Written by:
Louise Dennison
In our May Chat, we explored the question; Do the right people have power in place? The aim was to test how relevant the question remains in today’s context and to explore how we might approach empowerment and power sharing differently in placemaking. The conversation was rich in honesty, insight and care, reflecting not just on the power and position of designers, decision-makers and funders, but also on the sometimes unrecognised power of those convening, listening, and shaping the conversations that inform how we transform and experience place from the ground up.
Key Themes
We started the conversation with the provocation that the right people don’t have power in place and encouraged participants to respond to that. From the outset, participants agreed that power in placemaking is unevenly held, often sitting with institutions, politicians or funders rather than the communities most affected. One participant described power as having a “sucking motion to the top,” despite the best intentions of collaborative approaches like co-design and co-production.We heard about real challenges in redistributing power in systems like health and research and we also explored how some funding structures were not supportive of the collaborative process. Yet throughout the chat, there was also hope and a clear sense that change, though slow, is happening and that further change is possible
Funders, Power, and the Demand for Evidence
A theme which came up frequently throughout the chat was the power that funders hold, not just through their control of resources, but through the types of evidence they prioritise.
The current dominance of quantitative metrics and measurable outcomes can overshadow the ‘softer’ outputs including emotional, sensory, and relational impacts that are often at the heart of placemaking.
Several contributors shared stories of spending valuable resources on demonstrating impact rather than creating it. As one participant put it, “We’ve got funding to measure impact, but not to do the actual work.” One participant challenged the notion of attribution itself asking, “Can we really say that any outcome was solely the result of a single intervention?” Another called for more empathy in commissioning, funding, and evaluation practices.
There was a shared frustration that evaluation often comes as an afterthought, or as a compliance exercise, rather than as a reflective, embedded part of the process.
A conversation around evaluation methods led to reflections on a shift from participants filling out evaluation forms to more open-ended, participatory tools like postcards and creative prompts. The change wasn’t just about simplicity, but about inviting people to respond in their own way, to be partners, not sources of data. The group recognised a need to broaden our understanding of evidence, to value stories, individual voices, relationships, and the intangible effects that don’t easily fit into logic models or tick-boxes. Evaluation must be embedded and empathetic. Let’s move away from complicated and over the top quantitative reporting and toward reflection that is participatory, creative, and also meaningful to those involved. Funders need to fund the process, not just the outcome. That means resourcing time to build relationships, co-design projects, and reflect. If they want genuine collaboration and partnership working, they must resource it.
Tools and Resources. Who Designs, Who Uses and Who Benefits?
As part of the discussion, we explored the idea that design and placemaking engagement processes and tools are another form of power, often quietly shaping the outcomes of collaboration. We noted the growing interest in co-design and co-production, and yet a lack of consistency in understanding what the terms actually mean, how the processes are shaped and who holds the power of convening and managing them. This means that though set up with the best intentions, co-design and co-production processes that aim to create more democratic spaces that redistribute power, are not always as effective as they might be. Co-production or co-design are terms that are now used widely, but often mask existing power imbalances. As one of our participants put it, “We must challenge “faux-production” and be honest about where power sits.”
There were questions about who designs engagement tools and resources and who gets trained to use them. If we are to enable truly people-centred placemaking, then training and resourcing design and placemaking enablers / facilitators must extend beyond professionals and institutions, to include community champions, residents, and those with lived experience.
One participant described her current work as trying to “make tools more careful” Creating tools that hold space for difference, emotion and ambiguity. A subtle but powerful idea emerged: that a tool can either flatten experience or help us see it more clearly, depending on who holds the power.
Tools shape experiences. Who designs them, who uses them, and who benefits matters. We must ensure tools support people.
Understanding Power – Positional, Emotional, Invisible
Perhaps the most powerful insights in the session came from exploring the types of power we don’t always see. Power doesn’t always sit at the top table; it can sit in the role of convener, connector, or listener. It can sit in the story you choose to tell, or the tool you choose not to use.
One participant reflected on being told, “You have so much power,” and initially rejecting it. But through the discussion, they came to see that power can be exercised through convening, through planting seeds, and through creating space for others to lead.
The Chat also touched on the gendered dimensions of power, noting that these kinds of conversations are overwhelmingly attended by women. Why is that? Who is absent? And what does it tell us about how power is perceived, held and shared?
In the end, there was a sense that power is not just something to redistribute but something to “wield” with care and empathy. The goal isn’t simply to give more people a voice, but to build the structures, cultures, and tools that let those voices shape the places where we live, work and play.
Wrapping Up
This Chat reminded us that while structural change and shifting the power is hard, it often begins with small, careful acts like sharing a tool, starting a new conversation, questioning an assumption or planting a seed. Power is relational. Whether through roles, relationships or resources, we all hold some form of power and must use it with empathy and intention.
We’re grateful to everyone who joined us and shared so generously.