Written by:
Sophia de Sousa
The final Glass-House Chat of Series 6, Designing in Experimentation, was co-hosted with Clare de Bathe, who shared her experience of asset-based community development while Chief Executive at Chichester Community Development Trust (CCDT), and now as Museum Director at the Weald & Downland. We were joined by an interesting mix of people based in England, Scotland, Wales, the US and New Zealand, representing a range of sectors, disciplines and experiences. We held a common interest in exploring the the power of experimentation in shaping successful and sustainable community spaces.
Key Themes
As was demonstrated by the range of experiences within our group, community spaces take many forms, operate at a range of scales and serve a multitude of purposes. They also operate under various ownership and management models. Whether privately owned, community assets or held by the public sector, how spaces are managed and used, and by whom, is crucial to their success. This means that how you invite people in to help shape ideas and decisions is fundamental. Another key point of discussion was how to activate underused spaces within our cities, towns and villages for community benefit, as well as the legal and planning frameworks that might help or hinder this. Key to all of the above seemed to be the willingness to take the time to experiment, to change direction and to learn as you go.
The Power of Experimentation
It is often helpful to start a conversation with real stories and experiences. Clare was able to kick-start our Chat with her experience of having to be nimble and experimental in managing and shaping a collection of community assets for a development trust and in her new role, looking at how the buildings and spaces within a large living museum landscape can best serve the community. One such example was a temporary wooden structure at CCDT that over a period had been used to test the viability of a range of different activities with local groups, such as nursery provision, youth centre, a men’s shed project, a coffee roaster and a bike initiative.
Others shared their experiences of leading their own projects, and of working with community anchors and arts organisations seeking to create or revitalise community spaces. One of our group, who owns a building they would like to make available for community use, spoke of opening the doors to invite people in to talk about what could happen there. They tested their own ideas for the space as an arts and cultural venue by inviting a busker off the street and into the building to play on one of the open days. People responded well to music within the space, and they discovered that the building had excellent acoustics. There was another example of a church inviting local groups to run taster sessions in the nave of their building to test its potential as a space for hire, only to discover some unexpected possible uses for the church alongside its faith-based activities.
This sort of experimentation is also a logical approach to reactivating empty buildings. As one of our participants reflected, empty buildings could be “seedbeds for creative ideas to grow”. Others, however, expressed frustration that too often, though communities are interested in taking on empty buildings and particularly empty shops for community use, it is often extremely difficult to identify who owns the building or to know how to approach them with proposals.
Stewardship & the Planning System
This led us to explore a variety of governance and ownership models for community assets, such as development trusts, asset transfer and designating a property as an Asset of Community Value. The success of CCDT, as well as many others, proves that asset based community development can work really well. However many in our virtual room felt that whilst well intentioned, some of these vehicles for community ownership could also go badly wrong. Participants, for example, shared stories of asset transfer feeling more like “liability transfer”. One referenced the adage, “The fastest way to kill an organisation is to drop a building on them.” Another complained that we are simply “not using the planning system creatively enough.”
We touched on the value of the meanwhile use model, both in reactivating underused spaces and for testing ideas, uses and viability. Here too, despite some clear successes, changes in the development landscape and fear of reclaiming spaces once handed over to meanwhile uses, can stifle this approach. This is where licences and leases can be used to great effect, creating clear periods of experimentation but with an out clause and the opportunity to either invite new activities and organisations in or to return to using the space yourself.
We came to a view that for those looking to use, manage or own community assets, it would be helpful to have a clearer menu of options. This perhaps would help people explore the right legal frameworks as well as partnership models to either test their own ideas and activities or help others to do so.
Start Small & Plant Seeds
We returned to the power of sharing spaces, and simply making spaces more open and available. Maintaining ownership and a curatorial role, but sharing your asset with others can enhance your own work by sharing costs and bringing new users into your space. A more collaborative approach also creates a pathway for other local groups and organisations to work within the scope of their interests, expertise and operational budgets. The fact that they may not want or be able to own or manage a community space on their own, does not necessarily make the activities and services they provide any less valuable to local people.
Sometimes, ambitious plans can start with small actions. We explored the value of simple prototyping activities that can serve as a proof of concept, help test interest, build momentum, and eventually help build a case to attract funding and support. A small step, or series of small steps, can lead to bigger things.
What are the mechanisms that we could put in place to make it easier for both those with spaces available, and those who need spaces to better connect and share? One simple suggestion that came from a recent Glass-House event was to have a recognisable marker on the outside of buildings which made it clear that there is space available inside for community use.
Wrapping Up
There was clearly a shared sense that experimentation and prototyping can help community spaces thrive. However, perhaps we need to find simpler models to enable experimentation in practice. In a risk-averse culture, we are trained to avoid things going in the wrong direction, but what if it’s just a different direction than expected? What if we valued experimentation not only as a way to make better informed decisions but also simply, as a means of creating room for the small and the unexpected to blossom and flourish?
Spotlight Case Study from Co-host Clare de Bathe
The Story of Chichester Community Development Trust
“This story is being told to encourage others to engage, support, or replicate the CCDT model. We have reached the goals we set through collaboration, encouragement, and the guidance of many who have led before us. Some share stories of success, others of failure, but equally valuable and always undertaken with commitment and positivity. By sharing our experiences, both good and bad, we hope to inspire and empower others to deliver greater and broader community development.”
You can download this informative case study here.