How to get design input from 3,000 people

Since renovation plans were shared in late December, many shareholders have expressed concerns that the design was developed with little shareholder input. Official communications have indicated that the starting point for the design was surveys from 2016 and 2018, but those are quite outdated at this point, and partial records of those surveys suggest that the current plans are not aligned to the priorities expressed. 

Some Board members and cooperators have argued that engaging a broader group of stakeholders in design decisions is not a worthwhile effort because “design is subjective” and “you’ll never get 3,000 people to agree.” But gathering meaningful input and identifying collective priorities is standard practice for large-scale projects, including residential buildings in NYC that house as many or more people than our co-op. Doing this research allows architects and designers to respond to the needs of a community as a whole rather than just a small group of individuals. Community engagement isn’t design by committee or an attempt to get everyone to agree on finishes and colors. Instead, it’s a well-established way of creating a design that is rooted in data and responsive to a community’s needs and broadly-held priorities.

In the case of our co-op’s proposed project, a lot of design work has already been done without proper community engagement…but that doesn’t mean it’s too late.

Step 1—Share the research 

It’s clear the Board and Woods-Bagot had some research on hand when they worked on these plans, but that valuable information would typically be shared more widely to help establish a shared reality and a wider understanding of the biggest constraints. The Board should publish all existing research now, and fill in data points that are incomplete: the questions and answers from the 2016 and 2018 surveys, accurate pedestrian counts for each entry, SPC’s Local Law 97 plans, and the terms and allowable uses of the co-op's mortgage. This, along with data collected in new and additional research, should be shared on the project website with printed copies available in the management office and at future workshops and meetings. 

Step 2—Conduct a new survey to identify community goals and priorities 

In a typical design process, we might use surveys, focus groups, and other forms of user research before creating or showing any designs. Because Woods-Bagot has already shared a design, we should pivot to using that as a jumping-off point for formal community engagement. A well-designed survey made available online and on paper could provide a better understanding of residents’ problems, priorities, and desires, and ensure that future refinements to the design are rooted in quantitative data. 

This survey might start by asking shareholders about the spaces that already exist, structured as multiple choice options with an opportunity to write in answers. It might ask things like, How often do you make use of our building’s existing greenspaces? If so, what do you like about them? What prevents you from using these spaces more often? Similar questions could be asked about the gym, coworking space (and people’s work-from-home habits), community room, playgrounds, and playroom. There might also be broader questions about what activities are not currently supported by our indoor and outdoor common areas, but could be. Shareholders should also be given the opportunity to express a priority between these amenities and other uses of co-op resources, like further accessibility improvements, infrastructural upgrades related to energy performance and Local Law 97, and reducing the co-op’s debt.  

The survey results and a high-level analysis should be shared with all residents in a public forum that allows shareholders to ask for clarification on any of the methodologies or takeaways. This step has the added benefit of giving the community more insight into their neighbors’ preferences and desires, and a deeper understand of how budget and other constraints might affect the final design.  

Step 3—Present concept options

As the design team absorbs the feedback, they will identify different ways of meeting resident priorities. Presenting preliminary options allows designers to get feedback on their interpretation of the survey results and see which ways of addressing them resonate with shareholders. This step is also an opportunity for residents to share additional knowledge about the co-op and neighborhood that becomes more relevant as the design progresses. While professional expertise is critical, most designers will tell you that their work can be improved by hearing from a diverse group of users. In our case, shareholders’ lived experience and knowledge of our buildings can help the architects fully understand how these spaces are used in practice.

Step 4—Option selection

Based on shareholder feedback, the design team should develop 2 to 3 options that the shareholders can vote on. These options do not need to be fully developed, but should be fleshed out enough that the scope of work is clear and a construction cost can be established and considered by shareholders as part of their decision. 

Step 5—Design refinement

Once the shareholders have voted on a preferred direction, the design team would develop the design further. There could be an additional opportunity for voting on material options and renderings that are more representative of the final look and feel. Letting people weigh in at this later stage builds trust and is a way of getting buy-in from all shareholders, even if they don’t get the exact outcome they personally wanted.