Introduction

This thesis presents the results of a professional project completed for CityDesign, the newly established Design Center of the City of Seattle. The Seattle Design Commission (SDC) requested a review of selected capital improvement projects (CIPs) undertaken by the city of Seattle in years past and more recently to understand what contributes to the quality of the civic realm, and how CIPs undertaken by city agencies can make a positive contribution to the character of the places they are situated. Projects discussed in this study were developed under the aegis of Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), Seattle Transportation Department (SEATRAN), and the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR).

The first section of the thesis describes the project focus and method of study. The second section presents a sample matrix that identifies essential tasks within the life cycle of a project and related opportunities for advancing the quality of design. These tasks wili cover areas ranging from the capital budgeting process to post-construction evaluation. The third section covers strategies for developing projects that contribute positively to the quality of the civic realm. These strategies were derived from review of selected Seattle capital improvement projects. The fourth section will review several projects in detail, to gain a better understanding of the process by which planning and design considerations were effectively managed or in some cases, where improvements might have produced better outcomes in terms of the quality of the fmal design. The last section will present conclusions and address the role the Seattle Design Commission can play in providing "value added" design review for public projects.

Section I.

Project Focus

The focus of this paper is to integrate design considerations throughout the process of conceptualizing, planning, and designing public projects. Unfortunately, over the past few decades, art and design issues too frequently have been overlooked in the process of streamlining infrastructure construction and implementing cost-cutting measures. Art and design tend to be mistakenly viewed as "add-on" costs to be inserted into a project plan only when a budget surplus allows for decorative touches. The consequence is that capital improvement projects are engineered for function, but sometimes overlook opportunities for contributing to the larger context in social, aesthetic, and environmental terms.

This study reexamines the typical process of managing projects and suggests a revised approach intended to integrate design considerations throughout the capital construction process. By identifying the stages of the process when design can make a difference in public infrastructure projects and by implementing these processes, city agencies are more likely to plan, design, and build in ways that contribute to the quality and character of Seattle's civic environment. As one author notes, "facilities created for the public can and should embody qualities of concern for human experience and for the equitable and purposeful use of resources. If well designed, they can set standards for private enterprise, and the infrastructure created by roads, services and regulation can evoke the creative involvement of entrepreneurs and engineers in shaping the environment we share....It is not just the shape of what is built that matters, but what it can make possible in use and in subsequent attraction and adjustment."1

For some, the term "design" may refer to the preparation of construction documents or work done during the "start design" task of the project development. Others may think of it only in terms of art or perhaps something that is a separate consideration for a particular stage of the project, if time and budgets allow.

Architect Francis Ching refers to design as a process or as problem solving. "The first phase of any design process is the recognition of a problematic condition and the decision to find a solution to it. Design is, above all, a willful act, a purposeful endeavor. The designer must first document the existing conditions of a problem, define its context, and collect relevant data to be assimilated. This is the critical phase of the design process, since the nature of a solution is inexorably related to how a problem is perceived, defined, and articulated."2 This study looks at a broader scope of the term "design" to identify, from the inception of the project to post construction, the stages of project management where design integration is possible. These design opportunities may take the form of budget planning, defining principles, site analysis, or consultant selection, aspects that can directly affect the overall outcome of the civic project.

Current matrixes used by several city departments were reviewed to look at how city projects typically are managed. Observing the limited role and late placement of design considerations, a revised project management matrix is presented that rearranges tasks so that a more comprehensive and consistent design focus is paramount. Elements such as early review by the Seattle Design Commission and creating a project team composed of design professionals, artists, as well as engineers are tasks that can be reorganized within the project life cycle to gain stronger design benefits. But this review goes further to identify aspects of project management where information and communication can lead to enhanced design quality. Site planning, environmental issues, historic resource information, interagency coordination and neighborhood involvement are but a few considerations that consistently contribute to the overall outcomes of capital improvement projects.

This report will highlight various design considerations, explain why they are important, and show examples (both successful and not) from recent Seattle projects that illustrate these points. By analyzing past project examples and taking a closer look at how infrastructure projects are managed, it is possible to gain a clearer understanding of the impact of capital construction projects on the character of the civic environment.

Background and Method of Study

The Seattle Design Commission, established in 1968, has long sought to ensure that the citizens of Seattle receive the highest level of design excellence in public facilities and within the civic environment.3 Their advisory and review functions are outlined in Section 3.58.080 of the Seattle Municipal Code.4 The Commission provides a forum for dialogue and debate about the form, function, and character of development appropriate for the city.

In recent years, Commission members have become concerned about missed opportunities for design considerations in many of the capital improvement projects that have come to them for review. These issues range from lack of early Commission review during the scoping and conceptual design phases to later Commission review concerning construction documents and change orders. In addition, some projects, although mandated for review by the Commission, were never scheduled by project managers for Commission consideration. Reorganization of various city departments and understaffing of the Design Commission in past years further complicated the design review process.

To address these issues, the Commission Board launched a study of how capital improvement projects are managed, in the hope of facilitating closer communication and teamwork with project managers to improve the overall quality of design in city-initiated capital improvement projects.

As part of this study, the following research and analysis was conducted:

• 70 capital improvement projects undertaken over a 25-year period were reviewed.

• Past and present Design Commission Directors, past and current Chairpersons,

Commission members, and current Design Commission staffs were interviewed.

• Selected project managers and staff from Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle

Transportation Department, Seattle City Light, and the Department of Parks and

Recreation were interviewed.

• King County project managers were interviewed.

• Project management manuals from selected city, county, and state organizations were collected and analyzed.

• Selected capital improvement projects were studied in detail.

This report is provided for the city's use and consideration in the hopes of infusing the capital improvement process with a design ethos; upholding a high standard of quality in design of the civic realm.

1. Donlyn Lyndon. "Design in the Public Realm." Places, Summer 1994, 2-3.

2. Frank Ching. Architecture: Form, Space, & Order (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1979), 10.

3. Seattle Design Commission. Handbook: Getting Good Advice. 5.

4. Seattle Municipal Code. Advisory Duties. SMC 3.58.080.