Forthcoming Event:
The Future of Community Panel Discussion
with
Alastair Donald, Stuart Waiton, Penny Lewis on
The Future of Community: Reports of a Death Greatly Exaggerated
WATERSTONE'S GLASGOW SAUCHIEHALL
153-157 Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow, G2 3EW
Wednesday, 13 May 2009, 6:30PM - 8:00PM
Tickets are free, available from the branch.
Join Alastair Donald, Stuart Waiton and Penny Lewis for a topical discussion about the meaning of community in 21st Century Britain. Chaired by Professor Howard Sercombe of Strathclyde University.
Further details: 0141 332 9105
http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/displayDetailEvent.do?searchType=2&store=85WATERSTONE
Thursday, 7 May 2009
Community cohesion is alive and well – no thanks to the government
Dave Clements gets under the surface of two recent Government research reports and finds that tell us something very different from the findings published in official press releases.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2009/apr/28/community-cohesion-race-ethnic-minorities
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2009/apr/28/community-cohesion-race-ethnic-minorities
Thursday, 12 March 2009
'Underclass bashing impedes fight against culture of dependency'
Dave Clements, co-author of The Future of Community' examines how the low expectations of the so-called underclass has both perpetuated a culture of dependency and legitimised intervention into people's lives.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2009/mar/12/broken-britain-dependency-culture
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2009/mar/12/broken-britain-dependency-culture
'Politicians twitter while the country burns'
An astute and amusing article on the take-up of 'Twittering' by the political class. Rachel Sylvester argues that this use of web 2.0 technology exposes the politicians' insecurity rather than bringing them closer to the people. It's worth adding a corrective note to this article. Social networking sites like twitter can be used very effectively to organise within society. Barak Obama used internet technology very effectively in his presidential campaign, managing to organise at a community level. However, this article shows that much of the twittering of politicians is shorn of even this limited point of connection.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/article5877318.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/article5877318.ece
Monday, 9 March 2009
Broken Communities: Is state intervention part of the cause or the solution?
Dave Clements, co-editor of the Future of Community gave this speech at the Huddersfield Salon http://www.futurecities.org.uk/review/rev070309.html
For details of the Huddersfield Salon please go to http://huddersfieldsalon.blogspot.com/
For details of the Huddersfield Salon please go to http://huddersfieldsalon.blogspot.com/
Thursday, 12 February 2009
Rebuilding Urban Communities
Alastair Donald, co-editor of The Future of Community will be chairing a discussion about urban communities on the 18th of February. It will be hosted by the Urban Design Group http://www.udg.org.uk/ . Details below. Email alastairdonald@btinternet.com
---------------------------------------------
Rebuilding Urban Communities
Date: 18th February 2009
Time: 18:30-20:30
Venue: The Gallery, 77 Cowcross Street, Clerkenwell, London EC1M 6EJ
Tickets: Can be purchased at the door from 6.00pm: £5.00 non-members, £2.00 members, £1.00 students
A decade on from Towards an Urban Renaissance, the word ‘community’ takes precedence over the ‘city’, and ‘designing behaviour’ is frequently prioritised over ‘personal freedom’. How should urban designers view these trends?
The Government recently published guidance for urbanists and architects on how to design for ‘positive relationships’ and ‘meaningful interaction’. Is this a humanistic agenda placing responsible urban behaviour at its centre; or a misanthropic one, seeing unregulated human activity as inherently problematic?
As a result, many of us look forward to the eradication of hurry, bustle, noise and congestion, seeing them as inherently anti-social rather than a vital part of the dynamism of life in the modern metropolis. In fact, nowadays, few argue for cities that are “vibrant”; “edgy” or “anonymous”. Instead we have the “liveable city”? The “cleaner city”? “Slow cities”? “Inclusive cities”? “Safe cities”?
We all have our favourite description of the metropolitan experience, but do these labels mask the fact that we have lost sight of what “a city” really is?
Speakers:
Hank Dittmar: Chief Executive, Prince's Foundation
Karl Sharro: Future Cities Project
Quentin Stevens: Bartlett, University College London
Dan Hill, Urban Initiatives
Edwin Heathcote FT Architecture – tbc
Chair, Alastair Donald: urban designer, researcher and writer; founder member of ManTowNHuman; co-editor The Future of Community: Reports of a death greatly exaggerated
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Future-Community-Reports-Greatly-Exaggerated/dp/0745328164/
---------------------------------------------
Rebuilding Urban Communities
Date: 18th February 2009
Time: 18:30-20:30
Venue: The Gallery, 77 Cowcross Street, Clerkenwell, London EC1M 6EJ
Tickets: Can be purchased at the door from 6.00pm: £5.00 non-members, £2.00 members, £1.00 students
A decade on from Towards an Urban Renaissance, the word ‘community’ takes precedence over the ‘city’, and ‘designing behaviour’ is frequently prioritised over ‘personal freedom’. How should urban designers view these trends?
The Government recently published guidance for urbanists and architects on how to design for ‘positive relationships’ and ‘meaningful interaction’. Is this a humanistic agenda placing responsible urban behaviour at its centre; or a misanthropic one, seeing unregulated human activity as inherently problematic?
As a result, many of us look forward to the eradication of hurry, bustle, noise and congestion, seeing them as inherently anti-social rather than a vital part of the dynamism of life in the modern metropolis. In fact, nowadays, few argue for cities that are “vibrant”; “edgy” or “anonymous”. Instead we have the “liveable city”? The “cleaner city”? “Slow cities”? “Inclusive cities”? “Safe cities”?
We all have our favourite description of the metropolitan experience, but do these labels mask the fact that we have lost sight of what “a city” really is?
Speakers:
Hank Dittmar: Chief Executive, Prince's Foundation
Karl Sharro: Future Cities Project
Quentin Stevens: Bartlett, University College London
Dan Hill, Urban Initiatives
Edwin Heathcote FT Architecture – tbc
Chair, Alastair Donald: urban designer, researcher and writer; founder member of ManTowNHuman; co-editor The Future of Community: Reports of a death greatly exaggerated
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Future-Community-Reports-Greatly-Exaggerated/dp/0745328164/
Inspiring Communities
Future of Community editors, Martin Earnshaw and Dave Clements will be leading a discussion of social mobility and deprived communities on Tuesday 17th February. http://www.instituteofideas.com/events/socialpolicy.html
The discussion will be looking at the Government's strategy of trying to inspire young people in deprived communities as set out in the White Paper 'New Opportunities' http://www.hmg.gov.uk/newopportunities.aspx
The most interesting aspect of the White Paper are the studies that accompany it. A study for the Cabinet Office concluded that young people who lived in deprived communities located in traditional Northern towns had lower aspirations than their counterparts in inner city communities.
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/social_exclusion_task_force/short_studies/aspirations.aspx
This has interesting implications. Firstly, are they saying that Northern communities are too strong? The paper points out that such communities still have strong social bonds. The suggestion, however, is that they have the "wrong" type of social capital because nobody works and there is a collective memory of being a locality that lost out on the last 30 years.
Inner city areas, at least their non-white portion, sometimes have strong community bonds too, but according to the report are more aspirational. Hence the conclusion that the problem is one of attitude and culture. But will more government sponsored mentors raise young people's aspirations? More to the point, should they? An approach that concentrates on young people and aspirations implies that the parent community is somewhat beyond hope. This probably isn't the intention, the idea is that the newly aspiring young person will try to improve their community. But if the message is sent out that they can't rely on the people around them (which is what the wrong social capital argument does say) they might simply leave.
There's a further complication. The Northern communities the report talks about are predominantly white. While diversity is celebrated as bringing new forms of community and interaction, the old white monoculture is pathologised and seen as outmoded. Could this be why it is seen as the wrong type of community?
The discussion will be looking at the Government's strategy of trying to inspire young people in deprived communities as set out in the White Paper 'New Opportunities' http://www.hmg.gov.uk/newopportunities.aspx
The most interesting aspect of the White Paper are the studies that accompany it. A study for the Cabinet Office concluded that young people who lived in deprived communities located in traditional Northern towns had lower aspirations than their counterparts in inner city communities.
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/social_exclusion_task_force/short_studies/aspirations.aspx
This has interesting implications. Firstly, are they saying that Northern communities are too strong? The paper points out that such communities still have strong social bonds. The suggestion, however, is that they have the "wrong" type of social capital because nobody works and there is a collective memory of being a locality that lost out on the last 30 years.
Inner city areas, at least their non-white portion, sometimes have strong community bonds too, but according to the report are more aspirational. Hence the conclusion that the problem is one of attitude and culture. But will more government sponsored mentors raise young people's aspirations? More to the point, should they? An approach that concentrates on young people and aspirations implies that the parent community is somewhat beyond hope. This probably isn't the intention, the idea is that the newly aspiring young person will try to improve their community. But if the message is sent out that they can't rely on the people around them (which is what the wrong social capital argument does say) they might simply leave.
There's a further complication. The Northern communities the report talks about are predominantly white. While diversity is celebrated as bringing new forms of community and interaction, the old white monoculture is pathologised and seen as outmoded. Could this be why it is seen as the wrong type of community?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
