Written by:
Sophia de Sousa
Do we accept the status quo in place? was the last in the fifth series of Glass-House Chats. In it, we were keen to revisit the theme we explored in a Glass-House Debate of the same name a decade ago. We were interested to see whether people’s perception of the status quo in placemaking had changed and if so, in what way.
This Chat brought together a group of people from different parts of the UK, covering a spectrum of ages, stages in life/career and cultural backgrounds. A perfect group to explore the notion of status quo in placemaking, and to consider how we might drive positive change to how we shape our places.
Key Themes
Due to the mix of people in the room, our conversation looked at the Chat theme from a range of perspectives and experiences. Our discussion touched on communities, policy, practice, education and research, and explored how their intersection with place and each other shapes our lived and professional experiences. Three key themes emerged from the conversation. The first was that there is a universality to place. We all experience it and all shape it in some way. However, we noted a variety of “disconnects” within the practice of placemaking, and that we need to build various bridges to help forge better connections and collaborations. We went on to talk about affecting change, how we move from a real or perceived stagnation to a more proactive, experimental approach to how we shape our places.
Place Is a Universal Experience
People have always felt a connection with the places around them, and these places have helped shape people’s lives. The moment people started creating settlements, we began to develop a shared sense of place, and a shared interest in adapting our places in response to our individual and collective needs. So there is a kind of universality to place and to placemaking or placeshaping. We all experience place as a concept and the physical places around us. We all play a role in shaping our environments, whether formally or informally, and we are all affected by the places and spaces we occupy.
This universal connection with place creates a huge opportunity in the practice of placemaking and in particular in terms of community engagement. The fact that we all have an interest in our buildings, spaces, homes and neighbourhoods meeting our needs and aspirations means that there is a shared starting point for conversation about making changes to our places. The challenge then becomes how we create the conditions to effectively bring different people together to work collaboratively, combine their knowledge and skills, make decisions and affect change.
We talked about the different roles that people, sectors and institutions play in creating the best conditions for such collaboration and noted that barriers such as cost, power and rules can get in the way. One participant noted, however, that the desire to make things better is rooted in human nature. So the question is, how can we realistically move from a position of the best intentions to truly affecting positive change and how can we help others do it better? We were clear that it requires a multifaceted approach and that policy, practice and community leadership all had to come together in the right way. Each working in isolation can never achieve what all working together could.
Bridging Gaps
One of the recurring themes throughout the conversation was the need to bridge gaps of all sorts: between practitioners and communities; between policy makers and communities; between academics and researchers and the communities and practice they explore; across multiple generations; across communities of both place and interest. As in so many of our Chats, this group also expressed a clear desire for more safe spaces for connection and dialogue. Participants stressed the need to bring together people from different sectors, specialisms, communities and backgrounds. As one participant put it, “Better decisions are made when different people are brought together.” Another added, “Rich conversations come out of a mix of ages and backgrounds.”
Having a mix of both emerging and experienced practitioners in our virtual room also revealed some tensions within practice around different generations working together. One young design professional attending spoke of their frustration at having learnt all sorts of interesting theory, approaches and methods while at university, and then finding very little opportunity to implement them when in the workplace. In some cases, this was due to budget or timescale constraints, or to a risk-averse culture within the project and or client group. Sometimes it was due to what they perceived as a huge gap between generations within practice.
Affecting Change
This led us to explore the delicate balance between blue sky thinking and experimentation and pragmatism based on experience. This felt particularly relevant in the context of accepting or challenging the status quo. We talked about the generally risk-averse culture in this county, and one of our participants expressed frustration at the feeling that if people did experiment and an initiative didn’t go to plan, that somehow this was interpreted as proof that things can’t or shouldn’t change. We agreed that experimentation becomes useful, valuable, when there is space to reflect and learn from innovation, and to share that learning warts and all with others. But with experimentation also comes responsibility and the need for transparency, accountability and as one participant pointed out, great care in how people are involved in the process.
One participant challenged the group with the assertion that “Policy is preserving the status quo.” Another, who had worked within a role developing policy, responded that most policy-makers would be aggrieved to hear that. Policy makers, they argued, saw their role absolutely as a space for supporting targeted change. However, they also conceded that whilst policy can drive change, it can leave people behind. They gave the example of Neighbourhood Plans, which some communities embraced and benefitted from as a new structure for community power, while others found it wildly inaccessible and unrealistic as an approach.
Wrapping Up
As we brought our conversation to a close, there was a shared sense that, when it comes to place, we are all in this together. We agreed that we need more safe spaces where people who do not normally have the opportunity to meet can come together, with the time and space for conversation, reflection, creative thinking and experimentation. Every place and every community is different, so perhaps challenging the statues quo is about finding that sweet spot between the values, ways of working and policies that we all share, and the local or hyperlocal interpretations and adaptations that only local people and organisations can shape together.