FROM AN AUDIENCE PERSPECTIVE
The two primary reasons for including event expertise in the site design process are, first, knowing what types of event accommodation best suite the site's physical characteristics, and second, to identify any additional potential that might easily be leveraged to enhance the site's versatility.
Special events (a catch-all term) add vitality to any community — promoting engagement, tolerance and civic pride. Most municipalities actively encourage event activities but few have the resources for direct investment. Providing basic event infrastructure, either as public investment or on a cost-recovery basis, is an ideal way to support all types of events, both community and commercial.
Effective site planning makes little attempt to predict specific uses. Instead, it focuses on the best physical layout and placement of basic amenities; the elements required for all types of public gatherings. At the same time, there is a clear delineation between what an event site can and should provide, and what must remain the responsibilities of end-users.
Events can take place almost anywhere people can comfortably gather. That said, all sites are not ideal for all types of activities. Uses and requirements are very much site-specific. Poor placement and excess capacity waste resources. In-depth event knowledge allows the team to create dynamic, yet functional public space with confidence.
Clientele is mostly landscape architects and planners, some government entities, and even developers. Event Specification is often included on bids where competition is particularly keen. In most cases it seems to help. A more accurate indicator of value is the (so far) 100% return rate. Every 'prime consultant' with whom we have worked has subsequently contacted us about additional projects. That includes situations where our involvement was mandated by others and there was, for want of a better term, initial resistance.
The short answer is no, however, a situation has yet to arise where the advice has been ignored. Shows and events are the ultimate 'just in time' deliveries; dozens, sometimes hundreds of people working toward the same moment in time, often independently. Combining and aligning those efforts is possible because there are standardized systems and best practices in place.
Each site is unique, with different strengths and weaknesses. A hallmark of the business is adaptability; capitalizing on advantages while mitigating shortcomings. In that tradition, the advice provided is always practical, taking into account not only the needs of the industry, but also aesthetics concerns and budgetary constraints.
Happenstance, really. About 10 years ago a development proposal hit an impasse. A municipality was questioning the public realm accommodations a developer was proposing for a politically sensitive site. To resolve the matter, both were seeking independent corroboration. The electrical engineers on the project approached us as a possible arbiter.
Thirty-five plus years in the business seemed acceptable to all, so we began helping the parties find common ground. The regulators had an ambitious wish-list, some of which was community oriented and highly desirable; some more conceptual than practical.
Juggling disparate needs is a core competence. There are few situations where the requirements of one use are not in some conflict with others. The prerequisite in this case was building consensus around an achievable set of goals and then supporting them with resources that could easily be re-tasked to accommodate many configurations. In the end, both parties were satisfied with the result.
Shortly thereafter, the same engineering firm presented a new challenge. They were working on a park design that was being developed in three phases over twenty years. Problem was, the first phase effectively sealed all utility access for subsequent phases. The brief was to identify and provide capacity for future uses.
It soon became apparent that in-depth event knowledge is a vital part of effective public realm planning. Event Specification was born.
Tightly defining project goals helps prevent mission-creep. But a concern arises when literal descriptions inadvertently restrain innovation. If the outcome includes terms like 'park', 'square' or 'street', more often than not, thought is subtly anchored by the things typically associate therein. By contrast, open-ended descriptions reduce the pitfall of building a 'better' version of the same things.
An example may help illustrate. Say someone asks you to name everything you can think of that is red, in 15 seconds. If you're like most people, you name between 9 and 12 items. Then they ask you to name everything you can think of that's red, in the refrigerator. Again, most people come up with the same number of items, but not the same items. Introducing the refrigerator creates a frame of reference.
Expansive terminology has a big impact on thinking. Using a neutral term like 'attraction', for example, eliminates unconscious constraints. The competition for audience is intense. Shouldn't all involved be looking for the best possible outcome?