The 1996 studio began with an introduction to the research data and models and to the alternative futures produced by the 1995 studio. Then, without a pre-identified client, site, or program, all participants went to California, toured the study region, met with people who know the area, and got to know it as best they could.

Upon returning to Harvard, the students performed two short, yet important, exercises. First, each student diagrammed the entire study: its issues, methods, and products. Then each person made a design proposal of what the region should be in 2030. The students compared and discussed these diagrams and designs as the class came to consensus about the organization of the studio and its work. The studio decided to consider three types of change: changes in scale, changes in time, and changes in design strategy (Figure 10). Four scales would be considered: the region as a whole; the Temecula Valley and a new urban center; five areas typical of the region’s different combinations of landscape and development; and guidelines for development on the wide range of site conditions found in the region. However, these several scales would be studied simultaneously, rather than hierarchically. The class adopted a two-stage timeline, with a first stage date of 2010 coinciding with the regional population forecast and a second extrapolation to 2030.

Finally, the class decided to organize into a single team which would try to design one "best" proposal that took into account the realities of the region.

This report describes the pressures created by the predicted population increase and the current trend of urbanization; describes the proposed conservation and development design strategies; shows at four different scales how these influence regional urbanization, the Temecula Valley (the area likely to see the greatest change), the new urban core, and the five typical areas; outlines some of its costs and benefits; and offers suggestions for implementing the design.