Conduct of Group Work

At the beginning of task 2, we were confident in our ability to create a high-quality document due to our prior experience with working with one another in term 1. We started off by outlining and discussing the weaknesses of the AAP which we identified in task 1. From here, we started brainstorming potential avenues of focus for our new document for task 2. We were particularly interested in how the Silk Stream was underutilised in the existing AAP and how this could be a guiding feature of the project. This proposition excited all group members. We all agreed to continue to use an AAP format for our new document because of the existing aims that the Mayor of London has placed for Colindale with 10,000 new homes and 500 new jobs.

As our progress continued, we all agreed that the boundary of the plan had to change as we felt the boundary felt arbitrary under the four corridors of change. However, we disagreed on where this boundary should fall. Some groups members wanted to expand the boundary towards Edgware Road while others wanted to expand the boundary towards Burnt Oak underground station. After deliberation, we took the collective decision to expand the boundary north towards Burnt Oak due to the natural feature of the Silk Stream, creating a clear link between Colindale and Burnt Oak. The Silk Stream is what makes Colindale and Burnt Oak similar and made sense within our chosen narrative for the new AAP. After agreeing on a new boundary which included Burnt Oak, we took a group fieldtrip to Burnt Oak on March 10th and walked along the Silk Stream to gain an impression on Burnt Oak and its relationship to neighbouring Colindale. The trip was extremely helpful for us because it unveiled the current relationship green spaces have with the Silk Stream and the potential our initial ideas could have for the area.

After determining the boundary, we approached the document through outlining a preliminary structure. We approached disagreements on how to structure the document. Some group members felt it was sensible to structure the document alongside the marking criteria, where analysis of the document would come before the introduction of any original content. Other group members felt it would be better to compare and contrast the prior APP with the new APP within the same document sections. Our tutor took the stance that continually comparing the new APP to the old APP would be the best approach for the document. Taking our tutors view into account, we settled on a compromise for all group members where the vision and objectives of the old APP and our new APP would appear in the same section of the document to allow for easy comparison between the two documents. But we decided to keep the policy section as solely our policies, without comparison to the old APP.

We also had strong deliberations over how much original urban design work the revised AAP should contain. As all group members are enrolled on the MSc Urban Design and City Planning masters, it felt natural for some group members to favour creating more original urban design proposals. On the other hand, some group members felt the project was better suited to drafting policy as this was in line with the documents analysed in task 1. With some confusion around how much original urban design work should be incorporated into the project, we consulted our tutor for further clarification. Voicing our concerns and confusions to our tutor allowed for appropriate guidance on how to best tackle task 2. After some guidance from our tutor, we decided to draft our policies and, from there, we could draft original urban design graphics to accompany policies which demanded these types of visualisations. Lydia took the lead role in drafting up the new vision and guiding principles for the project. Tomasz, Ben and Martha finalised policies under the four main strategies of the revised AAP. The designation of these policies led to the subsequent designation of work based off the gathering of precedents and production of graphics. Matt created a template for the document so all group members could create consistent page layouts and graphics for the final submission. At this stage, we felt we were on track for the final deadline.

On March 13th, UCL suspended all face to face teaching due to the risk posed by the coronavirus outbreak within the UK. In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, our group deliberated the best route of communication and method for completing the assignment for 25th March. Initially, we determined that due to the good health and young age of all our group members, that we would continue to meet in person as we deemed the productivity of group work to be more effective in person, rather than over video call. We had a very productive face to face meeting on 16th March. On the day, we took appropriate precautions and safety measures to ensure the safety of all group members under these exceptional circumstances. However, after this face to face meeting, we took the decision to start meeting over skype due to new government advice issued on the evening of 16th March, to work from home wherever possible. Under these increasingly uncertain and volatile times, group members stayed at home in self-isolation or moved back to their family homes outside of London. This brought new challenges for communication, where the dynamism and effectiveness of face to face communication was now not an option. Alongside this, challenges arose surrounding motivation to do university work under the COVID-19 outbreak due to stress and anxiety. This resulted in the group deciding to utilise the full length of the assignment extension (8th April) to ensure that the report was of a high quality, despite mental health strains caused by COVID-19. From this point, several group video calls were made to discuss and compile pages for the final report. We found that particular tasks, such as group discussion regarding graphics, would take much longer due to the constraints of video calls whereby only one person could display their screen at one time to show their thoughts. On an urban design course where using physical and printed materials to facilitate discussion is the norm, this proved extremely challenging for group members. To mitigate this, group members allocated longer periods for skype calls to ensure everyone could display and discuss their ideas within skype meetings.

Overall, we were very happy with the conduct of group work for this project. Despite disagreements, we navigated these disagreements in a professional way which avoided personal upset or discomfort. We took the view that disagreement was more like debate, a different point of view which needs careful deliberation and weighing up the pros and cons of everyone’s approach. Despite severe circumstances affecting the final weeks of the project, working over video call brought new challenges which we believe we navigated to the best of our ability. We are happy with our final outcome with every group member significantly contributing to idea generation, graphic presentation and written elements of the project.