Written by:
Guest Author
By Sam Kershaw
In this post, student participant Sam Kershaw from Newcastle University’s School of Architecture, Planning, and Landscape reflects on his experience at our WEdesign live event in Newcastle. He shares his perspective on the day’s discussions, the atmosphere in the room, and what the event meant to him as both a student and a future practitioner.
Photographs by The Glass-House, Jiaying Yang, Harrison Barker, and Newcastle University.
Guests creating postcards for the ‘Trip Down Memory Lane’ icebreaker activity
At the ‘Trip Down Memory Lane’ icebreaker activity, guests are encouraged to share their childhood memories of their journey to and from school via a postcard where they can write and draw. As people begin to file towards the table, discussions spark about commonalities and differences. One participant shares a unique trait of her journey which posed her with enjoyment and challenge: snow. Another conversation between a visitor and a hosting student diverts from the activity when they discover that they both share knowledge of a specific city. The student lives there, while the guest has visited for holidays many times. They discuss their perspectives on the city, from favourite landmarks and neighbourhoods to opinions on specific bars and venues. The final participant of the evening tells us how he used to ride down the hill from school every day on wheelie shoes, picking fruit from a tree as he passed. Through all the unique responses gathered, the guests engage through their reminiscence of home.
An education focused table represent the progression of learning in a conceptual model.
At the sound of a bell, the event begins and participants begin their models, each with one of three themes but following the overall concept: ‘Communities of Care’. The first table I visit is focused on education. They survey the materials in front of them and consider what they could represent. Pipecleaners become a representation of the core of education, while wooden blocks are the building blocks of the mind. One participant suggests their pitch of “you have to put your brain to everything”. Another quickly shuts that down: “No, that’s too cliché”. They continue to brainstorm their concept.
The first ecology table I reach jot down and discuss the primary issues facing the environment on flashcards, including terms: ‘Global Warming, Air Quality, Continually Changing’. They all agree that the situation is worsening, and consider the solutions they could present, such as reuse of energy, public transport, and green spaces, the latter of which opens a discussion about parks in cities. The idea of residents only green spaces, privatised and enforced, is criticised by one participant: “It’s not public, it’s a luxury”, and conversation about rising house prices near green spaces highlights the inequalities of public access, described as ‘elitist’. Though no modelling has taken place yet, their rich discussion is providing a strong framework.
A policy table displays their perspective of individual and communal engagement with government, and each other.
Next, I move to a policy focused table. A conversation about tuition fees is occurring, around a model of wooden sticks jutting out and surrounded by wooden blocks, figurines and pipecleaners. One guest suggests using a green pipecleaner to represent green roofs, but through the discussion the theme of inequality in policy emerges, and with it a new idea for a more conceptual model: an upside-down pyramid, representing inverted power. While those at the peak hold the most power, they are ultimately reliant on communities of people. Though the structural aspects pose a challenge, the idea is strong, and they get to work.
I continue onto the second education table. Their discussion initially seems more ecology based, as they talk about the Town Moor and its lack of biodiversity or street furniture. Despite being a vast green space in the city centre, it feels dead. From this, however, they lead onto the idea of a pavilion park which would be educational and relevant not only to children, but to all local residents, who would also maintain it as a community-based planning group. Their model begins to take shape, much more literal than some of the others but also communicative: a green piece of card topped with blocks representing benches and gazebos and figurines interacting with the space. Here, personal interests are also taken into consideration, as a guest asks the question to the table “What would you like to see in your park?” This is very much a collective park, with all the designers taking some ownership and in return giving their input.
An ecology table group focused on benefits of green and blue infrastructure, utilising real natural resources within their model.
The second ecology table have a mass of green tissue paper and real leaves as their model, and one participant cuts up a leaf, placing its pieces into a paper cup, which he describes as the concept of a torn planet; human cities flatten ecology, ripping it up and confining it into allocated, man-made spaces. Another guest pitches her interpretation. The cup is a biocomposter, and while the segments of greenery have lost their original form, they will one day allow for the growth of something new. Both ideas are accepted, and this sparks a new discussion: the impact of gardens and parks, and how these physical limitations imposed by humans, as well as the environmental damage which is rife within cities, limits the growth and usage of greenery.
Finally, the second policy table have a finished model as I arrive. Pipecleaners wrap around figurines, organised to create a heart shape. One singular figurine stands in the centre. A guest says, “If these figures had faces, some of them would be facing outwards and other inwards”, posing the question of interest and engagement in policy. They sit in silence for a few moments, observing the model. Then, a facilitator in preparation for the final presentation, asks: “What is it we are trying to represent here”. The group then opens into deep conversation, about community and hierarchy, with the historical reference of the miner’s strike being brought into the discussion.
The different tables present their outcomes, inspiring discussion and comparison between groups.
The final bell rings, and the groups begin to present their final outcomes.
The education groups have two vastly different ideas. The first is conceptual, with stacked blocks each decorated with a different material and topped with a figurine. This represents that education is everywhere, not exclusively in schools and universities but in the day to day, and we should learn from our cities and communities to develop skills. The speaker says: “We learn something new every day, and we should grab any opportunity we get to discover more”.
The second education group has a model which represents their pitch, a green space adorned with benches and playgrounds and full of people. They want a place where the community can gather and foster a sense of belonging and ownership while learning together. Their idea is applied directly to Newcastle, and its vast green spaces which create opportunity for learning and ecology.
The ecology tables share similar themes regarding natures relationship with humans. The first table recognises that nature has no barriers and should be allowed to flourish at its own pace rather than attempting to tame it. However, the same should apply to public space, and greenery in cities should not be seen as a luxury but something of equal access. They also explore the benefits of utilising blue infrastructure as means of transport and flow throughout urban environments.
Similarly, the second group pitched the benefits of eco infrastructure within communities, with insight into the relationship green and blue space share with people. Their model is a sprawling mass of green materials, with a singular grey square placed in the middle, a representation of nature’s unpredictability flattened by urban infrastructure. They acknowledge that unfortunately there is no escape from the factors of pollution and waste in modern cities, even for nature, but draw somewhat from education, saying there could be greater efforts made to teach about litter reduction and environmental damage.
Finally, the policy tables also presented similar concepts. The first group displayed a tall pyramid of wooden sticks, decorated by green pipecleaners, and surrounded at its base by figurines. This is described as grassroots in policy, the community members providing a strong foundation. Beside them, a lone figurine stands atop a precarious stack of wooden blocks, who is then pushed over by a participant. This is weak government policy, easy to put together but ultimately unstable.
The other policy ideas also focus on structure and relationship, acknowledging that policy will always benefit some more than others and the importance to consider the impact on these communities. As stated by one member: “Some will win, and some will lose”. Their model, stil with the figurines forming a heart shape with pipecleaners, has received the addition of coloured lolly sticks, each jutting out from the central figure towards an outsider and representing their respective impact: positive, negative, and neutral. They sum it up with a final statement: “Policy is about agreeing to disagree”.
The event comes to a close with a wider conversation about the meaning and values of Communities of Care.
This event provided a valuable insight into the commonalities and differences in what community means to people, and how it can be implemented into these three sectors. What I found most interesting was the overlap between the groups. While each focused on their respective topic, their ideas often merged between them and demonstrated how fundamentally important community is at the heart of urban life.