The Problem with Projects

And a search for those who are moving beyond its limits. (Reading Time : 5 minutes)

Most of my community engagement experience has been as a professional landscape architect. The typical process for my practice looks something like this:

• A government agency or community group secures funds to hire a consultant to help with a design or planning process.

• Then there’s a contract that lays out a scope of work and a fee for my services.

• The scope of work typically involves a community engagement process and a deliverable, like a vision plan or a set of construction documents.

• And when that contract is up, I walk away.

I walk away because I have to.

Landscape architecture firms like mine — along with the other built-environment disciplines such as planners, architects, public relation consultants, etc. — are for-profit businesses. We eat project fees for survival. Our time needs to be linked to an income source.

And the folks who hired me, whether a government agency or a community group, also typically move on to focus on their next project.

The work of building cohesive connected communities, on the other hand, is slow and relational. Success is a long game. It requires a careful buildup of social networks, identity, and capacity. It often takes the form of many sequential projects, built on a foundation of trust.

Done right, project-based engagement *can* serve as a powerful catalyst to support long-term community building. It galvanizes communities to convene around a shared vision for their future. It creates shared legacies and a sense of ownership. With the correct approaches, community engagement can unleash a vast potential to bridge differences and forge connections within place-based communities.

But these socially cohesive outcomes will quickly dissipate if not sustained.

I talk to a lot of community engagement practitioners about what they do. Many got into their line of work because their heartstrings are tuned to the power of community.

But what I hear repeatedly is how their community building aspirations are dashed against the shores of the project-based armature underpinning 90+ percent of engagement practice.

Community engagement budgets, staffing, and project fees are structured around a one-and-done approach. They rarely look beyond the finish line of their immediate project outcomes. The folks in the honorable position of convening and facilitating community collaboration are looking at their watches.

If we are serious about social renewal, we simply can’t have one-off projects be the only time we engage with communities.

At a minimum, we should be asking, “How does this particular engagement process fit into a larger effort to rebuild and strengthen this community?” and “How can we maximize the community building outcomes of this project?” Much of this Substack is about finding answers to these questions.

But we also need to think bigger. Who is stewarding the long-term work of community building? What replicable and scalable models can ensure our engagement projects accumulate socially beneficial outcomes?

Let’s look briefly at the three main arenas of engagement practice:

Community-Based Organizations

As discussed in my last post, “How (and How Not To) Work with Community-Based Organizations,” CBOs are the #1 vehicle for nurturing long-game social renewal.CBOs often have committed boots on the ground to strengthen community relationships, identity, and power.

Examples abound. And bigger picture thinkers are catching on. Aspen Institute’s Weave: The Social Fabric Project, for example, is elevating and supporting local CBO efforts on a national scale.

Still, CBOs are mostly undertaking scrappy, hyper-local work amongst a landscape of inconsistent and short-term project-based funding.

The strongest structures for long-term impact seem to be Community Development Associations and support from Community Foundations. These place-based organizations often have the mission and scale to move beyond project-based engagement.

Local Governments

I hear a lot of stories about individuals within local governments who put extraordinary time and energy into being a community connector. They show up at community events, build relationships, and cultivate trust.

Good for them. But such heroic individual efforts are susceptible to the whims of retirement and job changes. These individuals are not a substitute for systemic government support for long-term trust and community building.

I firmly believe local governments need to fully embrace a role as stewards of community connection.

Sam Pressler

’s 2024 Connective Tissue Policy Framework provides just about the perfect roadmap. Check it out if you missed it.

We can also turn to the approaches of Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD), who have been beating this drum for decades. ABCD argues that instead of defining people by their deficiencies, we need to build upon the gifts and strengths within a community.

There are some promising stories of local governments moving beyond project-based engagement. Many of them seem to be in Canada — all the more reason we should be nice to Canadians. I also recently discovered Eric Smith’s “Bright Spots in ABCD” series. Just the stories we need.

Built-Environment Professionals

How about the built environment professionals, like landscape architects, architects, and planners? Because I practice and teach in this sector, I can’t help but wonder about alternatives to a project-base approaches. Are we just condemned forever to follow the whims of our client’s projects and the market?

Once upon a time (the 1960s-70s), built environment professionals establish a network of community design centers (CDCs). CDCs provided pro-bono and low-cost design and planning support for communities that wanted people-led decision-making. Our current engagement strategies have their roots in these early days of social awakening.

Sadly, most CDCs have fallen by the wayside, converted to a project-based fee-for-service model, or were integrated into academic institutions. This excellent documentary website suggests that there’s been no new CDCs since the early 199o’s.

Is the CDC model that flawed, or did our professions just lose interest?

The few built-environment successes I see usually involve a professional undertaking extracurricular activities within their own community. Or a young firm donating shitloads of their time in order to build-up their project experience. The burnout rate is high.

Are there planning or design firms undertaking long-term relationships with one particular place, neighborhood, or town? Like, over the course of many projects and years? How is it feasible and replicable? Is there a sustainable funding model that underpins this ongoing engagement?

I am collecting specific examples. Dear reader - can you point me in the right direction or share your stories? Please reach out.

Given all the atomizing forces pulling apart our social fabric, we need to bring urgency and intention towards the work of social renewal. A good starting point is stepping away from our project-based myopia, and re-centering community engagement practice around Place and long-term community relationships.