{"id":128,"date":"2010-04-30T10:38:04","date_gmt":"2010-04-30T10:38:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/leedscd.wordpress.com\/?p=128"},"modified":"2010-04-30T10:38:04","modified_gmt":"2010-04-30T10:38:04","slug":"asset-based-development","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/realisedevelopment.net\/index.php\/2010\/04\/30\/asset-based-development\/","title":{"rendered":"Asset Based Development"},"content":{"rendered":"

I have just had an interesting twitter conversation with @asset_transfer<\/a> the twitter feed for the Asset Transfer Unit<\/a>. \u00a0They pointed me to\u00a0this\u00a0site call Building Community<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Lot’s of great work and some inspirational stories.<\/p>\n

However, (and it is a big however) I\u00a0think\u00a0this goes to show how, in the UK at least, ‘asset’ has become synonymous with ‘building’. \u00a0And the process of ‘asset based development’ has become synonymous with asset (building) transfer from\u00a0local\u00a0authority ownership to social enterprise. \u00a0There is no doubt that this can <\/span>be a part of an effective community development\u00a0strategy.<\/p>\n

But, it is not the only game in town. \u00a0And it can be an expensive game. \u00a0While the buildings may be sold for a pound, the cost of refurbishment frequently runs into millions. \u00a0Once developed sometimes these buildings continue to demand cash to keep them open as business plans don’t quite work out as anticipated and they\u00a0may become\u00a0cuckoos in our communities<\/a> – sucking up investment as their funders claim they ‘cannot be allowed to fail’. \u00a0This is a ‘shadow side’ that occasionally becomes a very real, very expensive and very persistent problem.<\/p>\n

What is more, listed building regulations sometimes\u00a0mean\u00a0that the refurbished buildings are not very green.<\/p>\n

But the real\u00a0problem\u00a0is that in many of the communities that I work in lack of infrastructure is not the key challenge. \u00a0Buildings are not the barrier. \u00a0Lack of\u00a0bricks\u00a0and mortar for community use is not the bottleneck. \u00a0I am not against asset transfer. \u00a0In some\u00a0communities, at the right time they are the perfect and logical step.<\/p>\n

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. \u00a0We may get a better return on our\u00a0investment\u00a0from good old community development work – using existing spaces in the community to\u00a0bring\u00a0people together and help them to\u00a0organise\u00a0for a better future. \u00a0Informal education and outreach work may be the best ways to develop the limiting assets of knowledge, skills and self belief. \u00a0I\u00a0believe\u00a0there are communities that would love to go down these more ‘people centred’ routes but for whom\u00a0available\u00a0investment is tied to the transfer of buildings.<\/p>\n

So good luck to the Asset Transfer Unit. \u00a0But let’s remember that the\u00a0principal\u00a0assets in our\u00a0communities\u00a0are people and their potential. \u00a0Not run down buildings. \u00a0If we really want to \u00a0get a \u00a0return on our investment in asset based development then let’s at least consider putting that investment into the real assets – people.<\/p>\n

There are other\u00a0approaches\u00a0to asset based community development<\/a> that could be considered. \u00a0At the moment policy and funding in the UK tilts the playing field so heavily in favour of community ownership of bricks and \u00a0mortar that it is hard for the alternatives to get an airing.<\/p>\n

But perhaps this is set to change?<\/p>\n

I’d love to hear your thoughts…..<\/p>\n