Chapter 17

Life before/during/between/after the service-learning design studios

Jeffrey Hou

Service-learning design studios can offer powerful and transformative experiences for students and community stakeholders alike. Students learn from their interactions with community stakeholders, who in turn benefi t from the work that students produce as well as the experience that they share. The studios, at best, immerse students in real-life settings and enable them to build relationships with users and stakeholders. Through such relationships and experiences, students can gain a more grounded under-standing of the discipline and profession in the context of neighborhoods and communities. They may also obtain a better appreciation of both the limits and relevance of their skills and the complexity of community engage-ment. For the communities, students and faculty from the universities can bring fresh energy to addressing long-standing issues and challenges. At the same time, the studios can also provide a relatively “safe” space to explore potential solutions as well as bringing stakeholders to the table. The col-laborative process can potentially yield exciting and rewarding results.

But what happens once a studio is over? How can the vision and energy engendered during the studio process extend beyond the confi nes of the aca-demic schedule? How do visions from the studio projects confront the real-ity of political and institutional processes in and outside the community? How do service-learning studios fi t into a broader picture of community–university partnerships? For service-learning studios to have a tangible and positive contribution to the communities that they serve, the studios’ role and impacts beyond the academic schedule need to be critically examined. Specifi cally, the connections between service-learning studios and broader community–university partnerships require further investigation and artic-ulation than what is currently available in the literature.

Using a decade-long community–university partnership in Seattle as a case study, this chapter intends to explore and refl ect upon these questions.

316 Jeffrey Hou

Specifi cally, based on participant observations over the decade-long pro-cess, recent interviews with key community organizers, and the author’s own refl ections, the chapter examines the impact and development of the studio process beyond the studio timeframe. It looks at how ideas were translated into actions and implementations and what the respective roles of studio instructor and community partners are in building and sustain-ing the community–university partnership before, during, between, and after the studios. Based on fi ndings from these questions, the chapter offers lessons for service-learning instructors on the dynamic socio-institutional process that links the academic and community partners and how such a process contributes to a successful community–university partnership.

Beyond service-learning studios

The service-learning studio as a venue for community engagement has been around for some time in a number of design and planning schools in North America. In recent years, as the number of community–university partner-ship initiatives have proliferated (Reardon, 2000; Ruben, 1998, 2000), the focus in the literature has shifted from instructional techniques and peda-gogies to the building of community–university partnerships. The prolif-eration of community–university partnerships, particularly in the 1990s, in part refl ects the outcomes of the Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC) program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (Ruben, 1998). The interest in building partnerships with communities also refl ects a major shift in the model of service-learning from that of charity to justice (see Morton, 1995, as cited in Bringle & Hatcher, 2002). It also echoes the shift from an expert model of community engagement to a more collaborative one and the movement in service-learning activities from learning about communities to learning in communities (Angotti, Doble, & Horrigan, 2011).

The case of the East St. Louis Action Research Project (ESLARP) serves as an example of how service-learning practice has moved from an instructionally focused, expert model to that of community building and empowerment. Reardon (2000) describes the evolution of the pro-gram that refl ects such a shift. Specifi cally, he points out how the program changed from the professional-expert phase in the late 1980s to that of participatory action research in early 1990s, followed by an empower-ment planning phase and most recently that of organizational capacity building (Reardon, 2000). Over the program’s evolution, the range of activities became increasingly broad ranging and diverse, and the level of engagement deepened and embraced reciprocity. In Detroit, the University

The service-learning design studios 317

of Michigan’s COPC project also led to the dissolution of the traditional technical assistance model (Dewar & Isaac, 1998). Similarly, Ruben (1995) described the different stages of development for the University-Oakland Metropolitan Forum based at University of California, Berkeley. Before carrying out more ambitious planning initiatives, the forum spent the fi rst 3 years building trust and understanding among the partners and identify-ing some common goals (Ruben, 2000). These examples point to a much more involved relationship between academic and community partners beyond the technical aspects of the studios.

In the recent literature, relationship building and sustained involve-ment have been identifi ed as critical to community–university partner-ships. Specifi cally, Bringle and Hatcher (2002) liken community–university partnerships to a series of interpersonal relationships between (a) campus administrators, faculty, staff, and students, and (b) community leaders, agency personnel, and members of communities. Furthermore, the rela-tionships require different phases of evolution, including initiation, devel-opment, and maintenance (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002). An understanding of the different stages and their dynamics is needed to develop healthy community–university partnerships (ibid.). Stukas and Dunlap (2002) call for greater attention to the respectful and equitable relationship that must be forged among all of the constituent groups in the community involve-ment spectrum. In the book Service-Learning in Design and Planning , Angotti et al., (2011) suggest that service-learning must create “a new relationship between academic and community partners in which the contributions of both partners are understood and valued” (p. 2). More than a decade earlier, Forsyth, Lu, and McGirr (1999) suggested that service-learning provides an opportunity to build long-term partnerships, “which can help to minimize the unpredictable nature of some projects” (p. 177).

Sustained involvement is necessary for relationship building. In examin-ing three local initiatives in Oakland, California, Ruben (1998) concluded that continuity of involvement is important to both the community and the university. Similarly, Baum (2000) argues that partnerships require continual organizing: “Ongoing effort is necessary to nurture partners, get their attention, develop work groups, arrange productive meetings, plan and implement projects, and recruit new partners to succeed those who leave” (Baum 2000, p. 244). Without relationship building, community– university partnerships risk pitfalls. Specifi cally, LeGates and Robinson (1998) argue that sporadic government initiatives and successful individ-ual demonstration projects are of limited values “unless they are incor-porated into self-maintaining institutional arrangement” (p. 312). Prins

318 Jeffrey Hou

(2005) suggests that partners should discuss their expectations of each other early on in order to reduce the risk of confusion and dispute.

More than just rhetoric, however, relationship building takes time and additional efforts on the part of the instructors as well as the partners. Baum (2000) acknowledges that organizing is a distinct full-time role “for which few academics have skills and time” (p. 244). Wiewel and Lieber (1998) also note that the process of establishing partnerships may take signifi cantly more time than a traditional planning process. From the com-munity’s perspective, sustained and committed participation is also chal-lenging (Hutchinson & Loukaitou-Sideris, 2001). How then can we better link the service-learning studios to the broader social and political processes in the community in the context of these constraints? What are some of the appropriate steps that we can take to build and sustain relationships in the face of time limitations and potential institutional barriers? The follow-ing chronicles a decade-long community–university partnership in Seattle’s International District. It addresses the mechanics of building community–university partnerships and highlights some of the continued challenges and lessons for the practice of service-learning education.

Building partnerships in Seattle’s International District

Located at the southeastern edge of downtown Seattle, the International District has been a historic hub of Asian American immigration in the Pacifi c Northwest. The multiple waves of immigration from the mid-1800s to today have resulted in a uniquely multicultural community consisting primarily of residents from different Asian descents (Chin, 2001). Today, unlike some disappearing historic immigrant enclaves in North American cities, the International District continues to thrive, owing in part to the efforts of activists and organizers in the 1970s who fought to protect the district from the impact of nearby developments and lobbied the city for resources and legal protections to preserve the cultural and historic char-acter of the district as well as its economic and social vitality (see Santos, 2002). The efforts of the activists from the 1970s are now carried on by an extensive network of community-based nonprofi t organizations that pro-vide a wide range of social services to not only residents in the district but also, more broadly, the Asian and Pacifi c Islanders (API) community in the greater Seattle area.

Despite the strong community network and prolifi c work of the non-profi ts, the district continues to face a number of challenges. During the dotcom boom in the 1990s, the intense development in downtown began to encroach upon the district. Meanwhile, complicated collective ownership

The service-learning design studios 319

has prevented the renovation of older building stocks that belong to kin-ship associations and extended families, resulting in dilapidated building conditions in the district. Besides historic buildings, the neighborhood parks developed in the 1970s and early 1980s have also started to deterio-rate. Park elements fell into disrepair, and perception of crime and danger have discouraged residents from using these spaces despite their frequently expressed desire for more open space amenities in the neighborhood. In addition, local business activities have outgrown the neighborhood’s his-toric boundary. Beyond the historic Chinatown and Japantown (Nihon-machi) area, a new Vietnamese American business district called Little Saigon has sprung up in the light industrial area east of the freeway.

Over the years, students and faculty from the University of Washington (UW) in Seattle have engaged in community-based efforts in the district. In the 1970s, landscape architecture students volunteered to help build the Danny Woo International Community Garden, a lush patch of veg-etable plots that primarily serve elderly Asian immigrants in the district.

Figure 17.1 Historic buildings with boarded-up windows in Chinatown International District (ca. 2009). Photograph by Jeffrey Hou.

320 Jeffrey Hou

Starting in the early 1990s, architecture students under the direction of Steve Badanes started to make improvements in the garden by designing and building a tool shed, stairs, benches, lampposts, terraces, and gath-ering areas. More recently, landscape architecture students from UW have helped design and build a chicken coop and new retaining walls and planned for other improvements, such as a communal kitchen.

My own role as a service-learning instructor in partnership with com-munity organizations in the district began in the early 2000s, as a group of faculty at UW was invited to participate in an urban design master plan project initiated by the InterIm Community Development Association (InterIm CDA). As newcomers to Seattle, none of us had prior connec-tions or in-depth knowledge of the issues in the district prior to our initial involvement. But our participation in the project soon introduced us to local politics and the complexity of working with a diverse community. In particular, the planning process was complicated by a history of tensions among the different stakeholders, specifi cally among different community organizations and between different ethnic groups and individuals. In the years prior to our involvement, tensions have been reinforced by disagree-ments over the direction of development in the district, political represen-tation in the city process, territorial claims, and even the naming of the district (Abramson, Manzo, & Hou 2006).

On top of the complexity of the community, the public process used to facilitate discussion within the neighborhood had not been appropriately developed. Most projects followed typical, institutionalized protocols involving a steering committee made up of organizational representatives as well as public meetings with presentations by professionals, often with-out interpreters. While the protocols might have been suffi cient in serving some other Seattle neighborhoods with a strong tradition of civic involve-ment, they appeared to be out of place in the face of cultural and language barriers in the International District. Accordingly, while the public meet-ings were open to residents, few people attended. When meetings were occasionally better attended, they were often dominated by a few vocal individuals while others remained silent.

It was in this context that we began our involvement in the district through our role fi rst as technical advisors to the project and then as studio instructors and academic partners.

In the decade since then, with community design as the main focus of the landscape architecture program at UW, a studio was conducted once every year with projects jointly developed with one or more of the com-munity organizations in the district. 1 The studio projects have ranged in scales and types of projects along with the diversity of participants.

The service-learning design studios 321

They also vary from being primarily exploratory and visionary on one end of the spectrum to highly pragmatic with funding and a real timeline on the other. Specifi cally, they included Community Open Space Initia-tives to examine open space opportunities throughout the neighborhood; a visioning exercise for revitalizing King Street that connects the historic core of the district with Little Saigon; and designs for a night market, a children’s park, street vending carts, parklets , and other temporary open spaces. Our community partners included social services organizations, nonprofi t development corporations, a youth leadership program, and business associations.

While some projects required no fi nancial subsidy, others have been sup-ported with funds from Seattle’s famed Neighborhood Matching Fund pro-gram, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and city agencies such as the Offi ce for Economic Development. Except for occasional university grants, most of the funds were obtained by the community organizations with our participation.

Figure 17.2 Locations of selected studio projects (in bold) and their spin-offs in the International District from 2002 to 2012. Map by Jeffrey Hou. Source of base map: Seattle Department of Neighborhoods.

322 Jeffrey Hou

Aside from the studio projects, we have also participated in a number of projects as individual advisors and consultants, with the help of stu-dents and volunteers. Over the decade-long period, a growing list of pro-jects are being or have been implemented, including the Maynard Avenue Green Street and the renovation of the International Children’s Park. Other projects have received further funding for design development and imple-mentation, including the Chinatown Historic Alleyway Project. While the implementation of design and planning was seen as an important outcome, another equally important and consistent goal has been capacity building in the community in terms of the ability of both neighborhood organizations and residents to engage effectively in local planning and design processes.

Before/during/between/after the studios

So what exactly happened before, during, between, and after the service-learning studios? How did we ensure that capacity building actually occurred in the process and through our involvement in the community? How did the studios contribute to long-term relationship building and tangible impacts in the community?

Before

Despite the more recent success, our involvement in the community was not necessarily “sticking” or gaining much traction at fi rst. In the early years, studios came and went initially with a great deal of excitement among stu-dents and community participants but without much tangible outcome afterward. These projects were nevertheless important in establishing our presence in the community, building relationships, and gaining familiarity with the actors and issues in the neighborhood. It was also important for us to try different methods and techniques to see what worked well and what did not. I consider all of these experiences as part of the “before” phase, as we needed to establish our footing and gain credibility in the community. While the experimental nature of our approach might be ethically prob-lematic for one-off projects, it was less of a concern for us since from the beginning we considered our commitment to be long term. Specifi cally, the commitment allowed for opportunities to make corrections and adjustments in subsequent projects. Within the academic context, the long-term involve-ment also enabled us to address the complex issues facing the communities at a more manageable pace and work on projects with suitable scale and scope for student exploration, thus reducing uncertainty and intense pres-sure to get something done within the limited academic schedule.

The service-learning design studios 323

Aside from the process of immersion, the “before” phase also occurred before every studio, which was equally important to relationship building overall. Rather than coming in with a set agenda, studio topics and projects were jointly developed together with our community partners – what one commentator during the interviews described as “understanding and respect-ing the community’s priority.” The collaboration occurred, therefore, not just during the studio process but also before a studio even took place. In addition to discussions with community partners, a preliminary analysis of the issues, assets, and challenges beforehand was also desirable in identify-ing the priorities and framing the approach for the studio. Since commu-nity partners are often more familiar with such issues, it becomes even more important that the collaboration starts early. In most community service-learning projects, priorities and goals can change during the process, but even so, starting early and having more thorough preparation can reduce the level of uncertainty and potential bumps down the road.

As an example, over the course of the decade, we have collaborated several times with a local youth leadership program called Wilderness Inner-city Leadership Development (WILD). Founded by Stella Chao, for-mer executive director of the International District Housing Alliance, the program engages fi rst- and second-generation Asian American high school youths in community service. In 2006, we conducted a studio in which undergraduate landscape architecture students worked with WILD youths as partners to design installations for a night market. In working with the program staff, we were able to develop a work plan that considered the different skill levels as well as backgrounds between the two groups of students (university and high school). Given the differences between the two groups, a number of obstacles surfaced in the collaborative process. The earlier planning helped ensure that we could monitor the working relationship and accommodate adjustments in the work schedule (more on this later).

Funding plays an important role in ultimately determining whether a project is likely to get implemented. But rather than identifying funds for project implementation only after the studio is completed, it can be more advantageous to do so earlier, before a studio begins. Getting funding in place not only would support studio activities, it could also lend legiti-macy to a project and motivate community involvement. However, having funding in place obviously requires even more preparation and planning. As such, it helps to build on work from the previous studios to generate support for the next one. Over a decade of community involvement, we were fortunate to receive support for a number of studio projects from different sources. For example, the Neighborhood Matching Fund grant

324 Jeffrey Hou

that supported the planning for renovating the International Children’s Park was obtained based on efforts from a previous studio that involved an intergenerational design workshop. The grant supported not only the studio activities but also the community outreach that was critical to gar-nering support for the project. In 2006, we received a small university grant to support collaboration with the WILD program also based on results from a previous studio, funded by a grant from the Hewlett Foundation.

During

Once studios began, a different dynamic emerged that may be short term in nature but proved equally important for long-term relationship building. First, the period during which the studio project occurred often offered the most abundant and direct opportunities for encounters and collabora-tion not only between the students/academic teams and the community partners but also among the community stakeholders themselves. In the International District, our involvement as an academic partner provided a relatively neutral space for members from different subgroups to inter-act. The informal interactions during studio-related activities (including workshops, meetings, and open houses) have been important in provid-ing opportunities for community stakeholders to network and meet each other. As one organizer commented, “every time you meet someone, you build stronger relationships.”

In addition to relationship building, the studio activities, by being an academic exercise, also served as a relatively “safe space” for fresh ideas to emerge. We found that community members tended to be more open to ideas if these ideas were not introduced by an opposing faction or organi-zation. The exploratory nature of an academic project could also reduce the level of tension in a contentious situation. Through illustrations pro-duced by students, community members could visualize a broader set of options and possibilities. The studio process, through workshops, meet-ings, and open houses, also provided opportunities for ideas to be vali-dated by the community and thus encouraged the community participants to take ownership of the ideas. Even when things did not gain traction right away, a community partner mentioned that the images often stayed with the participants and were often recalled in later conversation: “Ideas from the studios and students fl ow into people’s memories and generate discussion.”

As previously mentioned, capacity building has been a primary goal in our involvement and was intentionally built into the activities involving

The service-learning design studios 325

community members. During the Community Open Space Initiatives project in 2005, the WILD program approached us to develop a design workshop with the youths. Rather than simply having the youths join as participants in a workshop, we asked them to serve as facilitators for the activities. We learned that the WILD youths led a regular English as Second Language (ESL) class for elderly immigrant residents, and we discussed with the program staff the possibility of adapting the class into a design workshop. The intergenerational workshop/ESL session turned out to be highly successful. The youths gained experience in working as facilitators and participating in a design workshop, and some of the elderly residents also became regular participants in subsequent projects. Through an ESL-inspired design game with bilingual labels on park elements, the elders and youths worked in teams to create designs for a park that incorporated perspectives from different age groups. One team came up with an idea to introduce vendors in the park to activate the space. The discussion led to

Figure 17.3 Adult residents participating in the design workshop/ESL session. Pho-tograph by Jeffrey Hou.

326 Jeffrey Hou

an idea to create a night market event, which eventually was organized by the youth and piloted in the following summer. 2 The workshop became the starting point of many other activities we have developed in collaboration with the WILD program.

By the very nature of a community process, the studio experience often entailed changes and adjustments. The ability to immediately, as described by a program staff, “troubleshoot” the situation was also critical. In a subsequent collaboration with WILD, we became more ambitious by pair-ing youths with UW students to work in teams. Despite prior preparation, there were still tensions and frustrations among the student teams. The youths felt intimidated working with the UW students, who often com-municated using professional jargon. Even when the youths spoke up, they felt that their ideas and opinions were not fully incorporated or respected. The frustration was voiced by the youths through regular debriefi ngs with the WILD staff. In response to the situation, we developed a method for the team to draw or write down all the ideas on index cards (regardless whether they were from the youths or the UW students). The team would then map and sort through the cards to program and design the project and develop collective ownership of the ideas and the design. With the revised approach, the teams began to work much more productively. In retrospect, maintaining regular contact and a direct line of communica-tion was critical to responding to issues in a timely manner. In addition, the instructor’s role in shaping the studio culture and respect for the com-munity partners was also highly important.

In the course of a decade, the scopes of the studio projects have varied from year to year. In retrospect, some of the studios could be described as “mother studios,” with broader scope and wider focus. These were exploratory studios meant to generate and brainstorm ideas and possibili-ties for neighborhood improvement. Students often worked individually or in teams on different sites and issues in the district. Then, other studios followed up on one or more of the ideas generated from these “mother studios.” As such, some studio projects actually live through multiple stu-dios. Together, the different types of studios have helped strengthen con-tinuity and sustain energy and involvement over a longer period. It also provided for different types of studio experiences for the students and enabled different kinds of conversation and levels of focus in the com-munity process.

Like most design studios, a service-learning studio can be preoccupied with delivering certain products by the end of the term. Sometimes the pressure can be even stronger in a service-learning studio, as it faces a community client and is accountable to a community audience. But unlike

The service-learning design studios 327

a typical studio that concludes at the end of an academic term, a service-learning studio needs to take into account what happens next. In order to maintain the momentum of the studio effort, it is important to consider the next steps not after the studio but during the studio process. As one community partner described, “When the next steps are not laid out, it is harder to apply to the real situation.” In the King Street Visioning Project in 2008, for example, the students were asked to defi ne both short- and long-term projects that the community could undertake to further develop and implement their vision. The range of possible projects enabled the community task force to prioritize its effort and focus its energy and resources. This initiative already has led to two funded projects since the studio was completed – a sidewalk improvement project and a public art project under a freeway overpass.

Figure 17.4 UW and WILD students put their ideas on the table. Colors repre-sented ideas for different aspects of the design, ranging from narratives to actual structure. Photograph by Jeffrey Hou.

328 Jeffrey Hou

Table 17.1 A Timeline of Service-Learning Studios/Projects and Their Scopes

Year Studios/Projects Project Scopes

2002 Community Placemaking A framework and individual projects for neighborhood improvements

2003 Global Classroom Studio An intercultural charrette between students from UW and Chiba University

2004 Maynard Avenue Green Street

Concept design for sidewalk/street improvement

2005 Community Open Space Initiative

Exploration of open space development opportunities in the district

2006 Night Market Studio Installation design for a night market to activate neighborhood open space

2007 International Children’s Park Concept design for renovation and improvement of the International Children’s Park

2008 Hing Hay Park Expansion Concept design for expansion of Hing Hay Park

2009 King Street Visioning Project

A framework and individual projects for improving the King Street corridor linking Chinatown and Little Saigon

2010 Vending Carts Studio Concept design for storefront vending carts

2011 Little Saigon Streetscape Framework and individual designs for streetscape improvements in Little Saigon

2012 Little Saigon/Yesler Terrace Hill Climb

Community outreach and concept design for street improvement linking the Yesler Terrace Redevelopment and Little Saigon

2012 Park Here Concept design for parklets and adaptation of streetscapes for temporary open space

Note: items in bold indicate “mother projects”

Between/after

Once a studio is completed, the between or after phase is critical for pro-jects and efforts to remain active. As the time of an academic partner is often limited and constrained by other responsibilities, it is important to have a community partner follow up to move the project forward. But similar to academic partners, community partners often have their own

The service-learning design studios 329

priorities and responsibilities as well and cannot be expected to devote full attention to a project or initiative. As community organizations are often understaffed and underfunded, they also may not have the capac-ity to take on more tasks, especially something they may not be familiar with. In the early phase of our involvement in the International District before close partnerships were developed, the momentum of a project was often unable to be sustained after the studio was completed. This situation changed eventually when a community design and resource center called IDEA Space was established.

The center that later become IDEA Space was fi rst conceived by the International District Housing Alliance (IDHA) and supported with an environmental justice grant from the EPA. With personnel changes, another organization, Seattle Chinatown International District Preserva-tion and Development Authority (SCIDpda), adopted the initiative and invested space and resources to create the IDEA Space. Envisioned as a full-service outreach unit of SCIDpda, the center is organized into four “labs” – Design, Business Assistance, Neighborhood Safety, and Real Estate – refl ecting the priorities identifi ed by the community. The IDEA Space became an important partner in our work through projects such as the King Street Visioning Project and the subsequent spinoffs from the project. It also supported the planning, design, and development for renovating the International Children’s Project, our fi rst built work in the district that was conceived in a studio.

Having a capable and supportive partner like the IDEA Space was abso-lutely critical in carrying on the momentum from the studio. With commu-nity design as one of its main foci and with skilled staff and support from SCIDpda (an established organization in the community), IDEA Space was able to take the lead on work related to neighborhood design and plan-ning in the district. Aside from grant writing to support further devel-opment and implementation of projects, the staff from the IDEA Space has been instrumental in maintaining outreach and carrying out informal interactions with the community following the studios to keep ideas and energy alive. Outreach in between the studios was particularly important in “building on relationships formed during the studio,” said a program staff member.

Aside from the help by the staff of community organizations, personal investment of time by the instructor during these in-between phases was needed. Attending community meetings and serving on the boards of community organizations keeps one better informed of issues facing the community. They are also critical to building and maintaining relation-ships with community partners. In addition, encouraging students to work

330 Jeffrey Hou

Figure 17.5 International Children’s Park, a corner pocket park in the neighborhood, became well used after the renovation was completed in 2012. Photo-graph by Jeffrey Hou.

as interns or volunteers for local organizations has helped expand our presence and sustain connections in the community. These are also oppor-tunities for students to step outside the comfort zone of school and gain more grounded experiences in the community.

Finally, having a report on the shelves may seem like the least desir-able outcome in the community design process. But in our case, having documentation and written reports of the studio work was highly useful for our community partners. As one program staffer commented, “the reports were used again and again” to appeal to funders, city agencies, and other community constituents. Through photo documentation of outreach activities, the reports have been useful specifi cally in demonstrating and conveying the involvement of the community in the studio process. Also, as projects could change hands from time to time, the reports became par-ticularly useful in ensuring that the comments and voices of the commu-nity could be referenced and respected through the subsequent phases of a project. They can also help avoid duplication of efforts in the community, which can often drain energy and induce frustrations.

The service-learning design studios 331

Three lessons in building service-learning partnerships

To conclude the chapter and to refl ect on the decade of work, a few key lessons in building and sustaining community–university partnerships are highlighted here particularly for service-learning instructors.

First, it is commonly understood that developing a successful community–university partnership goes beyond the typical responsibil-ity of a studio instructor. As studio instructors and academic partners, we must consider the additional effort as both an ethical responsibility and a necessary investment of time and energy for better processes and outcomes. Our commitment to the community is what we can do best as instructors to demonstrate our values to the students. Failure to do so at the expense of studio process and outcomes would be a disservice to the community and the students and would undermine the purpose of our work.

Second, while long-term involvement is desirable, the limited venue of studio can actually be advantageous in communities in which members have many other commitments or show signs of “participation fatigue.” A design studio in the International District that occurs once a year focus-ing on different locations in the large district has helped focus attention and resources to address a particular set of issues. Having these focused exercises appears to be more sustainable from an organizational point of view, since community–university partnerships require time and commit-ment from the community as well. We certainly would not want to wear out our welcome. Also, rather than one-off projects, these consecutive stu-dios enabled a more thoughtful and unrushed process of engagement in the community.

Third, it is not every day that sustained community–university partner-ships can fl ourish. There are numerous factors that determine whether a partnership can be developed and sustained over time. In the case of the International District, these factors include individual commitments, institutional support, and organizational capacity of the community, as well as timing and sometimes luck. But when long-term partnerships can indeed be nurtured, it can be highly productive in delivering a rewarding service-learning experience. Having long-term relationships enables one to take risks, make corrections and adjustments, and follow through. Again, sustaining such partnerships requires commitments on the part of indi-viduals, which can be an asset as well as pose challenges. Specifi cally, while individuals, including instructors and community partners, can bring much-needed energy and commitment to a process, the departure of indi-viduals can also have a negative impact on the institutional partnerships.

332 Jeffrey Hou

As academic and community partners, we need to make sure that our partnerships translate into institutional and collective relationships that can be sustained beyond individual connections.

For service-learning studios to have a lasting impact in the community, building and sustaining community–university partnerships are highly critical. This chapter outlines the key issues, challenges, and lessons in our decade-long experience in Seattle’s International District. As the context and issues often vary from community to community, the fi ndings here are not meant to be generalized to efforts in other communities without con-sidering the specifi c context and issues. By chronicling our experience in Seattle and highlighting the lessons here, the intent is to inform the current literature as it moves from a focus on studio pedagogy to the equally if not more complex task of building and sustaining community–university part-nerships. But as we focus on building partnerships, let’s not overlook the connections between studio activities and relationship building. As hope-fully demonstrated in this discussion, a fl uid, reciprocal, yet more strategic relationship between the two aspects of our work and a better under-standing of the dynamic are key to strengthening the connections between service-learning instruction and community–university partnerships and deepening their positive impacts in communities and universities.

Notes 1 . Dan Abramson in the Department of Urban Design and Planning at UW

also conducted studios in the district from time to time. Some were done in conjunction or in coordination with my own studios.

2 . For details of the night market event and the involvement of the youths, see Hou (2010).

References

Abramson, D., Manzo, L., & Hou, J. (2006). From ethnic enclave to multi-ethnic translocal community: constructed identities and community plan-ning in Seattle’s Chinatown-International district. Journal of Architecture and Planning Research 23(4), 341–359.

Angotti, T., Doble, C., & Horrigan, P. (2011). At the boundaries: the shifting sites of service-learning in design and planning. In Angotti, T., Doble, C., & Horrigan, P. (Eds.), Service-Learning in Design and Planning: Educating at the Boundaries . (pp. 1–16). Oakland, CA: New Village Press.

Baum, H. S. (2000). Fantasies and realities in university–community partner-ship. Journal of Planning Education and Research 20, 234–246.

The service-learning design studios 333

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2002). Campus-community partnership: the terms of engagement. Journal of Social Issues 58(3), 503–516.

Chin, D. (2001). Seattle’s International District: The Making of a Pan-Asian American Community . Seattle, WA: International Examiner Press.

Dewar, M. E., & Isaac, C. B. (1998). Learning from difference: the potentially transforming experience of community–university collaboration. Journal of Planning Education and Research 17, 334–347.

Forsyth, A., Lu, H., & McGirr, P. (1999). Inside the service learning studio in urban design. Landscape Journal 18(2), 166–178.

Hou, J. (2010). “Night Market” in Seattle: community eventscape and the reconstruction of public space. In Hou, Jeffrey, ed. Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities . (pp. 111–122). London and New York: Routledge.

Hutchinson, J., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2001). Choosing confrontation or consensus in the inner city: lessons from a community–university partner-ship. Planning Theory & Practice 2(3), 293–310.

LeGates, R. T., & Robinson, G. (1998). Institutionalizing university–community partnerships. Journal of Planning Education and Research 17, 312–322.

Morton, K. (1995). The irony of service: clarity, project and social change in service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning 2, 19–32.

Prins, E. (2005). Framing a confl ict in community–university partnership. Journal of Planning Education and Research 25, 57–74.

Reardon, K. M. (2000). An experiential approach to creating an effective community–university partnership: the East St. Louis Action Research Pro-ject. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 5(1), 59–74.

Ruben, V. (1995). Evolution of a campus–community partnership: the University-Oakland metropolitan forum. Metropolitan Universities Jour-nal: An International Forum 5(4), 27–36.

Ruben, V. (1998). The roles of university in community-building initiatives. Journal of Planning Education and Research 17, 302–311.

Ruben, V. (2000). Evaluating university–community partnerships: an exami-nation of the evolution of questions and approaches. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 5(1), 219–230.

Santos, B. (2002). Hum Bows, Not Hot Dogs! Memoirs of a Savvy Asian American Activist . Seattle, WA: International Examiner Press.

Stukas, A. A., & Dunlap, M. R. (2002). Community involvement: theoreti-cal approaches and educational initiatives. Journal of Social Issues 58(3), 411–427.

Wiewel, W., & Lieber, M. (1998). Goal achievement, relationship building, and incrementalism: the challenge of university–community partnership. Journal of Planning Education and Research 17, 291–301.