Frankl back in 1972….
Serious implications for what we choose to recognise in our communities – problems and threats – or apirations and dreams?
Just another WordPress site
by admin
Frankl back in 1972….
Serious implications for what we choose to recognise in our communities – problems and threats – or apirations and dreams?
by admin
While Pittsburgh’s government and business leaders pressed for big-government solutions – new stadiums and convention centers – the city’s real turn- around was driven by community groups and citizen-led initiatives. Community groups, local foundations, and nonprofits – not city hall or business-led economic development groups – drove its transformation, playing a key role in stabilizing and strengthening neighborhoods, building green, and spurring the development of the waterfront and re- development around the universities. Many of Pittsburgh’s best neighborhoods, such as its South Side, are ones that were somehow spared from the wrath of urban renewal. Others, such as East Liberty, have benefited from community initiatives designed to remedy the damage done by large-scale urban renewal efforts that left vacant lots in place of functioning neighborhoods and built soulless public housing high-rise towers. That neighborhood is now home to several new community development projects, including a Whole Foods Market, which provides local jobs as well as serving as an anchor for the surrounding community. This kind of bottom-up process takes considerable time and perseverance. In Pittsburgh’s case, it took the better part of a generation to achieve stability and the potential for longer-term revival.
The Great Reset copyright © 2010 Richard Florida (emphases are mine)
If this IS true, and could also be true of Leeds, then what does it mean for the focus of community development workers in the city?
by admin
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6wJl37N9C0]
by admin
This site from Australia shows how a council is using online forums to engage with at least some of their constituents on a range of matters including:
This particular council has a resident population of around 74 000 and participation on the forums is relatively low. Unsurprisingly perhaps, rate variations has got by far the most traffic almost certainly because of its direct impact on the self interest of local people.
There is no doubt that the forums have surfaced a wide range of opinions that may not otherwise have been heard – and some clearly offer clues to the council on areas where its own performance may benefit from a review. The forums provide an interesting case study in the potential and limitations of such online engagement tools for informing decision making and policy.
However the point I wish to make is not about the medium of engagement (in this case online) but on the content of engagement. In this case we have rates, trees, community and cultural facilities, a planning application and integrated planning strategy as the topics for engagement.
My question is this.
Of the 74 000 residents of this council, how many have their own progress genuinely held in check by any of these issues?
How many people cannot make progress in their own lives until the council sorts out its strategy on trees? Or integrated planning? Or even business rates?
The answer is very few. In most cases perhaps none. These are examples of what I call lowest common denominator issues. Most people will agree that they matter and need thinking about. They are also impersonal enough to be safe topics for discussion. But for next to nobody will they be the really critical issues that hold back individual talent or community potential.
Many of those 74 000 people will have ideas about how they could make a better life for themselves, their families and the community. And most of them will have a pretty good idea about what is stopping them. Instead of engaging local people in the somewhat ‘removed’ priorities of the council, the council could design engagement processes that enable people to engage with each other, the council and other stakeholders, in their real priorities for making a better life. To uncover the real issues that act as barriers to real people making progress in real lives.
If people are to be open and honest about what is stopping them from making progress we need to have a relationship with them that is trusted, confidential, competent and compassionate. I suspect that such relationships cannot generally develop entirely online. That they still demand an element of face to face conversation. That they will need real people working in the community with good engagement and development skills. They may also need additional reserves of social capital, community networks and ‘brains trusts’ that can be accessed to provide support and expertise as and when it is needed.
Until we start to engage large numbers of individuals and groups on the real issues that they feel are preventing them from pursuing their aspirations then we will not get to heart of the matter.
Perhaps we should stop seeking to engage the people in our strategies and plans, but instead seek to engage ourselves in theirs?
by admin
I have just had an interesting twitter conversation with @asset_transfer the twitter feed for the Asset Transfer Unit. They pointed me to this site call Building Community.
Lot’s of great work and some inspirational stories.
However, (and it is a big however) I think this goes to show how, in the UK at least, ‘asset’ has become synonymous with ‘building’. And the process of ‘asset based development’ has become synonymous with asset (building) transfer from local authority ownership to social enterprise. There is no doubt that this can be a part of an effective community development strategy.
But, it is not the only game in town. And it can be an expensive game. While the buildings may be sold for a pound, the cost of refurbishment frequently runs into millions. Once developed sometimes these buildings continue to demand cash to keep them open as business plans don’t quite work out as anticipated and they may become cuckoos in our communities – sucking up investment as their funders claim they ‘cannot be allowed to fail’. This is a ‘shadow side’ that occasionally becomes a very real, very expensive and very persistent problem.
What is more, listed building regulations sometimes mean that the refurbished buildings are not very green.
But the real problem is that in many of the communities that I work in lack of infrastructure is not the key challenge. Buildings are not the barrier. Lack of bricks and mortar for community use is not the bottleneck. I am not against asset transfer. In some communities, at the right time they are the perfect and logical step.
But when the bottle neck is not infrastructure but capability and confidence or ability to organise, then let’s not pretend that a new building always holds the key. We may get a better return on our investment from good old community development work – using existing spaces in the community to bring people together and help them to organise for a better future. Informal education and outreach work may be the best ways to develop the limiting assets of knowledge, skills and self belief. I believe there are communities that would love to go down these more ‘people centred’ routes but for whom available investment is tied to the transfer of buildings.
So good luck to the Asset Transfer Unit. But let’s remember that the principal assets in our communities are people and their potential. Not run down buildings. If we really want to get a return on our investment in asset based development then let’s at least consider putting that investment into the real assets – people.
There are other approaches to asset based community development that could be considered. At the moment policy and funding in the UK tilts the playing field so heavily in favour of community ownership of bricks and mortar that it is hard for the alternatives to get an airing.
But perhaps this is set to change?
I’d love to hear your thoughts…..