The process reflects a participatory approach that is the hallmark of the East St. Louis Action Research Project and the model for this approach is shown below:

Because of the limited amount of time available to the project it has not yet moved into the final steps of this diagram, but the TSP and residents will continue the project and work to reach implementation of the designs.
 

For the timeline of the project pleases click: Timeline

For a detailed description of students reflections on participating in the process please Click: Student reflections

Data Requested (click to see)

The Springfield Project provided us with a package of information about the  21 block area between 11th Street and Martin Luther King Drive. It was
evident we needed to organize what we had and collect additional information.

Our priority was to gather as much information about the 21 blocks as possible.  This information would be invaluable in the future.   Historical information was researched from Lincoln Library's Sangamon Valley Collection, SMTD (Springfield Mass Transit Department) maps were collected, and the local planning officials were contacted.  The above link is an email transcript requesting information that would be necessary for the design process to proceed. 

Resident Survey (click to see)

In order to reach out to residents who did not regularly attend meetings (to get the impressions of residents from the entire 21 block area, along with those who regularly attended meetings), students and faculty created a neighborhood survey.  The survey was reviewed and edited several times. This survey was a very important tool because the data obtained would be used in future designs. 

Unfortunately, this survey was never distributed to the residents. A similar but less thorough survey had been executed by The Springfield Project in the past and we relied on the results from this survey. 

Neighborhood Condition Survey (click to see)

Prior to the initial meeting with the residents of this 21 block area, students took part in a neighborhood condition survey.  Information gathered would be converted into a Geographic Information System, and used in the future. 

Students participated in a training course prior to implementing the survey. We reviewed example slides and voiced any questions we had after viewing the NCS Web Pages (see link above). 

The Survey went well, except for the fact that residents had not been  informed we would be there and therefore we were viewed with obvious suspicion which carried over to the initial meeting that evening. 

First Neighborhood meeting

In preparation for the initial meeting, students and faculty met several times to rewrite memos, create flyers and design example boards. The visuals were created to promote a dialogue with  residents and to show them what we, as designers, were capable of doing. 

Communications with TSP members required careful thought and wording. Due to the nature of the communication, usually email, it was extremely easy to have miscommunications. Memos, agendas, and other planning memos were carefully reviewed by students and faculty.  Even after much thought it  was very hard to assure everyone had the same understanding. 

For example, leaders of the TSP felt that the residents were ready to see examples of what we could do. They also felt that we could do without a cognitive mapping exercise as they felt it was redundant.  Students and faculty in Champaign assumed that the residents in Springfield were much further along in the planning process than they were. 
 

The second item on this planned agenda was left out in the meeting. The result was that we came across as not involving residents in the design process.  Since we skipped the cognitive mapping exercise (which was designed to develop a relationship with residents as well as getting information from them) and went straight into showing what we could do (via presentation boards), we appeared to have already decided what would be best for the residents, which was not the case.  Looking back on the meeting we should not have altered our original agenda (i.e. getting rid of the cognitive mapping exercise). The rest of the meeting degenerated into miscommunications and arguments.  We left very frustrated but anxious to try again.

Weekend Workshop (Feb. 26, 2000) (click to see)

After our initial meeting, we realized that we would have to go back to the beginning.  Almost immediately, we came up with ways to integrate the missing cognitive mapping exercise into the Feb. 26th meeting. In the initial meeting we had come across as foreigners to the area (which we were) who had not "done their homework." 

"Doing our homework" consisted of further research into the history of the area (at the Sangamon Valley Collection), looking at survey information offered in the previous survey, and preparing boards on topics residents voiced interest in at the previous meeting (i.e. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Safety, and Open Space).  A PowerPoint presentation would, along with the topic boards, let the residents know that we were responding TO them instead of FOR them.

Each student created several slides (history, CPTED, results from the alternate residential survey- provided by Cheryl) and combined them into a single presentation which was then touched up by the faculty for presentation to residents.

In tandem with creating the PowerPoint presentation and topic boards, students met with faculty to create worksheets for both breakdown groups, cognitive mapping exercises, and prioritization.  Break down discussion group topics were discussed and reworded several times.  For specifics see Weekend Workshop.

Neighborhood meeting, March 6th, 2000

This meeting was basically a recount of the Weekend Workshop.  A brainstorming session between students and faculty resulted in a list of things we could and could not do.  We created a priorities list, which was based on priorities that residents had designated.  When we presented our findings we got a lot of support from those who came to the Weekend Workshop.  The overall result was support from even those who had opposed University of Illinois' involvement in the initial meeting.

Neighborhood meeting, April 3rd, 2000
At this meeting we were finally ready to show resident designs for their neighborhood on the issues that they had expressed that they wanted us to work on. The design were very preliminary both because we had not had very much time to work on them, but also because we wanted the residents feedback on our ideas before we started the more detailed development. The residents responded very positively to the designs, in particular to drawings that showed sections of their neighborhood with the changes that we had talked about in previous meetings. The resident had several comments and questions that helped us be able to go back to the studio and continue to develop the designs.

Neighborhood meeting, May 1st, 2000
The final result was presented to the residents, how were very satisfied with the result and expressed that they would like to keep developing the ideas and eventually reach implementation.