Written by:
Louise Dennison
Last week we returned to Civic House for Living in Agreement, the second of our in-person WEdesign events in this year’s Sharing Place series. This event was delivered in partnership with students and tutors from the Mackintosh School of Architecture and Missing in Architecture and was held at Civic House. It explored how we can support new approaches to care and to sharing resources, goods, and skills within placemaking.
Joining us on a grey and damp evening in Glasgow was a multigenerational group of participants from a range of different disciplinary backgrounds. Conversations and exchanges began as soon as they arrived and the event started with an energetic buzz.
Icebreaker Activity & Table Props
To welcome participants into the space, students designed an engaging activity centred around the question: How comfortable do you feel ? Participants were invited to place coloured dots on a map of Glasgow to indicate areas where they felt comfortable or uncomfortable. They were also asked to reflect on how comfortable they felt travelling to the event, being at the event itself, and to share a personal story related to the theme. Our students also transformed the event space at Civic House by creatively dressing the space using images and words around the theme of Living in Agreement.
Once participants took their seats, Sophia and Glasgow School of Art tutors Miranda Webster and Kirsty Lees introduced the event and co-design task, framing it around Living in Agreement and introducing our four key table lenses: Practice, Education, Ecology, and Community. Each table was brought to life with a range of props and models designed to spark conversation, inspire ideas, and encourage co-designed solutions. We were impressed by the students’ creative response to the table lens, which provided strong visual prompts for our participants and encouraged them to get talking.
Rethinking Architectural Practice
At the Practice table, participants explored how architects today are stifled by the constraints of conventional practice. The discussion expanded to consider how architecture is not solely the domain of architects but rather something that everyone has the potential to contribute to. The group developed a model that visually showed the shift from restriction to celebration, moving from the burdens of traditional tools to a space of interaction and creativity. The conversation challenged the idea that design should be limited to professionals, proposing an open and participatory approach to shaping our built environment.
“Architecture before Architects!”
Learning Through the Stories of the City
The Education group explored how buildings act as a window into memory, culture, and storytelling. They discussed how the way we list and value buildings often fails to recognise their deeper importance to communities. Instead of just focusing on architectural merit, they highlighted how different periods of architecture layer together, telling the story of a place over time. To represent this idea, they created a model featuring a big pink window, which symbolised a way to look out onto the city and see its history and culture through its buildings. The group proposed using architecture as an educational tool, helping people learn about the city’s past through the stories its buildings and spaces tell. By doing so, they aimed to deepen public appreciation of the city as a living record of history and identity.
“Respect (and preserve) memory.”
Designing with Nature in Mind
The Ecology group started with a discussion on diversity, not just human diversity but also biodiversity in urban spaces. They explored the importance of letting water and nature into the city, designing with reciprocity and respect for the natural world. The group’s model demonstrated how urban spaces could better integrate trees, green corridors, and natural systems, shifting away from rigid, human-dominated environments to more fluid, adaptive, and ecologically sensitive designs. The conversation touched on matriarchy perspectives and the need for deeper respect for nature within our planning and development processes.
“Less pavement, more sky!”
Overcoming Barriers & Forging Connections
The Community table focused on the physical and social barriers that divide communities. Participants reflected on how urban design, such as bus routes and roadways, can create disconnections, while also considering new ideas to bridge these gaps. The conversation expanded to explore the difference between communities of place and communities of interest, emphasising the importance of methods that create connections between diverse groups. The group’s model illustrated pathways, intersections, and bridges, both literal and symbolic, that could help forge stronger communal bonds.
“Ever growing, overlapping, intersecting communities”
Key Themes & Takeaways
As the discussions wrapped up, several key themes emerged across all four tables:
- Empathy and collaboration: Breaking down individual egos to engage in larger, collective conversations about the built environment.
- The power of shared spaces: Recognising the importance of places where people can come together, interact, and build relationships.
- Challenging the status quo: Encouraging creative and political engagement within the built environment to disrupt existing systems that prevent innovation and inclusivity.
- Memory and storytelling: Acknowledging the cultural and historical narratives embedded within our buildings and spaces.
- Respect for nature: Designing cities that embrace ecological integration rather than resisting it.
One participant summed up the evening with a powerful observation: “We don’t have enough space just to be with other people and have these conversations. This is what we need more of.”
The event concluded with reflections on how to take these discussions forward into real-world action. Participants left with new insights, connections, and a shared sense of purpose, affirming that Living in Agreement is not just an idea but something we must collectively cultivate.