Listening at Scale

Phase I Community Engagement—and What Began to Emerge

From the outset, the HEW process has been approached with the understanding that responsible development—particularly on a historic infill site—requires listening before direction. Phase I of the community engagement process was designed around that principle.

Rather than beginning with concepts or design solutions, Phase I was intentionally framed as Preliminary Discovery. The goal was to better understand community needs, concerns, values, and priorities before advancing any specific approach. This was a deliberate choice, informed by the site's history and by the complexity inherent in working within an established neighborhood and historic context.

Given what past proposals taught us about the gap between initial ideas and workable outcomes, starting with structured listening rather than proposed solutions felt less like a choice and more like a necessity.

A Process Designed for Discovery

Phase I engagement was structured to gather insight across multiple formats and over time, recognizing that meaningful input rarely emerges from a single meeting or conversation.

Early outreach and messaging focused on introducing the process itself—setting expectations that this phase was about listening and learning, not reacting to predetermined plans. Community questionnaires provided an accessible way for people to share perspectives, questions, and concerns at their own pace. Facilitated focus groups offered a more in-depth setting where those perspectives could be explored through guided conversation.

Together, these tools created multiple entry points for participation. Some people engaged through surveys, others through small-group discussion, and some through individual conversations. This layered approach was intentional, designed to surface patterns and shared concerns rather than isolated reactions.

The risk of skipping this phase—or treating it as ceremonial—is that you advance proposals shaped more by assumptions than by actual understanding of what matters most to the people. That approach has a track record. We've seen where it leads.

Focus Groups as Iterative Conversations

The focus groups held during Phase I were structured as iterative conversations, not decision-making forums. Early sessions centered on identifying unmet needs, concerns, hopes, and ideas related to the site and its future. Subsequent sessions revisited those discussions to better understand values rather than needs, allowing participants to reflect on what had been shared, build on earlier input, and introduce new considerations.

By returning to themes rather than locking them in place, the process allowed for greater nuance to emerge. Ideas were discussed in relation to real-world considerations. This sequencing ensures evaluation happens with adequate context, rather than prematurely. The emphasis throughout Phase I was on expanding understanding—both for the project team and for participants—rather than narrowing options before the full picture was clear.

This takes more time than a single public meeting. It also produces better information—the kind that actually shapes thinking rather than simply documenting opinions.

Themes That Began to Emerge

Across Phase I input, conversations frequently returned to a set of shared concerns and priorities. While viewpoints varied, there was notable overlap in the underlying issues people raised. This overlap reflects shared concerns, not uniform opinions.

These emerging themes included questions around neighborhood scale and compatibility, traffic and access, historic character and continuity, fire safety and long-term resilience, and the importance of stewardship and care over time. In many cases, these concerns were expressed from different perspectives but pointed toward similar underlying values.

What became clear is that people care deeply—sometimes for different reasons, often from different vantage points—but the core anxieties and hopes were more aligned than surface-level conversations might suggest.

At this stage, these themes are best understood as signals, not conclusions. They help clarify what matters most to people and where deeper examination is needed as the process continues. They also begin to reveal where tradeoffs will be unavoidable, even if those tradeoffs aren't yet fully visible.

Why Phase I Does Not End With Answers

Phase I was never intended to produce decisions or final directions. Its purpose is synthesis—it’s an iterative process of bringing together a wide range of input to better understand the landscape of concerns, values, and questions surrounding the site.

That synthesis is currently underway and will be shared through a Phase I report that summarizes key themes, insights, and interpretations. This discipline helps prevent decisions from being driven by partial information or early assumptions. Clarity does not come from raw input alone, but from careful analysis and context.

Only after that work is complete can the project responsibly move forward into deeper examination. Rushing past this step—treating input as something to acknowledge and then move beyond—is how projects lose trust early and struggle to recover it later.

Setting the Foundation for What Comes Next

The insights gathered during Phase I provide a foundation for subsequent phases of work. They inform what needs to be explored more closely, what assumptions require testing, and where alignment may be possible.

As the process continues, additional work is focused on gaining greater clarity around viable paths forward—grounded in what has been heard, what the site can reasonably support, and what long-term stewardship requires. This remains an active and evolving phase of the project, not a conclusion.

The goal is not to arrive at Phase II with a proposal and hope it lands well. The goal is to arrive with a proposal that feels like the logical outcome of everything that came before it—expected rather than surprising, grounded rather than speculative.

Listening as an Ongoing Discipline

Listening, in this context, is not a single phase to be checked off. It is a discipline that supports better decisions over time. Alignment takes patience. Responsible development takes care.

By approaching Phase I as discovery rather than direction, the intent has been to create the conditions for a more thoughtful, informed conversation—one that respects complexity and keeps the long view in mind as the HEW project continues to take shape.

We recognize that this approach asks for patience from everyone involved—neighbors, stakeholders, and the project team alike. That patience is an investment. It reduces the likelihood that years are spent advancing something that ultimately cannot move forward, and increases the likelihood that what does move forward reflects both what people need and what the site can actually support.