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/
Thursday, 12 February 2009
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?
Monday, 2 February 2009
Review on Culturewars
The Future of Community has been reviewed on CultureWars.org.uk . http://www.culturewars.org.uk/index.php/site/article/what_makes_community/
The reviewer makes some interesting points, but the discussion about community today takes a different form, as opposed to the way that the subject has been discussed classically. For example, the Future of Community does not contain a definition of community, because 'community' primarily takes the form of a policy discussion. The Department for Communities and Local Government, for example, does not exist to study existing communities, but to come up with initiatives, which are intended to facilitate community creation. The book critiques this because it inserts a layer of bureaucracy between relations between individuals. Similarly, the book does not contain a blueprint for future communities because this would constitute the same kind of imposition and wishful thinking that we criticise state institutions for.
So why do we argue for people being left to their own devices? The reviewer argues that this constitutes a contradiction because distrust of other people already exists between people, it is not created by official discourse. This is true, but it is not as though winning the argument for free association would leave the prevailing mood as it is now. This is primarily a political argument that involves changing the conceptions of other human beings as untrustworthy.
The government is incapable of leading such a challenge because it doesn't have strong roots in the population, so tends to assume the worst. So when it tries to encourage people to interact over something as simple as a football match, it immediately becomes consumed with fear that people might be violent and misbehave http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4221729/Park-football-could-be-banned-over-fears-of-fights.html . Similar contradictions exist in other areas, as in the drive to encourage volunteering being undermined by CRB checks.
The Future of Community is an argument for free association and this must begin in civil society itself. It is an argument against people being treated like children, and this argument must assume that people can behave as adults. By being treated as adults, people will begin to behave as such
The reviewer makes some interesting points, but the discussion about community today takes a different form, as opposed to the way that the subject has been discussed classically. For example, the Future of Community does not contain a definition of community, because 'community' primarily takes the form of a policy discussion. The Department for Communities and Local Government, for example, does not exist to study existing communities, but to come up with initiatives, which are intended to facilitate community creation. The book critiques this because it inserts a layer of bureaucracy between relations between individuals. Similarly, the book does not contain a blueprint for future communities because this would constitute the same kind of imposition and wishful thinking that we criticise state institutions for.
So why do we argue for people being left to their own devices? The reviewer argues that this constitutes a contradiction because distrust of other people already exists between people, it is not created by official discourse. This is true, but it is not as though winning the argument for free association would leave the prevailing mood as it is now. This is primarily a political argument that involves changing the conceptions of other human beings as untrustworthy.
The government is incapable of leading such a challenge because it doesn't have strong roots in the population, so tends to assume the worst. So when it tries to encourage people to interact over something as simple as a football match, it immediately becomes consumed with fear that people might be violent and misbehave http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4221729/Park-football-could-be-banned-over-fears-of-fights.html . Similar contradictions exist in other areas, as in the drive to encourage volunteering being undermined by CRB checks.
The Future of Community is an argument for free association and this must begin in civil society itself. It is an argument against people being treated like children, and this argument must assume that people can behave as adults. By being treated as adults, people will begin to behave as such
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
