Most people are uninitiated to how design happens and how it exerts consequence. Hence few share a sense of alarm. The city bureaucracy is "swamped" and "understaffed" as always. Its charge provides for authoring design codes but not for launching major design initiatives.

This proposal should be advanced with all possible haste. The reason is not impatience, but the great and increasing number of gladiators filing into the design arena at the present moment. The aim of this proposal is to unearth a direction toward which all might apply creative design effort before battle gear is donned and a default direction is determined by who is left standing after a long contest.

The proposed process deliberately avoids "meetings." We acknowledge that meeting are the commonly presumed method of "hammering" out design guidelines and plans. But a very large number of meetings have already occurred. Many more are mandated by the various processes and grants already in motion. This plan's means for capturing residents' voice is not the serendipitous, excruciating vehicle of public meetings but a carefully designed and executed phone poll. This plan's "product" is no more than an informational nugget. It has no statuatory binding authority; no laws are adopted or public money expended without adequate representation. See the "Q&A" below for more about meetings and why this aims to avoid them.

But without "buy-in" by civic officials and stakeholder organizations this plan is not viable. Hence the proposal must be presented to them. The sponsors propose to walk it around to each rather than to convene a congress of all. Such a congress would probably require months to intiate and then assume a life of its own - yet another "task force."

The proposal has so far been discussed only by the DBA design subcommittee. The committee raised points which this revised draft has incorporated.

Preliminary step - "buy-in" by DBA, local officials and interest groups  The "idea" should rapidly be brought before the DBA Board. It must next be walked around to the short list of key officials and organizations. This outreach can begin concurrently with the Board's consideration in order to conserve calendar time. The committee's first-draft roster of suggested approvals:

1. Preparation. The survey firm is selected, the calendar, the criteria for submissions and judges are all decided.
2. Public announcement of the exercise. Disclosure of full particulars including the schedule, names of sponsors, names of "editors" and of submission "judges", etc. Publishing of a few brief articles about city planning - principles, elements, examples, taking care to avoid becoming too academic. Needs to be lively enough to interest all types and ages.
3. Solicitation of first round of written submissions.
4. Publishing of selection of first round submissions
5. Public discussion period. Letters to editor, possible public forums, other "fun" and informative events.
6. Solicitation of second round of written submissions.
7. Publishing of second round of submissions, and judges' summary of the choices posed by the disparate schemes. This is the preliminary to execution of Phase Two, the phone survey..

(Responses by Bruce Wicinas, DBA Design subcommitte.)

Question 1 Any kind of design plan for downtown would need to have a much larger constituency than just DBA.

The DBA is not "the constituency" for this. Such an exercise would accomplish nothing. The goal is to vision something for which the population of Berkeley is the constituency. I think the DBA is fair enough to buy into that, and take that risk. The basic goal of DBA is a vigorous "downtown," and presumably the citizens share this desire. I am not aware that DBA is doggedly wed to any one vision of downtown. Much of DBA consists of very small merchants, and on the DBA board sit more small owners and non-owners than large rich owners. All share commitment to Berkeley.

Question 2 The "powers that be" tend to have ways of making sure poll questions result in predetermined answers.

Yes, but it does not have to invalidate the outcome. We're trying to uncover truth, not fashion a post-decision justification. I worked with BUSD and their polling firm in 1999. I was on the little panel that heard presentations from all the polling firms and made the selection. I recommend the same firm that BUSD has used on the three successive occasions. Their track record in Berkeley has been very strong. But the proper method of choosing a firm is to hear presentations by several.

Question 3  Why do you propose to avoid meetings?

Large public meetings are opportunities to air needs and objections, not engines for creativity. "Task forces" sometime produce important products but retain only participants with stamina or with a personal need for a forum. Any process which posits public meetings must provide a series, spanning a "reasonable" duration of calendar time. Furthermore the meetings must be adequately "representative." This necessitates outreach because people vary in their affinity for public meetings; unfortunately their propensity tends to track socio-economic level. Etc. In short, engineering and executing viable, representative public meetings is difficult and expensive. Moreover, no matter how splendidly fashioned the meetings, most people will stay away until they feel their interests are threatened. Considering all this, what can be harvested at "come-one-come-all" meetings? I speak as a veteran of many, both "Devil's engines for wasting time" as well as ones yielding practical outcomes.

Berkeley residents are innundated by meetings. There have been, are and will be many meetings addressed to downtown design issues. The object of this proposal is to try "mining" citizens' preference and creativity by other means.