area.

Be a Team Player

Think and act like a team player. Team players find it easier to lead people in the consensus process. They have less ego invested and can listen and be impartial. Work on the premise that the public creates the imagery and ideas, and park planners take those ideas and digest them, turning them into a design. As a team member and public servant, you can say truthfully that you don't have a stake in the outcome, other than designing a great park.

Use Effective Meeting Strategies

After describing the scope of the project and inviting participants to define the issues at the public meeting, break into manageable groups of six or seven each, with opponents and proponents together in each group to get a cross discussion. Then reassemble the whole group and have a spokesperson for each small group make a presentation of what they've talked about.

To give people a more tangible feel for the process of designing a park, use lots of visuals, such as issue boards that state every request and corresponding response. Use clear graphics and have large sketching pads available to be able to show what a suggested feature might look like. Display maps, photographs of the site, models, and drawings instead of hard-to-read technical plans. Bring these visuals to each meeting, to reinforce the work already accomplished and to remind the public of the direction in which they're heading.

At design workshops, provide materials that participants can manipulate, such as cutouts and foam board.

Celebrate the project with the people who contributed to its success: the public. Bring the project to a close in a way that makes people feel good. Invite the public to a meeting at the site with refreshments. Celebrating a park designed by consensus will build trust in the process and encourage participation in future projects.

Consider developing an evaluation form, perhaps in collaboration with the parks agency, to assess the public consensus process and note any suggestions for future park planning projects. Keep track of comments at the final open house or park dedication ceremonies.