Everyone at the Table: From Token Consultation to Genuine Co-Creation

_This chapter explores how to transform design from a top-down process into a collaborative act, focusing on participatory design._ You've assembled a group of twelve people in your living room: neighbours, family members, your architect, and a Wurundjeri elder. On the table are sheets of butter paper, coloured markers, and a rough model of your site made from cardboard and clay. Your architect isn't presenting designs; instead, everyone's sketching ideas while the elder shares stories about seasonal water flows that shaped this land for thousands of years. Your teenage daughter suggests putting the main entrance on the east side "where morning sun makes people happy," while your elderly neighbour proposes shared vegetable gardens along the fence line. This scene might seem chaotic compared to traditional architectural practice, where experts develop designs for client approval. But participatory design, genuine co-creation rather than token consultation, produces buildings that work better for everyone affected by them. Research consistently shows participatory projects achieve higher user satisfaction, stronger community support, and better environmental outcomes than expert-driven designs. Yet most architectural processes still position architects as sole creators, clients as approvers, and everyone else as passive recipients. This chapter explores how to transform design from individual genius to collective intelligence, particularly in the Victorian context where Indigenous consultation requirements and community engagement expectations increasingly shape project approvals.  ## From Token Consultation to Genuine Co-Creation The spectrum between consultation and co-creation might seem semantic, but the difference profoundly affects outcomes. Consultation asks for feedback on predetermined options: "Would you prefer the entrance here or here?" Co-creation involves stakeholders in generating options: "How should people arrive at this building?" Traditional consultation often happens late, after key decisions are locked in. You've probably attended council consultations where plans seem finalised despite requests for input. This breeds cynicism; people recognise token engagement and respond with token participation or active resistance. The failed East West Link project cost Victorian taxpayers more than $1.1 billion, partly because genuine community engagement never occurred, with affected residents learning about the road through media rather than consultation. [3, 7] Genuine co-creation starts before design begins. The Monash University Aboriginal Garden project brought Traditional Owners, students, and maintenance staff together during site analysis, not after concepts were developed. [22] Maintenance staff identified microclimates architects hadn't noticed. Students revealed desire paths that formal surveys missed. Traditional Owners shared plant knowledge that transformed species selection. The resulting garden provides superior habitat and cultural learning opportunities while requiring significantly less maintenance than comparable campus landscapes. Co-creation doesn't mean design by committee or averaging everyone's preferences into mediocrity. Your architect still provides expertise in structures, regulations, and systems integration. But this expertise combines with lived experience, cultural knowledge, and community wisdom that no individual could possess alone. A Coburg project demonstrates the distinction. Initial consultation presented three house options for neighbour feedback, essentially asking neighbours to choose between predetermined impacts. After pushback, they shifted to co-creation, inviting neighbours to help position the building. Through collaborative workshops, neighbours identified sight lines worth preserving, noise patterns requiring buffering, and opportunities for shared infrastructure. The final design differed completely from initial options but satisfied everyone because all participated in its creation. ## Understanding Country Through Indigenous Eyes  _Transforming consultation into genuine collaborative design_ Victorian planning increasingly requires Indigenous consultation, but compliance-driven engagement misses profound design opportunities. Understanding Country through Indigenous eyes transforms sites from blank canvases into storied landscapes with their own agency and needs. Every Victorian site falls within a Traditional Owner group's Country. In Melbourne, this primarily means the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung or Bunurong peoples, though boundaries aren't lines on maps but relationships with landscape features. [21] Your first step involves identifying the relevant Traditional Owner group through the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council, not assuming based on location. [19] But knowing who to contact is just the beginning. Indigenous consultation isn't asking "Are there any sacred sites here?" and proceeding when told no. It's understanding that all Country is sacred, with varying intensities and expressions. That seasonal creek might be a songline. Those old scarred trees might mark gathering places. The soil itself holds memory of management practices refined over 65,000 years. Jefa Greenaway, one of Victoria's first registered Indigenous architects, describes Country-centred design as placing "Indigenous knowledge systems and connection and caring for Country at the centre of the design process." [8] This isn't adding Aboriginal motifs to finished designs but allowing Country to inform fundamental decisions about siting, orientation, and form. The Birrarung Council, speaking for the Yarra River, provides a model. The river has a legal voice through the _Yarra River Protection (Wilip-gin Birrarung murron) Act 2017_, with Traditional Owners central to its governance. [2, 4, 6] Projects along the river must now consider not just impact _on_ the river but what the river needs _from_ development. This revolutionary framework, understanding landscapes as participants rather than resources, offers templates for all sites. [9] A Warrandyte project exemplifies meaningful engagement. Rather than a standard heritage assessment, the owners spent a year building a relationship with Wurundjeri elders, participating in cultural burns, learning seasonal calendars, and understanding their site within the larger Country. The design that emerged was oriented not to compass points but to songlines, included gathering spaces for cultural activities, and integrated traditional fire management practices into the landscape design. ## The Indigenous Design Charter in Practice The International Indigenous Design Charter, co-authored by Victorian architect Jefa Greenaway, provides protocols for respectful Indigenous participation in design. [8, 14, 15, 17] Understanding these protocols helps you facilitate meaningful rather than tokenistic Indigenous engagement. - **"Indigenous Led"** doesn't mean Indigenous people must lead every project but that Indigenous knowledge should guide engagement with Country. For non-Indigenous projects, this might mean Indigenous consultants helping interpret Country's needs rather than making aesthetic suggestions about building design. - **"Self-Determined"** recognises that Indigenous communities, not external experts, decide how their knowledge contributes to projects. You can't demand specific information or expect standard consultation processes. Some knowledge is secret, some seasonal, some gendered. Respecting these boundaries enriches rather than constrains design. - **"Deep Listening"** extends beyond consultation meetings to sustained engagement. The Shepparton Art Museum spent three years in conversation with local Aboriginal communities before beginning design. This extended timeline allowed for trust-building that transformed the project from an art museum to a cultural meeting place, with design features emerging from the relationship rather than a briefing document. - **"Community Specific"** acknowledges that each Traditional Owner group has distinct knowledge, protocols, and priorities. Wurundjeri preferences might differ from Wadawurrung approaches just 100 kilometres away. What works in Warrnambool won't necessarily apply in Wodonga. This specificity requires local engagement rather than generic Indigenous consultation. A Thornbury townhouse development demonstrates practical application. The developers engaged Wurundjeri Corporation early, not just for the required heritage assessment but for design input. Wurundjeri representatives suggested orienting buildings to maximise winter sun, not as Indigenous knowledge per se, but as good design emerging from Indigenous participation. They identified native plants that would attract honeyeaters significant to Wurundjeri culture and suggested rainwater features that reference traditional water management. These contributions cost nothing extra but enriched the development immeasurably.  ## Practical Tools for Group Design  _Tools and techniques for inclusive design processes_ Facilitating group design requires specific techniques that enable non-designers to contribute meaningfully. Your architect should bring these tools, but understanding them helps you participate more effectively. - **Physical modelling** remains the most democratic design tool. Unlike drawings that require spatial literacy or computer models demanding technical knowledge, physical models are immediately understood by everyone. A Bendigo project used sandpit modelling where participants shaped topography, placed building blocks, and tested shadow patterns using desk lamps. Children and elders could participate equally, with insights emerging through play rather than formal presentation. - **Walking interviews** transform site analysis from a technical assessment to an embodied exploration. Participants walk the site while discussing memories, observations, and possibilities. Recording these walks captures not just words but pauses, gestures, and emotional responses to different locations. A Castlemaine project's walking interviews revealed that everyone avoided one corner despite it having the best views; an investigation discovered underground water creating a subtle discomfort that conventional analysis would miss. - **Scenario building** explores "what if?" questions collectively. What if energy costs triple? What if working from home becomes permanent? What if elderly parents move in? Groups develop response strategies for each scenario, revealing the need for design flexibility. This technique particularly helps communities think beyond current circumstances toward long-term resilience. - **Digital tools** can enhance participation when thoughtfully applied. The Cadmus tool allows real-time collaborative sketching on tablets that sync to large screens, enabling remote participation while maintaining the immediacy of drawing. Augmented reality apps let participants visualise buildings on actual sites through their phones, though these should supplement, not replace, physical engagement. -  ## Managing Conflicting Visions When multiple people shape a design, conflicts inevitably emerge. Your neighbour wants maximum tree retention while you need northern sun. Your partner prioritises privacy while you value community connection. These tensions, rather than being problems to solve, become creative catalysts when properly managed. - **Conflict mapping** visualises tensions rather than hiding them. Draw opposing needs on opposite sides of a page, then explore solutions in the middle space. Privacy versus connection might resolve through a gradient design with varying levels of disclosure. Tree retention versus solar access could inspire building forms that curve around vegetation while maintaining orientation. - **The "Yes, And..." principle** from improvisational theatre helps build on ideas rather than dismissing them. When someone suggests something seemingly impossible, "What if the roof was a food forest?", the response becomes "Yes, and we could use a reinforced structure to support the soil weight" rather than "No, because roofs can't hold that much weight." This principle doesn't mean accepting every idea but exploring possibilities before identifying constraints. - **Weighted voting** helps groups prioritise when everything seems important. If ten people each have 100 points to distribute among options, patterns emerge showing collective priorities versus individual preferences. This mathematical approach depersonalises conflict; it's not "Jane versus John" but competing priorities requiring resolution. A St Kilda co-housing project faced seemingly irreconcilable visions: families wanted private gardens while singles preferred communal space; retirees sought quiet while young professionals desired entertainment areas. Through six months of participatory design, they developed a "mosaic" approach where different zones served different needs, connected by shared infrastructure that encouraged interaction without forcing it. --- ## Key Summary: Designing Together Twelve people sketching ideas around your kitchen table might look like chaos compared to traditional architecture's clean lines of expert-client-approval. But this messy, collaborative process produces buildings that actually work for everyone they affect. The difference between consultation and co-creation isn't semantic; it's fundamental. Consultation asks for feedback on predetermined options, whereas co-creation involves stakeholders in generating possibilities from the start. The failed East West Link project cost taxpayers over $1.1 billion, partly because authorities never genuinely engaged affected communities. [3, 7] In contrast, Monash University's Aboriginal Garden, which brought Traditional Owners, students, and maintenance staff together from day one, now requires significantly less maintenance because the people who care for it helped design it. [22] Indigenous consultation in Victoria isn't just a regulatory hurdle; it's an opportunity most projects squander. Every site exists within Traditional Owner Country, carrying stories and obligations 65,000 years deep. A Warrandyte project that spent a year building a relationship with Wurundjeri elders resulted in a design oriented to songlines rather than compass points, a fundamental restructuring based on Indigenous knowledge, not token acknowledgment. Physical models are democracy's best design tool. Unlike drawings or computer models, everyone understands objects they can touch and move. A Bendigo project's sandpit modelling sessions enabled equal participation from children to elders, with insights emerging through play that formal presentations would never reveal. Conflict is a feature, not a bug. Mapping tensions visually, privacy versus connection, tree retention versus solar access, allows for creative solutions that embrace both, rather than compromising into mediocrity. The evidence is overwhelming: participatory design delivers higher satisfaction scores, fewer planning objections, and relationships that persist for years. ## Chapter Resources [**International Indigenous Design Charter →**](https://indigenousdesigncharter.com.au/australian-indigenous-design-charter/) _Co-authored by Victorian architect Jefa Greenaway, this charter provides best-practice protocols for respectfully and effectively embedding Indigenous knowledge in any design process. Outlines 10 steps for respectful representation of Indigenous culture in design practice and education._