Assemble

Assemble MSA Prints PRESENTS

MANUFACTURING COMMUNITIES: DESIGNING REAL PLACES PART 1

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN IN SINGAPORE HOW PARTICIPATORY DESIGN WAS USED IN BIRLEY FIELDS LECTURE FROM TORANGE KHONSARI

HOW DOES ARCHITECTURE GET PEOPLE INVOLVED? THE ROLE OF THE ARCHITECT

|

COMMUNITY MEETING PLACE

|

SUBOPTIMAL DESIGN MSA Prints

01

MSA Prints EDITORIAL Welcome to the MSA Prints special edition four-part series ‘Manufacturing Communities: Designing Real Places’. This series explores the social technologies in which architects need to become experts in order to design and develop socially relevant architecture in a world of rising population, rapid urbanisation and increasing social and spatial inequalities.

Responding to a debilitating disciplinary focus on the physical technologies of ‘sustainability’ this series instead examines the problems of commitment and engagement which ultimately determine their implementation and success.

In this series we tackle the relationship between the discipline of architecture and wider society in four steps, beginning with the role the architect plays as a citizen in that society; secondly, exploring how the design qualities of the city are defined by its citizens; third how the city includes or excludes its occupants through the granting of citizenship; and lastly in terms of the city as an occupant of the wider ecology of the planet.

In the Assemble Issue, part one of the series, we examine the role of the architect. We will be considering that producers of the material built environment have a role to play in discovering and addressing issues in a community, and how this can alter architectural practice.

Addressing difference between the groups and individuals that constitute a community has many dimensions of relevance to the architect. As pointed out by Iris Marion Young, society is composed of many groups and it is important for all 202

of these groups, the oppressed and disadvantaged included, to be heard by decision makers. These groups and individuals have differences between them which, rather than being eliminated, should be acknowledged and affirmed. Leonie Sandercock points out that these groups have the right not to be excluded from centrality, as well as the right to participate in decision making. As she puts it, the city-building professions need to propose visions and goals for urban landscapes in which positive expressions of already existing differences can be played out. The importance of the individual is also highlighted by Martha Nussbaum, who asks us to explore the potential and opportunities available in each person, what each of us can do and is able to be. Meeting these capabilities suggests action to create a living environment for all the people inhabiting society.

Our interview with MMU Engagement officer Carla Nuttall gives insight into two projects, one where community participation was used from the outset to generate a masterplan, and one where the form of consultation took a much more formal approach. The role of the architect is also altered by bringing design skills to participation, as Torange Khonsari of Public Works demonstrates in her lecture. The Cheetham Hill Urban Living Lab indicated the value of a forum for community members, representatives and other profession, allowing sharing of experiences and ideas between individuals who perhaps may not otherwise communicate with each other. When architects become involved in a community,

the organisation of such a forum to link decision makers and community members to each other, is another potential addition to the role.

In this issue, the bulletin section will look at recent examples of designers embracing community engagement, indicating how the role of the architects might change in the future. There is the example of a non-profit organisation in Singapore which is dedicated to engaging people in shaping their urban environments and showcasing community engagement by architects.

The activities of R-Urban show how groups which include architects can involve themselves in a community, organising events which bring people together with little resemblance to a formal consultation process. The problem of empty homes, a societal problem which can have architectural solutions is outlined, whilst adaptation of the pre-industrial practice of barn raising highlights how community members can be brought together in the act of building sustainably.

The three projects which follow showcase design processes altered by participation, involving a formally organised and directed engagement event, informal conversations to embrace more people in the design process, or an intention to bring community members together in the act of building itself. Later in the issue, MMU Engagement officer Carla Nuttall gives her views of the role of engagement in the development of a new MMU campus, whilst Torange Khonsari of Public Works and Kerenza McClarnan of Buddleia give talks to outline their work.

MSA Prints

CONTENTS 04 Bulletin

10

NAWAL NABILA

14

TUAN VIET PHAM

The Role of The Architect

How should the architect behave toward the rapid changing modern sociey?

06 Comment 16 An Interview with Carla Nuttall 22 From the Residents’ Perspective: Dan Aris 24 Lecture: Torange Khonsari & Kerenza MacClarnan

12

30 Travel

How to make an urban living room for communities?

ADRIAN COELHO

A Community Meeting Place

32 Engage: Examples of Atelier’s Work 34 History of Participation 36 Editorial Team and Collaborators

Suboptimal design

How should the architect behave towards a rapidly changing modern sociey?

MSA Prints

033

BULLETIN

Modern barn raising Over Half a Million Houses are Empty in England

Modern Barn Raising

According to a government report (1) , there are currently over 635,000 empty homes in England, a third of which have been left empty for more than 6 months. However, there may be still some misreporting due to the exclusion from council tax of houses that are in very poor condition, homes due to be demolished which are now cancelled or empty flats above shops. Thus, there could be millions of uninhabited homes over the country.

Chad Pennington’s 1st & 10 foundation, along with Kaboom, founded and organised an event in West Madison, United states, which they termed a modern day barn raising.

80 people were invited, but on the day, 350 members of the community came together to build a playground for their children. People of different social status, age and position were divided into groups with one goal - giving something back to the community.

1st & 10 Foundation reported that the participants enjoyed the event, as they could now feel the power of the community to form agreement on certain issues.

Additionally, international development charity Habitat for Humanity considers barn raising to be a potential solution for the global housing crisis. A billion people, 32% of the global urban population, are now living in urban slums, whilst 100 million are homeless.

The organisation has set up modern barn raising in many developing countries, with the initial campaign generating significant success.

According to the Empty Homes(2) report, in many cases the owners do not have the funding and skills to repair and manage properties that have fallen into disrepair. Another main reason is that many houses and flats are located near businesses to provide accommodation for staff, but now they are left empty because of changes in employment patterns. Similarly, many cottages that were designed for agriculture work are now empty due to the increase of agricultural mechanisation. The owners then struggle to re-use the buildings.

Besides, the fall in house prices, restrictions on loans and government funding in the last three centuries has contributed to the abandonment of many regeneration schemes, leaving 04

many houses in the situation of neverending refurbishment or demolition (3).

Recently, there has been a significant reduction in the number of empty buildings due to action by the government and society. Billions of pounds have been paid into campaigns such as Empty to Plenty or New Homes Bonus, in order to bring back those properties to life (4). Policies have been put into place, such as that which gives councils the local flexibility to charge extra tax on empty buildings, in order to force the owners to find a way of reusing them. Those solutions have contributed to a big annual decrease in the number of empty homes.

Another important point is how to avoid replicating this problem, in order to make new buildings long-lasting.

That question should be answered by the new generation of architects, with the cooperation of all in society.

Empty Homes Statistics 2013. Retrieved 04 27, 2014. http://www.emptyhomes.com/statistics-2/ empty-homes-statistice-201112/ (1) (4) https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/ increasing-the-number-of-available-homes/ supporting-pages/empty-homes (2) (3)

MSA Prints

R-Urban

Participate in Design (P!D), Singapore Founded by two young women; Jan Lim and Mizah Rahman, P!D provides services in designing and promoting the public participation and engagement process for the communities in their country, as they believe that everyone has the right to participate in and influence the design and planning process that affect them. P!D conducts research, testing and developing socially just and inclusive methods of design that are appropriate for their local neighbourhoods, while also promoting the integration of participatory design in design education and practice.

Jan who is a community organiser and textile artist with a background in environmental design, and Mizah who is an architecture graduate and has a strong interest in participatory design and planning, both believe that designers can act as agents of social practice that can combine social research and design practice.

One example of their work is the “What’s the MacPherson ID(ea)?” which started as a Master’s thesis project at the National University of Singapore’s Department of Architecture. They have explored the relationship between architecture

and community participation in the context of the public housing estate of MacPherson, Singapore. The outcome of the project was twofold: firstly, by experimenting with a wide range of participatory design tools and techniques, they developed a complementary framework for community engagement; secondly the development of two collective briefs.

Another example of their work is ‘Safe Streets 2012’, their very first project under the #betterSG campaign.

They explored what it takes to create streets that are safer, more liveable and respectful, by balancing the needs of drivers, pedestrians, cyclists and transit users. They gathered other stakeholders, architects, urban planners, cycling enthusiasts, members of the local community and residents, with the hope to discover actionable ideas for safer streets. Many good ideas came forth and with those ideas, they will form a smaller working team to look at prototyping, and eventually implementing them in MacPherson, over the course of a year.

R-Urban are running the ongoing ‘The Wick Sessions’, a series of talks, walks and workshops dedicated to Hackney Wick and its surrounding areas. The sessions provide a public forum for debate and exchange, with the aim of creating a shared body of local knowledge around issues of bottom up and sustainable developments. The sessions take place in Hackney Wick and are part of R-urban’s bottom-up strategy which explores the possibilities of enhancing the capacity of urban resilience.

A previous event focused on selfbuild in east London, inspired by the established culture of self-build and DIY in Hackney Wick & Fish Island. This aspect of the local culture has been driven largely by creative communities that have re-homed themselves there and adopted cheap, under-used buildings and open spaces as their workplaces and playgrounds.

However, this highly productive and resourceful culture is under threat through speculation on rising land and property values, uncertainty surrounding stalled development proposals and changing planning legislation. The talk looked into the role self-build can play in the future of Hackney Wick & Fish Island.

The collective are also running Wick on Wheels, a roaming production and recycling unit which travels across Hackney Wick & Fish Island and the surrounding areas of East London, engaging with local communities to reuse, recycle, repair and re-make.

It explores and encourages direct, collective on site production using existing local materials, resources and skills. The focus of production includes direct interventions on vacant sites.

MSA Prints

05

COMMENT Design in the Open Randy Deutsch AIA, LEED-AP is an architect and professor engaged in learning, technology, creativity, design thinking and the way architects utilise these tools and processes for the benefit of others.

He opinions on participatory design are given below:

In terms of how we are to work with, we ask a lot of questions. We answer some with questions of our own, aiming not to be difficult. We like to engage the client in a dialogue.

An Identity Problem Participatory design is a design approach which ensures that what is designed meets the needs and functions of all. It involves cooperation and collaboration, and the attitudes and mindset necessary to allow these practices to flower.

“Participatory design always works.”

Participatory design is a far more democratic approach to design than most architects today would be comfortable with. This approach requires relinquishing control of the very design process that the architect struggles with in order to lead. Charles Moore was alone among architects in the 1980’s in having the self-awareness and self-belief – the confidence – that he could take any form the masses came up with and turn it into an exceptional work of architecture. Late in his career Moore, an intelligent and creative architect and entrepreneur, said that the only architectural truth that he discovered was that “participatory 06

design always works.”

A Design Process by any Other Name Today we talk about building social ecosystems, designing engagement platforms and expanding the scope and scale of network interactions. In fact, what we really mean when we say transforming enterprise operations through co-creation is....participatory design. Whatever name you give it, participatory design is fast replacing traditional thinking that viewed design innovation as a proprietary activity. Dave Premi (an architectural collaborator of Moore) reflects on participatory design as a highly creative and evolving process: “I have been involved with MacKayLyons’ participatory design process on a number of buildings. Each time we created a new process, since every client has its own requirements. You have to mould the process each time to suit the requirements. It’s not a ‘onesize-fits-all’ method.”

Charles Moore and his protégé MacKay-Lyons have other lessons we can learn on participatory design. For a start, in order to succeed, the architect can’t have their mind made up before working with the public on the design,

there must be no preconceived ideas.

Another secret to making it work is not to get defensive. The architect should have the conviction that they can make a nice building out of anything anyone comes up with - in the participatory design process, “the public define the shapes, we refine them.” Refining building form is up to the architect and is their sole domain.

Design in the Open Architects, upon being asked a question abour design or building, can no longer say let me go back to the office and study it, because it’s all integrated and participatory from here on out. It’s all open source. To succeed, get buy-in and move projects forward, architects and other design professionals will need to design in the open.

Learning from Participatory Design Architects are also urged to read the Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making (by Sam Kaner et al).

It is one of the best books ever written on the subject for those who want to encourage full participation in their own work.

MSA Prints

Grow Your Own Workshop

by Matthew Shanley An event organised as part of Zest Health Week at Unit 25, was an opportunity to share both growing and design experience with local residents and bring a unique perspective to the event that had been explored and developed through the design project process. The need to consult with local residents and visually demonstrate the possibility of the proposal and what it could achieve is seen as keys to its development and success. Along with this is a continued amount of research, an element that has been explored alongside the Continuous Productive Urban Landscape theory toolkit.

The event at Unit 25 was the culmination of a continued process of participation that had engaged with a number of organisations including Zest, Cracking Good Food, Hulme Community Garden Centre, URBED, Crumpsal and Cheetham Model Allotments.

Through interviews, questions, and personal research the intentions of the project have been able to develop because of this participation. It has provided the foundations and building blocks to manufacture a more resilient, homogenous and healthier community in Cheetham Hill and its surroundings.

Comments from Architects From The Blog Anne Whitacre @ Architects 2Zebras “Collaborative design is very hard to bill for. Just being practical — architects can quote fees because they assume a certain number of hours of nattering by their clients. When you enlarge the nattering quota to “infinity” you have to either be very omniscent about the decision process or have an hourly fee, or have really really done this a lot and be able to make a pretty good guess about how long the whole thing will take.

There is of course value to the collaboration. But there is also value to the specialized knowledge that a design professional brings to the table. Not because they are “designers” but because they have done this a lot of times. Its the “I’ve done this 100 times” that is valuable to the community and the owner. Often Architects seem superior and dismissive as they go about their “design process” because the have solved so many comparable problems that the answer seems intuitive. That is valuable to the community and the owner. We know the bad parts of that — the “I know better than you” attitude that often hides behind a black sweater and jacket and the “don’t bother me with details” attitude that hides behind a closed door.

But often — this also effaces itself in a quiet sigh that starts a long educational conversation along the lines of: “yes, but did you think about this? and what about this option? and you know, if you do this, then this is an issue.” For many of us who put projects together in our heads, we went through long, horrible work days in our 30′s as we learned how things worked and didn’t work and now the connections are almost too fast to list about how projects and buildings work.

I often tell clients that what they are paying me for isn’t a product — its my judgement about a project. That’s the undefinable thing that sort of gets reflected in billing rate. The best of us make that whole intuitive process look impossibly easy — but even Fred Astaire had to practice every day.”

Ted Pratt @ Architects 2Zebras “Collaboration is an essential core value of my office’s design process. We incorporate a form of participatory design with our clients very early in the design process and collaborate with other creatives necessary to the successful completion of the project.

Collaboration takes courage no matter the size of the participating group because the architect/designer must suspend preconceptions and judgements while listening deeply to others. Most of our projects are commercial/private and the number of participates is smaller than would occur on public projects, but a strong sense of confidence is essential to leading the sessions.

One must not be afraid to ask silly questions of the participants in order to dig deep beneath the surface of discussion. We don’t educate our clients as much as assist with informing them of the technical and legal aspects of a design question. If one is able to empathise with the client group a design solution to the question can be arrived at while addressing the technical legal issues..”

MSA Prints

07

FEATURES

The Role of the Architect Community Meeting Place Suboptimal Design

08

MSA Prints

In this section we will look at three projects which incorporate participatory design at three different stages of the design process. From that we question the role and capability of the architect in the 21st century.

The first article discusses how community participation could shape parameters throughout the whole process of designing.

This was further explored through design research which was based on the findings of the Urban Living Lab, a participatory event that was held in Cheetham Hill. Several members of the community were involved, and they commented on the various issues that they faced in the area, which helped to formulate a brief for the project. The project advocates that in the architectural field, communicating with the users either directly or indirectly, with the help of other groups such as social scientists allows the architect to find problems to address in order to meet the user’s desire.

The second article illustrates a process which, like the project outlined above, took ideas for the programme from the Urban Living Lab community engagement event before the start of the project. After the design process had started, there was further research at an informal coffee morning with key members of a Cheetham Hill community group. The role of the architect in this project has been altered by the need to balance the aspirations and comments of community members with traditional site analysis and design processes.

The third article looks at the potential of participation for adapting a design to a changing context. It is a response to the fact that whilst the socio-technical environment is now changing very fast, architectural practice appears unable to catch up.

Following a strategy of learning from “first nature”, it suggests that the architect may need to change the attitude towards the building, from being a “dead” object, to something with the capacity to develop over time.

MSA Prints

09 09

THE ROLE OF THE ARCHITECT Finding problems in order to meet the needs of users

by Nawal Nabila

Above: Mapping exercise with the participants of the Urban Living Lab Below: Engagement through a Focus Group during the Urban Living Lab Opposite page: Children having lunch in the den that they have built during the ‘DENcity’ Event.

10

In the architectural design process, there is a widely recognised need for research into issues concerning the users of the space or the buildings and the end user participation as well as the need for architectural design to be more socially inclusive. End user participation has long served as a tool and method in influencing the design process and the outcomes from the participative events have contributed a fundamental input to further inform the design brief. The whole process of translation unfolds an intricate endeavour; from participation to brief and afterwards to the actual design whereby the results and findings from the participation events are being addressed through different phases of translation, understanding and coding. This actually advocates that the involvement of the end users through various engagement activities could shape an organizational parameter throughout the whole process of designing architecture and preliminarily consider how such a design measure could form a challenge for the present practicing architects in terms of professional ethics as well as their design methodologies. The end user participation seems to render a chance to initiate and establish a connection between both the user’s daily life, routine and experience and the architectural framework in which it unfolds therefore this demonstrates that other than just the existing actual knowledge that architects already have in terms of spatial organization and design, the outcomes obtained from the various public engagement could be handled and interwoven within the context of designing architecture so as to meet the needs of the end user.

Corresponding to this, the engagement

activities by the end user become a central research that represent a tool in order to develop design processes. It denotes a certain outcome established as part of the collaboration between both the client and the design team that could possibly contribute to the development of a design solution.

Engaging the end user could be seen in the example of an event called the Urban Living Lab which was conducted by the fifth year students of the Manchester School of Architecture (MSA). This event was adopted from the ‘Old Moat Age Friendly Neighbourhood Report’. There were three primary methods that were used to engage with the participants mainly through ‘Interactive Mapping’, ‘Community Audit’ and also a ‘Focus Group’. Through these methods, the students were able to gain a significant amount of information that focused more on user value and provided an opportunity for the users to input their personal experiences and views on a specific context, subsequently driving towards a more collective form of theory and a more well-defined project brief.

The findings from the Urban Living Lab have also helped to gather essential information mainly concerning the issues faced by the local residents in Cheetham Hill where the participatory event was held. Many of them addressed the issue regarding the lack of interaction between people from different cultural backgrounds which drove into a project that looks at the many architectural programmes that could promote social interaction in Cheetham Hill. From there, several key people from the engagement event MSA Prints

were listed and contacted ranging of people from different backgrounds, and casual conversations were set up with them to get their comments on this issue. One of them was an Arabic dancer, some others consisting of a local student, a male nurse, a Nepalese security officer and many others. To strengthen the findings, a few organizations in Cheetham Hill were visited together with a sixth year student such as the Neesa Well Women to participate in their weekly community activities just to investigate about the interaction between people from different social backgrounds.

‘Healthy Ardwick’ was another event that was conducted by the first and second year students of the MSA in conjunction with the Manchester Design Festival where the students had organized public workshops to establish reasoning for a proposal of a new community centre at Coverdale Church. The reason behind these workshops was to address the public feedback directly into group proposals for the actual community centre.

They gathered the local people to write and discuss their ideas in the form of charts, diagrams and maps to understand the users’ key needs from the new community centre.

Similarly, this example of using the personal opinions of the key people that have been met was adapted as the basis for further research and more conversations were done with other people to compare their thoughts and information as well as to build up the research of the project which resolves around children. Later, the Woodville Children’s Centre was visited to meet with the manager to have a general

idea on the behaviour of children and their activities in the children’s centre. It was hoped that with all the information that have been gathered throughout the research, it would help to benefit the children’s centre in some way such as sharing with them some of the interesting ideas and design development during the long creative process.

It is not just about talking to the top people in several organizations but also engaging and communicating with the target users to fully understand their needs, for example in the Events month that is held in the third semester of every year, a group called ‘DENcity’ worked with children from the Friars Primary School in Salford on building dens. Several consultations were done directly with the school with the help of our collaborators - John, Catherine and Daniel from Places Projects which is located in the RIBA Hub. For instance, the children were asked to draw how they imagine their dens would be and share it with the whole group. This

has helped the coordinators to prepare some basic sculptures according to what the children want for them to add on to during the actual den building event. It involved a lot of engaging with the children themselves before we could really carry out the main den building event because before any big thing could happen, we have to find out what is the essential information and tools that are needed to make the event successful.

The process of conversing with the potential end-user has tremendously helped me to develop an in-depth understanding of the project, thus this shows that in the architectural field, communicating with the users either directly or indirectly for example with the help of social scientists, could help drive the project into a product with good spatial quality which would be more appreciated by the people because they were consulted and was involved in the earlier process.

MSA Prints

11

COMMUNITY MEETING PLACE Making an urban living room for Cheetham Hill

by Adrian Coelho

Above: View from Abraham Moss tram stop Top: Providing places to stop Opposite page: Community meeting place in the proposal

12

The proposal for a redeveloped Abraham Moss emerged from the theoretical background outlined in the editorial and is closely connected to the need to propose solutions for social problems and involve community members in the creative process, exploring how the needs of users can feed a building programme.

Through the Urban Living Lab and an engagement event, the proposal evolved from local community members as well as from traditional architectural processes of borrowing and synthesis with intent. The role of the architect here has been to approach discussions with community members without a proposal in mind, and with the intent of listening to their opinions on what is taking place in their community, leading to the proposal solutions, with their involvement. It started at the Urban Living Lab, in the conversations with residents revealing information about where they live. There was a conversation over a map with two leaders of small community groups in Cheetham Hill which revealed what seemed to be an important local issue.

They both agreed that it is difficult in this area to find a suitable location for small community groups to meet, without having to pay, with one of the groups specifically mentioning sometimes meeting in the Tesco Car Park. Rather than conducting a traditional site analysis based on observation of the area, the choice of site for the proposal also emerged from these discussions, through the positive and negative opinions of the Abraham Moss Centre, with some saying it is a good place to meet other people, others saying it is poor. The initial conversations led to the organisation of a coffee morning with the community

group Rainbow Surprise, bearing in mind the importance of community groups as a way through which people new to an area can find others with whom to socialise, to hear their views on the centre and the location as it is.

Deliberately, no designs for a proposal were presented, in order to keep the discussion open and informal, and not turn it into a consultation, with the possibility of a change of site as a potential outcome. The idea was to hear views on Abraham Moss and see what else might emerge from the discussion. Some open questions for discussion were prepared, for example, whether it is in the right location, offers the services the community members need and how good it is as a good meeting place for them. In another conversation, with the duty manager of the centre about what users feel about the leisure centre, she shared how she thinks the centre has adapted to the local community and is important in offering an affordable place to exercise. Simultaneously, the focus for the previous project had been on small comfortable places which people feel are satisfying places to stop (without having to pay to be there).

There was also a related focus on some of the buildings in Amsterdam which function as living rooms for the urban dwellers of that city, a library and an arena, both of which make people want to stay, and do not charge for the pleasure, and another building with a playful route linking comfortable places to stop and rest, chat, or do nothing. The resolution of the outcomes of the discussions to generate programme, ensure that this is the right place for the design, attend to what residents want from their leisure centre, attend to morphing it to a place MSA Prints

which serves a role as a social hub, and the simultaneous, more traditional architectural investigations has explored the balance between bringing in the opinions of others about a particular place and the role of a designer in the process of helping solve problems in a community. In this particular test of a broadened role for the architect, the views expressed by local community members from Cheetham Hill have been elevated through interpretation and synthesis with the intention of providing a community facility which is a joy to use, pause, mingle, meet, hold events and play. This contrasts with the consultation process described by Carla Nuttall later in this magazine, where as she describes, there was already a proposal, and the consultation process mainly heard opinions on the proposal, leading to small changes. In the case of this design, the open discussion at the Urban Living Lab led to residents expressing a need, which became the programme, altered through further discussion with members of the local community. The site of this proposal illustrates that for architects, seeking to design in order to address the social is not a new one. Concieved forty years ago, the Abraham Moss Centre itself was designed to be a social condenser for the Cheetham Hill and Crumpsall area, with one of the fundamental principles being to give people a location in which to mix. The articles in the Architects Journal from the time of the original development (‘Community Clasped’ AJ 7.5.1975) appear to indicate that at that time there were architects who were more specifically tasked with benefitting the community, and there was money to spend towards that aim. Such a political backdrop would have been extremely beneficial

for the application of the type of community engagement in architecture that is being discussed in this magazine.

Today, it seems that architects are more detached from that role and perhaps this is the nature of private industry.

Adding meaningful community engagement would currently require the involvement of a client who is willing to pay for the extra time. This highlights the importance of having planners and those in local councils, the people who make decisions on building schemes, involved in events focused on listening to community members and groups, bringing a number of new collaborations to the role of the architect in order to for the architect to contribute to addressing users’ needs through discovering and solving social problems.

MSA Prints

13

SUBOPTIMAL DESIGN How to make buildings long-lasting

by Tuan Viet Pham

£30 million is being invested to support owners to give a new life to over 800 of Greater Manchester’s 25,000-plus empty properties1. According to the Home and Communities Agency, one of the most common reasons for leaving a home empty is because of renovation processes that are never completed because the owner cannot afford it anymore. That is not an issue particular to Greater Manchester or the UK, but one in many first world countries. But why we are facing that problem?

Over thousands of years, it was common for houses to be built and used as they were for their whole lifespan. This is because human society in the past changed slowly, so there were usually not many new demands on the buildings for a long period of time. However, “at this moment in time, we are faced with massive and rapidly accelerating forces such as global urbanisation and digital technology which will change things dramatically, whether we like it or not”2 . In this rapid changing modern society, “fading appreciation, changing values and demands, associations with troubled pasts, structural decay, rampant property development and other trends”3 has led to a common situation where a building is no longer suitable for the users after several years. It then needs massive renovation to be in use again.

Top: The capsule tower - an example of metabolist architecture Above: Wikihouse diagram Opposite page: Modern Barn raising

14

In the 1970s and 80s, a group of Japanese architects tried to respond to the rapid change in modern Japanese society by forming the Metabolism movement. Their approach was to consider “human society as a vital process”4 and therefore buildings as ‘growing objects’. The buildings were designed and built in a way which allows it to

grow by adding some parts later.

However, metabolist buildings can be seen as living organs in a symbolist way rather than real life form. In addition, they seem to be isolated from coexisting elements such as the users or the ecological context. More recently, there has been a project set up by 00:/ architect called WikiHouse. It is an open-source design and building project which allows users to design their own houses based on a given template, then download and build it themselves. In this case, the users are seen as participants who can contribute much to the buildings.

As a study on the issue mentioned, this project looks at the case of how to bring back an empty building to life.

The study helped me to understand why it is difficult for a building designed in the traditional way to adapt to the changing environment and it is also a chance to experience potential strategies for making a building longlasting.

It is difficult for a building to adjust to changes because buildings are often seen as “dead” objects, not able to develop. In Error Friendliness5 , Manzini believes that to design resilient social-technical systems people should learn from ‘first nature’. ‘First nature’ means non-artificial elements and it is a ‘mesh of systems, characterised by the presence of the unpredictable and the unique’ which is a place of ‘auto-organisation, auto-regulation and creative evolution of new forms of order’. However, there is general laws referring ‘unchanging structure’ that ‘manifest themselves through every kind of transformation’. Therefore, if the designs are fixed and optimal MSA Prints

for one purpose, they do not have the ability of “auto-organisation, autoregulation”, and so cannot display “creative evolution of new forms of order”.

To change this situation we may have to change the attitude toward architectural design. Instead of giving a single plan, the architects should be expected to provide design guidelines which play the role of “general laws”, with designs which are open for development. For example, Rachel Bourne from MSAp set up an event inviting people to paint the walls of underused buildings in the Northern Quarter (City of Manchester) by first the colour of their mood and then the colour they want to see more in the area. The guideline here is the task of asking people to paint on the walls in order and the fact that people are free to choose the colours they want can be seen as the process of “auto-organisation, autoregulation”. This is because the object designed here is not only the wall, but also the community. It is evidenced by the fact that not only the building changed but also the participants, as it “broke down barriers with the public and encouraged them to talk about what they liked or would prefer, as well as giving them an opportunity to react to the ideas of others”.

This project follows that strategy as a suboptimal design. The form of the library is transferred to a space of food, but it also can be a place for other community activities. The spaces are unspecialised and not designated for certain functions, but open for the users or the community self-organise.

Difficulties in use may occur due to the lack of specialisation, but it brings to the community chances for self-

correcting, which is seen as the key of evolution as mentioned in Error Friendliness .

The project also shows the position of seeing the building not as a single object but co-existing with the users in its ecology. Through the activities of self-organising and self-correcting, the community is seen not only as participants but also the object of the design. It refers to the case of community barn-raising in the past where community members went together helped each other to build each barn structure. It does not only have the meaning of building the house but also building the community, as it could strengthen the community.

In conclusion, in order to reflect and adapt a fast changing social-technical environment, the architect may have to change the attitude towards the objects and the productions of design. First, instead of designing a building, we can set the base for packaging including the buildings, the users, the environment, etc. Secondly, that packaging should be seen as “alive-objects” that are able to grow, to self-modify and adapt the changes as is the strategy of “first nature”.

References 1 GMCA. Empty to Plenty: Bring empty homes back to life. 2014. http://www.agma.gov.uk/what_we_do/ planning_housing_commission/empty-to-plenty/ index.html (accessed 04 13, 2014).

2 The Farrell. The Farrell Review of Architecture + the built Environment. London: Farrells, 2014.

3 Minkjan, Mark. Photo Essay: How Long is the Life of a Building? Tallinn’s Linnahall. 11 18, 2013. http:// failedarchitecture.com/photo-essay-how-long-is-thelife-of-a-building-tallinns-linnahall/ (accessed 04 13, 2014).

4 Lin, Zhongjie. Kenzo Tange and the Metabolist Movement. London: Taylor & Francis, 2010.

5 Manzini, Ezio. “Error-friendliness: How to Deal with the Future Scarcest Resource: the Environmental, Social, Economic Security. That is, How to Design Resilient Socio-Technical Systems.”

Design for Social Innovation towards Sustainability.

07 02, 2013. http://www.desis-network.org/content/ error-friendliness-how-deal-future-scarcest-resourceenvironmental-social-economic-security (accessed 04 14, 2014).

MSA Prints

15

AN INTERVIEW WITH CARLA NUTTALL

CN: Carla Nuttall AC: Adrian Coelho VP: Viet Pham AC: We are interested in seeing how the job of an architect can become closer to the job you do.

By Adrian Coelho

Viet Pham Nawal Nabila

Carla Nuttal is a public engagement manager at Manchester Metropolitan University. She works for the university on many different engagement projects, such as the Birley Fields engagement campaign.

The interview helps us firstly to understand the importance of engagement, how it affects the community, the design, the role of the architect. It also helps us to learn and share some techniques for engagement.

CN: Across the projects that I have been involved in, there has been a strong element of that. I have a few examples. Prior to this job I worked in Salford as part of a regeneration team.

In each of those projects the architect has worked with us. We’ve gone out as an organisation and run engagement events and come up with ideas, themes, a vision for an area. A masterplan has been worked up, which formed the basis of a more formal consultation.

For example with Birley Fields, the masterplan formed the basis of a 3 month consultation. The engagement professional, in terms of the client, would run the sessions, and we would invite in the relevant contacts, for example the local authority partner, the planning department, and the architects to talk through the plans, so we worked very much in partnership. And I guess the feedback from those events get fed back into the proposals for planning applications. So I see that working with the architects at that very early stage is important in terms of coming up with a proposal that is going to be welcomed and acceptable to all the parties.

AC: Is there an ideal aim for the benefits you want to bring to the community? For example, for Birley Fields was there an ideal set of changes that people wanted to see?

CN: I think the main thing is that people want to see that this isn’t something that tehy are coming to

16

that is sort of a fait accomplis, its something that that have some measure of input into, that is actually going to influence the final design. For example with Birley when we were looking at the student accommodation, the scale and massing of the site, that it had to fit within the wider area and urban context. In terms of the masterplan and overall vision, that would probaly have been agreed with the architects, for example with Birley, the university knew that we wanted a communiuty campus, the city council knew what they wanted it to be in terms of the overall development of the area, that kind of vision would form part of the brief for the architect and they would then work up those proposals. The bit where the community comes in is in looking at those designs and saying ‘thats not going to work, what about the access routes through to the city centre, and with the size and scale of the building it needs to come down a floor.’ It is those sort of inputs that the community would want to have and would want to see reflected in the final design. You sometimes go in with a broad framework so its hard to get the right degree of input. If you take something in too early, its very vague, people dont know what you are talking about. If you take it in too well done, then they dont know what they are being consulted on. It is finding that balance which is very tricky. In my experience if you can run consultation, or a public exhibition where you let people know what you are planning to do, what the timescales are, what would be the public input, at each stage, I think that would be something that is quite helpful. People want to know what the expectation is on them, what is the level they are expected to help MSA Prints

and how its going to change the plans, if it is. If it isnt, you need to be upfront about that and manage expectations.

AC: The earliest stage you would usually talk to the community is after the architect has been selected and after the start of the design?

CN: It depends on the project, when I was working in Salford, before we even got to appointing an architect, we ran a number of events saying we were set up looking to develop and regenerate these particular areas, what would you like to see happen in this area, what are your aspirations for this area. And the broad aspirations were better connections, greener space, better environment, and those guideing principles then were fed into a brief as a vision statement for ewhat we wanted for this development. The input from the community then sits alongside your vision, thats the point where we would brif in an architect to form a amasterplan, which sets things out, and then you have somehting more meaningful for people to engage in and to give input to.

AC: In October we did an event in Cheetham Hill where we were not proposing anything, it was just finding out what people thought about the area. We showed them maps for them to comment on problems and different parts of the neighbourhood.

CN: That was my experience in Salford, it was a project around the Lowry theater and cultural centre. It was about looking at teh power of art and cukture to regenerate an area. The CIty Council thought ‘can we do that for Salford, but on a much larger scale?’. They wanted to have a coherent approach to the development in the areas becasue

it has been done so piecemeal over the years. The regen company was set up to deliver that, and it was exactly what you did in Cheetham Hill. People who have been working in the area for many years have it in their head what are the sorts of things they would like to see. We did not set the agenda, they opened it out to community events, workshops, exhibitions. People could come in, jot notes on postcards, come up with ideas. That then informed the vision statement, out of which came individual projects, wtih architects brought in to work up more detail.

AC: That really did come from the engagement exercises?

CN: It did. It was slightly different with Birley, I guess we as a univerity came to the council with an idea for a community campus. That doesn’t leave it open to the community to say we want a green space or a circus. We came in with a requirement for that land and it was about how me make it fit in a comunity context and how we fit it into the community. Its less about shaping the idea, more about how we can make it work for them.

AC: Do you think the community engagement had a lot less influence. Did the architect have a scheme in their mind?

CN: They had certain things in mind, like the requirement for a very large academic buildign and for student accommodation. And the requiremnt that the campus would link to the All Saints campus and the Oxford Road corridor. So they had to bring that into it. The other idea was to link it to past regeneration work done by the council.

There has been a lot of regeneration

work in Hulme, its gone through three cycles of it. So the community is quite sceptical, they have seen things put in and fail, and how it will be different, and some didn’t want to lose that space at all.

AC: What was there before?

CN: A brownfield site, with trees on.

Post-industrial revolution back-tobacks were swiped out in one process of regen. The crescents came in which werre quite notorious, that really fragmented the community. When they got rid of those in the mid-90s, nothing was done on this site and the council had a strategic plan for the regeneration of hulme around bringing in more office development and more residential, so you can see these 3 or 4 storey townhouses, Manchester Technopark, the Asda, all these things came in. The land that Birley sits on was the largest piece of remaining land, and had been like that for 20 years so people get used to that space. Some people didnt liek it at all, it was a kind of no-go area, anti-social behaviour. Others loved it, so we had an issue on our hands there, to make sure the community understood what was going on there, the benefits of the university coming in to the area and how it completed the final piece in the jigsaw in the regeneration of the area.

So that was very much a set thing that they were asked to consult.

AC: Did the consultation with the community have much of an effect on the outcome of the building?

CN: We had aspiration for the space to be a community campus, that anybody could come in and use the space. We MSA Prints

17

Top: Children sketching in one of the engagement project of the university.

Above: Perspective of the Birley Fields

wanted it not to feel closed off, so the input with the community wanted to make sure that their aspirations and how they would like to use the space were considered, so a lot of the feedback were things like sports facilities, cafe, retail space. Those things were built into the ground floor, some of which may have happened in any case, but it was about how we could open that up. So it might not have changed the physical approach, but it has changed our approach to how we open it out.

One of the things it did influence was the introduction of a residents parking scheme. One of the major things that came through from local residents was about hte impact on transport and parking locally, the impact of 6000 students and staff coming into the area, so as part of the planning application, we invested heavily into residents parking, that was a reult of the consultation. In terms of the detail of the student accommodation, I’m not sure as it was a bit before my time, in terms of the scale of the buildigns, and the look and feel, residents had some impact into how it looks and i think we brought down the level of the accommodation by one storey.

VP : So we don’t talk about the people who don’t like that building to be there but we talk about the people who want to contribute to change/influence the building, finally does everyone agree with the final output of Birley Fields, for example?

CN : Broadly, yes. And from my experience as public engagement manager, I would say 80-90% of the people I’ve spoken to are happy with the idea of the investment when it comes to space and what the building actually looks like, it is ‘wow’.

18

So at this stage, it’s too early for them to say because it’s still closed off, and they’ve lost this kind of access through, and at this point, for the last two years it’s been closed away and it’s hidden... They’ve seen the CGIs and the engagement process but they’ve not been that involved, they’re not....

Quite pathetic I guess.... And then when it opens up, I think you’ll start to see a lot more interesting input... There are some groups that aren’t happy with it but that’s not about the design, that’s about them not being happy with it as a concept. They didn’t want it in the first place, they still don’t want it., and there’s not a lot you can do about that.

But broadly, those people who were supportive of it, when they’ve seen the quality of that building, they’re very excited about what’s it going to bring to the area and being able to use it and access it. The issues are not around how it looks and how’s it being developed, it’s around impacts and that’s about transport and things like that.

But those people we’ve engaged with are actively involved, those who we talk to on a regular basis have been fantastic. We maintain that level of engagement so they know that for example the landscape architecture is going in, that’s fairly concrete and you know we’ve consulted on it, saying: “Look, this is a blank canvas, this is what we’ve put in as a minimum; visitor and disabled parking, a community orchard, biodiversity, wild flowers, meadow and a public piazza. Those things will go in.” The next stage when the place opens, is what’s the next level of that.

Interestingly we are developing on another plot of land to support the final block of student accommodation that’s going in. There’s going to be a temporary car park for the contractors MSA Prints

but as part of it, we’re going to improve the public realm; at the moment it’s a bit of a dumping ground. The landscape architects for the Birley site have worked on a plan for that and came up with a proposal for what should go in, and we went to talk to the local community garden centre and said: “Can you quote for delivering the planters and the temporary planting”, and when they looked at the recommendations, they said “Well it’ll be really nice if you used orchard trees instead because that links with this community project who do apple juice and cider and things. And we can donate the apples.” We’re now taking that back to the landscape architects and council to say can we do this instead? So there is a constant dialogue.

AC: Are you continuing to hold consultation events?

CN : We had the consultation events.

We got planning approved, that was in July 2012 and at that point we set up a community forum, which has been meeting quarterly for the last 18 months to 2 years, we established the community newsletter which goes out quarterly which updates people on the construction process, what’s happening where and when, how you can contact whoever you need to if you have got a complaint or enquiry or whatever, and then it gets into further things that are happening in the area. The retail units as part of one of the accommodation blocks, that’s happening at the moment. We’ve consulted with the community on the types of retail that they want in there or don’t want in there. The resident scheme, the parking scheme and what’s happening with that, we’ve consulted on each phase of that scheme and how

it affects residents so they can put input into it and shape the final design of the scheme. Further investments in public realm and then it gets into things like local people employed on site, how to work with the local community in a variety of ways. We’ve done that and we’ve continued engagement by going out to community events and festivals and supported them, to explain where the building is, when’s it going to be finished, how they can access it. There has been a critical milestone that will get us into thinking about how we ensure we get people into the campus and actually use it and how do we generate events in a public space. We’ve gone out either formally through a community forum or invited feedback through the newsletter or through the website or through events and we’ve done flyers and involved various things. It has continued throughout but it has not been in need of formal consultation because we’re not seeking approval or something in specific.

VP : So as part of the process, there here may be continuous events?

CN : It’s continuous. It was a point of saying, we’ve taken everything you’ve fed back to us as part of the public consultation; the design and how this building should be, that has been approved. It doesn’t stop at the point where we say “it would be two years from there to there.” No. There needs to be something that shows that we’re listening, around concerns about the construction of the buildings. Then, as we’ve gone through, there was a second outline planning application as part of the overall master plan for the student accommodation. We had to go back and do a detailed planning application for the student accommodation,

there was a further consultation on that. And then there’s things like the residents’ parking scheme - that’s a very formal consultation but everything else has been part of a programme of community engagement. And that has been about going out and talking to people at events and at the university.

About the faculties and how they can use the space and that’s really important.

AC : Do you think that your experience with the techniques you used in your previous role, on projects such as that at Salford, has altered the role of MMU Engagement Officer that you hold now?

CN : No, because my first experience in regen, planning, design and all of that came through my experience of working in Salford and that was pretty broad because it came from the whole visioning thing which is a complete blank canvas. I guess the one thing that was different for me is the process that was involved and was very open and very consultative. I have also worked for a private sector developer and that was a different experience.

It was not as much fun because they are at the sharper end of it. They have taken those designs, they have got to make that work for the best profit, the programme and all that kind of stuff. That is more about “we need to do this to get through it” and is more of a box ticking exercise, because you probably have been through a lot that stuff before, all the interesting stuff, the visioning and everything else.

But probably what I’d say about this project is that I’ve taken a lot of what I did in Salford with me, and before that I have been involved in engagement in a planning kind of environment.

The techniques there are probably broadly the same, it’s just that kind MSA Prints

19

of ‘one size does not fit all’ approach.

Someone in my position might say “I’m going to do a newsletter, and do a website, and I’ll hold an event at this time on this day, and people will come, and that’s me done, I’ve consulted them now...”. With this role, it’s been week in week out constantly, finding different ways to connect with that group or this group or whoever else and I think that was something that my predecessor in this position was involved in as well.

The university has taken on a very open and collaborative approach, I would say. I don’t think my experience has changed, it’s only kind of improved to what I have already done.

AC : Is there anything you would change about how Sheppard Robson have approached the project, in order to make it more responsive?

CN : I probably couldn’t comment very well on that because it was before my time. But I could get an answer to that question from the project team if that will be helpful.

AC : Or to put it another way, drawing on your experience of working with architects before, how would you change how the architect behaves, for example, how they respond to engagement or what percentage engagement influences what they do?

CN : I guess it’s like with anything isn’t it? I would just say, in any of these big projects a kind of vision o ego can get in the way of consultation and not wanting to move away from an original concept because it undermines the integrity of the architect. You have to understand that an architect is coming at this from a different perspective and if you don’t have that character with that vision, and that artistic flair and that ego whatever, you probably are 20

not going to get this exciting concept, design and vision. So it will be somebody else’s task to reign that kind of thing.

It’s like, “okay this is what we’ve got, now how do we work with that?”

There can be some clashes around things like ‘we only want it to be in this type of material or this colour’, and that is something that has to be worked through the consultation and at the end of the day, what I found on projects is we have commissioned an architect to do this, and we are the client, and ultimately the client gets the final sort of word. A lot of stuff from the original visions that might not be achievable has to be modified in some way.

VP : The way you work, in some ways you are the middle person between the architect and the community. How do you connect them? Do you organise events, get comments from the community and give the summarised feedback to the architect?

CN : Some of the feedbacks received could be hundreds. It’s about pulling that out into themes, and sitting around the table and looking at those themes, it probably would be seen as a kind of filtering exercise.

When you’re consulting with a wide range of people, they can be very specific, they can broadly fall into these following areas. So, you’ve got something to work with and form some basis for a sensible discussion.

VP : What do you think of letting the architect work closer with the community, for example inviting them to all the events and letting them talk directly to the people attending?

CN : That’s good in the situation whereby we have an open blank

canvas, and that was very much about the architects being there and listening to all these great ideas and aspirations because that was informing part of their brief. That is important. In terms of having the architect there face to face with the community, that’s something that did happen during the consultation of Birley. The architects who were part of the team were there, taking on feedback and responding, but there must come a point that some of the comments might not be helpful, some might be odd comments. You have to understand the context of that comment, who that person is and what previous relationship has he had with the community. But absolutely, being there face to face is important, it puts you in the actual form of public consultation.

VP: Is that all about asking and chatting with people, or do you use other techniques to get information? Because sometimes maybe people are not aware of their own problems?

CN: I guess it is to ensure that the right information has been given out. That is kind of one-way information. But then it is to look at what the community’s priority might be, for example how do they access healthcare. So that’s about people working with those groups, then they identify the problem, the priority, or their aspiration. We have engagement in the sense of communication and research. Going to that community and saying “what would you like to seen in that building? What is your priority?

How could the University support you?” Or kind of collaboration to realise research projects we do.

AC: Are there elements of that in your role?

CN: The element in my role is in terms of public sites. There are MSA Prints

AN INTERVIEW WITH counterparts of mine in the faculty moving to Birley, so we have the people who lead the engagement activities there, and then there are a few people who do it. So there is a community audit and evaluation centre.

VP: What I am talking is the kind of event where you are designing the event, is that something that the architect can bring to the event, in your experience?

CN: No, not really. It tends to be about bringing groups of people together. But it not about working with the school and community and say, well, draw a picture about the space you like. That’s quite interesting.

AC: For example, there was a project by Public Works where they designed a truck, then they have a tea party on this truck, so in that sense it is not so much about asking direct questions.

CN: No, I’ve not involved in anything like that. It always has an agenda. Even it’s quite open, it has be in an invited group. For example, in Salford, we did do event for all the community, everyone could come along to then paste a note on a board, and you could draw a picture of what you love in the area, but not something more interesting than that. There are many tools you can use, for example just going out and just talking to people and frame it in quite generic way. Or you could have, an idea where people could go into a little Airstream caravan, and they can write down pieces of information or a story, or draw something they want to change. So it’s nice because you can go along and do something. You can write about something in the area that is nice for you, your memories. And from that I think you can get something of

a feeling about an area. You can pick out things in different ways, so it’s interesting. But I guess the problem is that it is time consuming and it’s expensive, and there is not really a focus on this kind of engagement when things are at the further stages.

AC: So, do you think it’s hard to incorporate these kind of activities?

CN: Well, if you asked me few years ago, I might say okay, let find out the output is, what we need to get out of it, let me think of a programme that can do that interestingly and be as creative as possible. That could be great, then you can look at ways of bringing in different ideas for different ways of engaging. But with something like Birley Fields, when you get into something formal, it tends to need to be a bit formalised, because you are asking for direction on something very specific. Or in terms of a master plan or how buildings look, this kind of stuff can be a truly open process, and you can bring an architect in to ask how this engagement could work, and it’s quite interesting. Because it would probably engage people a lot more.

So, it’s interesting. I might ask that question to a couple of my colleagues who are involved in other projects. I mean that is my experience, and that doesn’t mean it is always the same.

AC: I am wondering about how an architect can practice engagement in this way.

CN: That’s another element of the creativity of it. I think that you do have a time scale and you can’t get too out there when you have got formal processes and certain things to say. It’s more difficult to do that then. Or if you start with a blank

canvas, then it’s a good idea to try different ways of engagement.

VP: I remember a story from Public Works.

When she designed a garden for a community, she first organised a competition of gardening, and encouraged all the people to join in. And from that you could see, for example, how much people love gardening, which may go on to influence the design.

CN: It’s nice. I think we may want to see something a bit more inventive, but there are limitations of time and budget. Certain projects I’ve worked on in recent years are quite formal, there are different channels of engagement, but they all tend to be mixture of mostly the same sort of things not really outside of the box, I would say.

AC: Is that because of the clients?

CA: I guess it was, it is about what their requirements are. It’s what the time scale is. What they hope to get out of this. It is always some kind of preconceived ideas. But the more openness there is to the outcome, I think the more possibility there is for creativity of engagement.

AC: Do you have other new projects?

CN: Yes, Birley Fields is in the second phase of the master plan. So, phase one has been the business school, the arts school and Birley is the last piece of a ten year phase. The second phase of the master plan is about how we make better connections between buildings, and how to make it more publicly accessible. Well, I may talk to my colleagues to find down what their approach is, because they probably work on some bigger projects. That could be interesting.

MSA Prints

21

FROM THE RESIDENTS’ PERSPECTIVE: DAN ARIS

I have been involved with the regeneration of Hulme and Moss Side since 1991 in various unpaid and paid capacities, e.g. Hulme Alliance of Tenants and Residents, Hulme Community Homes Ltd., Hulme Tenant Participation Project, Hulme Regeneration Ltd., Moss Side and Hulme Business Federation, Moss Side and Hulme Community Development Trust.

What was your role in the community participation for Birley Fields?

By Adrian Coelho

Viet Pham Nawal Nabila

Dan Aris is a business person local to Hulme and has been involved in the regeneration of Hulme and Moss Side since 1991 and the start of Hulme City Challenge. He has worked for Hulme Alliance of Tenants and Residents, Hulme Community Homes ltd, Hulme Regeneration Ltd, Moss Side and Hulme Business Federation, WFA Media and Cultural Centre and Moss and Hulme Community Development Trust to name but a few. Here, he shares his experience of community engagement in Hulme regeneration.

Opposite: Hulme residents in Birley Fields construction site. (from Dan Aris)

The Hulme ward councillors were the official community representatives involved in the MMU Birley Fields campus consultation. I was invited to take part in the consultation, as an individual, because of my history of community involvement and because of my knowledge of environmental issues. I was a member of the Birley Fields Environmental sub committee and am still involved through the Birley Fields Community Forum.

How did you become involved in the engagement activities?

At each of the main planning stages I wrote detailed letters (broadly in support of the applications) based on my understanding of the issues and my knowledge of community views (through various discussions, meetings and on-line forums). I helped with the content and distribution of the MMU Birley Fields newsletter. I help with the planning of drop-in consultation events held by MMU. Do you think there was enough engagement?

I think that MMU made a considerable

22

effort to consult widely throughout the Hulme and Moss Side communities and with specific groups concerned.

I have to commend MMU and individuals such as Mary Heaney (MMU Director of Services), Carla Nuttall (MMU Public Engagement Manager) and Dianne Higgins (Sir Robert McAlpine Community Liaison Officer) for the commitment they have shown to community consultation and engagement.

Was the engagement meaningful for you and the community?

Within the bounds of the practical and commercial concerns of MMU, I think the consultation was meaningful to me and the community more generally.

How much influence did you have over the design and outcome of the project?

I think input from the community had the following direct influence: 1) Change in the location of the multi-storey car park from opposite St. Philips Primary School to current location.

2) Retention of a large number of mature trees on site.

3) Reduction in the massing of buildings at the Western end of Stretford Road – reduced from 6 storeys to 4 storeys.

4) Alterations to the layout of the student accommodation to reduce visual impact on surrounding buildings.

5) Support for BREAM ‘outstanding’ rating for the buildings and net ‘Zero Energy Zero Water Zero Waste’ policy.

6) Landscape design issues, open access to the site, travel planning (bus MSA Prints

stops, cycle routes etc).

7) New residents parking scheme for the whole of Hulme.

8) Access to campus facilities for community groups.

9) Support for local labour in construction, jobs for local people on the campus, access to education for local people.

How happy are you and the community with the outcome?

I am broadly happy with the outcome.

I think the new campus will look great and will bring a lot more life and vibrancy back to Hulme. The site of the campus is the last big ‘piece of the jigsaw’ in the physical redevelopment

of Hulme since the 1990s. Considering that previous proposals for this area include: a call centre, a casino (!) and distribution sheds, I think the MMU Birley Fields campus will be ‘the jewel in the crown’ of the Hulme redevelopment. I include with this response a picture of local people and councillors who have worked for many years for the redevelopment of Hulme and Moss Side; at the Academic building ‘Topping Out’ ceremony in 2013.

I think the community will be happy with outcome (if MMU achieves its stated aim in making them feel welcome) although I do not claim to speak on behalf of the community.

The main voices of objection to the Birley Fields campus wanted to keep the area as a green space or to develop some kind of community farm. In my view the idea to keep it as green space was never viable given its location, the fact that it was low quality green space (including the sites of the former Otterburn Close and Salter Square) and the planning designation of mixed use/ commercial agreed through Hulme City Challenge. The city farm was a nice idea but there was no finance available for this. During the early stages of planning there was a sizeable petition drawn up in favour of allotments somewhere in the vicinity of the campus.

MSA Prints

23

There was quite a lot of debate about the proposal to close Bonsall St. The main pros were around creating high quality greenspace. The main cons were about how this will reduce the ‘permeability’ of Hulme (a principle of the Hulme Guide to Development) and how this will inevitably increase congestion on Stretford Rd. This point is particularly significant given that Hulme is divided North to South by the Princess Parkway and the closure of Bonsall St. makes the Bonsall St. bridge redundant; leaving only two crossing points East to West. I think the campus could still have worked well allowing restricted vehicle access along Bonsall St. Hulme has had a significant student population for a long time, so I don’t think people will feel that they are being overrun by students, especially since a 24

lot of them will be mature students.

Aspects which I am disappointed about are: 1) Reduction in the number of shop units on Stretford rd. It looks like only one local shop will take up premises here (out of a total of three).

I wrote that such a small number of shops was contrary to the Hulme Guide to Development which specified mix uses for this area, especially around the major junction of Stretford Rd and Royce Rd, but this advice was ignored.

2) Missed opportunity of Stretford Rd. entrance ‘square’ i.e. not a square at all! No adjacent shop/ café space. The student bedrooms on the ground floor here are vulnerable from a security point of view. This is also against the Hulme Guide to Development.

3) Missed opportunity to use the existing slip-road on the west side of Princess parkway to connect to the Bonsall St. bridge and create a ‘back exit/entrance to the site. This is particularly relevant to the widely anticipated increased congestion on Stretford Rd/ Old Birley St. 4) Weak treatment to the central ‘square’ in front of the academic building- omission of a central feature (e.g. a water feature or artwork) and inadequate seating.

5) Low quality exterior of student accommodation e.g. lack of balconies/ choice of materials/ surface finishes – they look cheap!

6) Omission of the renewable energy technologies planned – principally solar panels, although in my view wind turbines were a viable option.

However I understand the budgetary constraints that led to this. I am not MSA Prints

FROM THE RESIDENTS’ PERSPECTIVE sure what is happening regarding active management features e.g. smart meters.

Aspects about which I have ongoing concerns: 1) Job opportunities for local people.

2) Community access to facilities.

3) Widening participation - access to studying at MMU. 4) Confirmation of a contract to Hulme Community Garden Centre for campus landscaping supply?

5) Support for allotments on the periphery of the campus – e.g. Leaf St. or Birchall Way? 6) Co-operation to promote Hulme as a sustainable community.

What is the best type of engagement event in order to get your views across?

In my experience drop-in exhibitions are the most effective consultation events, where people can look at plans and proposals and talk to one-toone with knowledgeable staff. I think regular newsletters are very helpful,

supported by good websites and lots of contact details. I also think the MMU Community Forum has been very effective and constructive. This has slowly grown and I hope it continues and evolves.

MMU staff have also been pro-active and very helpful in making links with community based organisations and helping to develop new collaborations.

I would like to record my thanks to Carla Nuttall in particular.

How do you communicate with the architect?

The Birley Fields Academic building and halls of residents were separate design-and-build contracts after a lot of master planning and consultation had been done. The only direct contact with the architects that I am aware of was through the drop in exhibitions held at various locations in Hulme. (They may have been at some meetings..).

What was the attitude of the local community to participation?

Local attitudes to participation are mixed. A lot of people feel that they have no influence at all and don’t even bother to try to influence developments going on around them. A small minority of people tend to object to any changes proposed. However many people do care passionately about Hulme and Moss Side and try to contribute positively in a myriad of ways, large and small. Community participation in the MMU Birley Campus design has led to many positive outcomes and inevitably some disappointments. The old adage is still true, “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference”.

Opposite: Hulme community meeting Below: Reporting of campaign successes (from Dan Aris)

MSA Prints

25

LECTURE Torange Khonsari Public Works is a London based non-for-profit company and has been growing organically since 1999. The initial founding members include Kathrin BĂśhm, Sandra DenickePolcher, Torange Khonsari, Andreas Lang and Stefan Saffer, working in different constellations until 2006 before formally coming together as Public Works. The current members are Torange Khonsari and Andreas Lang who work with an extended network of project related collaborators.They are an art and architecture practice that works within and towards public space. All of their projects address the question of how the public realm is shaped by its various users and how existing dynamics can inform further proposals. The focus of Public Works is the production and extension of a particular public space through participation and collaborations. Their projects span across different scales and address the relation between the informal and formal aspects of a site, and their works produce social, architectural and discursive spaces. The outputs of the projects that they have done include socio-spatial and physical structures, public events as well as publications.

Above: Torange Khonsari

On February 19th, 2014 Torange was invited by the MSA_p atelier in the Manchester School of Architecture to give a talk on some of the projects that she had been involved in as the MSA_p atelier adopts a similar approach. It is rooted in the social and seeks to engage within communities to unravel the relationships and networks that shape the given space or place.

Opposite: Torange Khonsari’s lecture 26

MSA Prints

According to Torange in her lecture, architecture is not the profession of someone who only designs buildings, instead it should be someone who is capable of designing a whole lot more than that, for the people and the community. This could be achieved through many ways of engagement and consultation with users. The architect acts as a host in an event with the community whereby the event becomes a platform for people to get together and becomes a place for advertisement. For example, one of the projects that she explained in the lecture was about how they used a truck and transformed it into a socialising space in the neighbourhood. The furniture on the truck could be unloaded and be placed around it so that the people could get together and talk to one another about many various issues. In one corner, tea was served for the participants. They could even write their opinions on a chalkboard located on the truck which enables the community to express almost anything.

This example relates closely with the earlier feature article that discusses the role of the architect in finding problems to meet the user’s needs, whereby the involvement of end users in many activities could form a parameter

throughout the process of designing architecture.

In another separate project, Torange discussed utilising an empty public space at a podium of a tall residential building. She introduced the idea of a food growing garden in the empty lot, to the residents of the building, and the idea was celebrated by them.

A lady and a man who were very keen gardeners volunteered in teaching gardening to the kids in the building and it created a gardening club with the kids within the community. Interestingly, Torange met with a professional model maker who was currently living in the estate, who wanted to build a model which could be used as a medium for the residents to talk about issues that were happening in the spaces of the building. The reason behind the model was to allow the people living there to suggest where certain things should be or take place, rather than the architect deciding for them. “It is mobilising communities which we are interested in, rather than consulting with them...�

The results of all the projects, events and activities that Torange had done

with the people, the results then led Public Works to a programme brief in which they had turned the findings into visual forms and diagrams to communicate with the people that they had engaged with. Public Works did not present the findings to the residents instead the residents themselves presented to the other people which is key in taking out the architect as an expert, so that they become one of the spectators of the presentation.

Some of the people in the community could not understand the architectural language and drawings such as a simple floor plan, therefore Public Works decided to use gaffer tape to tape up the whole plan at 1:1 scale to show them the actual location of the garden, cafe and others which the people started to engage with. Public Works tried to develop a game with all the tape markings on the floor and they engaged with Sarah Butler, who is a writer based in Manchester. Sarah did a creative writing session with the kids in the housing estate, where they developed a story about the podium and the land underneath it that had the artificial landscape and how they relate with the other spaces around the podium.

MSA Prints

27

Public Works did not only collaborate with the community members, but also with other professions. For instance, they worked with an artist who did images of the artificial landscape that they were working on the podium of the housing estate. A game designer was also consulted in the process. The final outcome of the whole engagement exercise was the little herb gardens for the kids club which had an ad hoc little performance and gathering spaces.

All of the engagement events that had been carried out by Public Works and the final outcome that has been mentioned above links with the role of the architect in the need to propose solutions for social problems and getting the community members involved in the whole creative process by exploring how the needs of the users can feed a designated programme. This is evident as an approach that is adapted by most of the students in the MSA_p atelier whereby many of them have used the findings from the Urban Living Lab event that they had organi 28

zed with the community members in Cheetham Hill as a research basis to help them develop a programme brief for their respective individual projects.

Apart from that, Torange stressed the role of the architects as citizens, where architects can activate spaces in the city and create spaces in the way in which the community wants them to be. In a project that they have worked together with Kerenza McClarnan from Buddleia in Cheetham Park called The DIY Common, they were very much fascinated with how a park which is not so loved by the people could become a common resource for the community. Public Works was mainly interested in re-enacting the rights of the common in the park.

One aspect of common was the idea of collecting firewood for common purposes and once there was fire, food can be prepared and a lot of things could be achieved with that. Some other resources include the weeds, willow, crab-apple tree and rosehip that they made common produce from.

The weeds were used for dye making

in which they used a dye workshop in the park to colour wool that was used for weaving and knitting. The common resources in Cheetham Park managed to sustain the existence of a community group that did not need any extra funding. Through activities such as weaving, they have activated the existing shelter in the park and created interesting conversations and networks between people. Willows were used to weave a ‘willow wall’ that became their hosting space or cafe and they even did a little dye garden to add to the repertoire of dyes for the coming sessions. The cafe was placed underneath the shelter, where they started to make the common produce and promoted it through fanzines that were distributed to the members of the community.

When asked about the ways that Public Works have used to draw people to their events, Torange replied that it depends on the project and the audience surrounding the project. They have knocked on doors and sometimes got involved in local groups in order to get closer to community members. Architects think spatially and propositionally therefore it is essential to find the right collaborators and plan for a good event with the public in the process of designing architecture. The perception towards public engagement needs to change and this was agreed by Torange that the trend is currently moving towards change with the existence of groups like Exist, Assemble etc..

“You can only learn about social engagement when you are doing it...”

MSA Prints

LECTURE Top Right: The DIY Common in Cheetham Park Bottom Right: The dye garden in Cheetham Park Opposite page: Children drawing stories during a session with Sarah Butler

MSA Prints

29

TRAVEL

Amsterdam When people visit the capital of a developed country, they may expect to get lost in the middle of modern skyscrapers or boulevards with thousands of cars travelling around.

In Amsterdam, even in the city centre it is hard to find a building taller than the 800-year-old Oude Kerk or a traffic jam. The city is very friendly in that sense. Some people call Amsterdam the city of cyclists and museums as they are the two significant features of this city.

Indeed, cyclists have the priority in this city. For people visiting Amsterdam for the first time, it is quite interesting to see that bike lanes are even bigger than car lanes. There are in total about 40 museums in this city across a wide range, from private to state museum, or from modern art to traditional museum.

Amsterdam citizens can expect to have a good social life here, as the city is also famous for models of social engagement activities. The Meevaart, for example, is one of the most wellknown. Located in the east of the city centre, it is not only a building but a program or a “social experiment”, as Pierre Mehlkopf the president said, 30

set up in order to bring people in the neighbourhood together. The Meevaart provides a wide range of services for people of all ages, status or religions to self-organise their activities, such as a community kitchen, theater, garden or a communal hub. After about 4 years of working, the program has got many successes in that aim, and has become a referenced model for many other programs around the world.

A long weekend tour Friday night: Kick off the first day from the city centre, visiting Glasgow Cathedral, then take a stroll to the St. Mungo’s Museum of Religious Life & Art, finally walking for 14 minutes to Virginia Street to see the office of ice-cream architecture. After that take a night train to London.

Saturday: Start the day off by heading to Hackney Wick to see what is on show at the Wick Curiosity Shop and get to know the locality.

Then make your way to Primrose hill for a view of the whole city as it turns dark. Finally, take a night train to Amsterdam.

Sunday: Visit the Meevaart in the morning and learn how the organisation runs that successful neighbourhood living centre. In the afternoon you can visit the Extra Care Housing to experience their humanity program, which was set up twenty years ago. Finish your tour here and take a night train back.

MSA Prints

London Of course, you have heard about the famous and free-to-enter museums, the National Gallery, the Tate and so on, or the not-so-free places that are absolutely still worth the entrance fee, like the Royal College of Art of Museum of London. So we don’t need to tell you about all that again here.

Have a stroll around some of the other surprises the city has. When the tide is down, don’t be afraid to leave the Thames Path and head onto the river shore. You’ll get an unusual view of the city, away from the crowds, heading East under the bridges. If it’s Monday,

Glasgow Glasgow; which is located at the west end of Scotland’s Central Belt on the banks of the River Clyde, is the biggest city in Scotland, and the third largest city in the United Kingdom (in population) where it is one of the nation’s key economic centres outside of London. Travelling into Glasgow is easy, either by air, train or bus from any cities in the United Kingdom.

To start the day off, from the Glasgow Central, make your way towards the Glasgow Cathedral along Castle St., just a mile away from the train station.

The cathedral is an example of Gothic architecture which survived the chaos of the Reformation mobs and is an attraction that shouldn’t be missed.

Take a stroll to the St. Mungo’s Museum of Religious Life & Art just next to the cathedral.

head to a Kingly Street, a tiny street between the bustling Regent Street and Carnaby Street, where the Blues Bar hosts a live jam on a Monday, it’s free but get there early, pick a spot near the front and see and hear some excellent musicians at work. Or try somewhere quiet but dramatic to stroll around, and head east to Canary Wharf after dark.

By day, it is bustling and lively, but have a look at the place by night when the nine-to-fivers have headed home and there are only a few lights left on. The streets are deserted and the tall buildings against the night sky and reflected in the water, take on another,eerily quiet dimension. Or in the evening, make your way to Primrose hill for a view of

the whole city as it turns dark. If you really want to discover a locality, head to Hackney Wick to see what is on show at the Wick Curiosity Shop. This small scale archive and cultural space is dedicated to the specific locality of Hackney Wick and Fish Island. It is an eclectic collection of local produce, memorabilia, oral history, songs and stories from or about Hackney Wick, with a continuously changing display and format, and a growing collection of curiosities. There you can see an archive of local cultural activities and artefacts that help to document the process of change in the area with the close involvement of its local residents.

been recognised as an innovative and forward thinking organisation within Scottish architecture and community design. Their successful projects include the public engagement for Glasgow City Council’s 50 year vision; development of the ‘Made in Stirling’ pop-up retail community for Stirling.

The Riverside Museum is the latest development along the Clyde which is designed by architect Zaha Hadid.

Located just 11 minutes away from the icecream architecture office, it houses over 3,000 objects that detail Glasgow’s rich past from its days as maritime powerhouse to a glimpse into Glasgow life in the early to mid-20th Century.

To finish the day off, travel to the immensely entertaining Kelvingrove Art Gallery & Museum that houses one of Europe’s great art collections. It is one of the most visited museums in the United Kingdom outside of London.

From there, walk for about 14 minutes to Virginia Street where you can find the office of icecream architecture that has MSA Prints

31

ENGAGE

Matthew Hargreaves

A Place Called Happiness

Hayley Chivers

The Circus House

101 WAYS TO CHANGE YOUR CITY

These 6 examples show the diversity and depth of projects undertaken by previous MSAp students. Each of these is relevant to the Excess publication in relation to addressing consumption, waste and renewal through an approach that values participation.

32

A 1:100 scale model of a warehouse in Ardwick was taken to a variety of circus skills classes as a stimulus for conversation about students’ ideas for their perfect circus learning environment.

Hayley translated conversations into spatial diagrams which were overlapped to show a list of priorities for the successful occupation of a building.

Matt met Dr Richard Ward, a project worker at the School of Social Work at the University of Manchester, and Dr Andrew Clark, a lecturer at the School of English, Sociology, Politics and Contemporary History, University of Salford at workshops run by Manchester City Council. His architectural collaboration with researchers ensured a sharing of skills between different areas of expertise, which improved the level of understanding between the researchers and those who care for sufferers of dementia.

MSA Prints

Laura Spence, Ruairi Quinn, Daniel Morris

Tommy Harrison

Samuel Neal

Communicating with children on their feelings and perceptions of space and community through different ’languages’ or activities which allows them to have a voice within the designing of their community.

Music for Old Moat

Quirky Golf

The students used waste timber boards to design flat-pack putting holes, so that they integrated into seven specific sites along the walk. Residents were invited to play 7-hole golf. The day was an opportunity for local people to engage in conversations with each other about their local area.

John Cunningham, Andrew

Through a walk around Chorlton, a local residents’ meeting and a public workshop, Tommy talked to residents about the public spaces and facilities in Chorlton, using his findings to develop project interventions based on the relationship between people’s desires and the city.

Talk Chorlton

Healthy Ardwick

Discussing ideas and thoughts with the local community to understand the users’ key needs from the new community centre whereby the feedback were led directly into group proposals for the community centre.

MSA Prints

33

THEORY OF PARTICIPATION The involvement of the user in architecture has a long history. Jonathan Hill gives a history of the relationship between architect and user in Actions of Architecture (0). Hill describes that in order to acquire social status and financial security, architects need a defined area of knowledge in which they can prove expertise. Thus, one of the aims of the profession has been to further the idea that only architects make buildings and spaces that deserve the title architecture, suggesting that the user is predictable and has no part in the creation of architecture. So whilst architects have considered the user to be an important consideration in the design process, users are also seen as a threat to an architects claim to authorship of their work.

An intense focus on authorship in architecture is a relatively recent phenomenon. Witold Rybczynski describes in When Architects Plagiarize(1) that for most of the last 500 years, architects have imitated others, with ideas bouncing back and forth, gathering momentum in the process. For example, Christopher Wren’s dome of St. Paul’s is inconceivable without Michelangelo’s dome of St. Peter’s in Rome, and when Thomas Ustick Walter designed the Capitol dome in Washington, D.C., he modeled it on Wren’s. Rybczynski describes how the architectural auteur is now expected to be self-contained, and that whilst it is considered reasonable to find inspiration in a common sponge, as Steven Holl is said to have done, or in the shards of a broken teapot, as Daniel Libeskind has confessed, seeking inspiration from one’s contemporaries or the past is forbidden.

In the recent history of architecture, the user has been defined as passive and predictable(2). Hill outlines two 34

ways of maintaining the hierarchy of architect and user. One is the denial of the user, which assumes that the building does not need to be occupied for it to be recognised as architecture. The second is control of the user, where the user is considered to display only those forms of behaviour acceptable to the architect. The functionalist architecture of the early 20th Century disregarded non-productive, irrational actions, focusing only on actions deemed useful(3), with the user seen as predictable and obedient4. Hill points out that users are in fact far from uniform, and their experience is unlikely to conform to that of the architect (4).

The drawing, which is the principle means of design used by architects, is a method which turns users into abstractions (5). Hill quotes: “In the new division of that took place in the 15th and 16th centuries, what above all set the new genus of architect apart from the building trades was their command of drawing; it both made possible the separation of their occupation from building, and because of drawing’s connection with geometry in the newly discovered science of perspective, gave architecture a means to associate itself with abstract thought, and thereby gave it the status of intellectual rather than manual labour” (6) Most architectural drawings offer only a limited understanding of use. Their primary purpose is to describe an object, and they only refer to certain parts of the physical world, limiting the types of object architects usually design (7).

The hegemony of the drawing has never really been challenged. This also

extended to language, with the term, ‘user’ turning people into abstractions, and suggesting that using architecture is primarily about practicality (8). Problems arise when we forget that it is an abstraction, and assume that the physique, race, nationality, gender, social class and experience of all users are the same. Since the era of functionalism, there have been a number of approaches to involving the user in architecture. For example, designing for flexibility considers time and the unknown, suggesting different types of user. Polyvalent forms are intended to be used without changing, and can be used for every purpose (8) and Hedonistic modernism, seen for example in the Kunsthal Rotterdam by OMA, allows the user to be active in constructing numerous alternative journeys, perhaps undermining the function of a space (9).

Collaboration with users and their participation in the design process is distinct from these strategies. It was considered in Rudofsky’s Architecture Without Architects: An Introduction to Non Pedigreed Architecture, published in 1964 discusses spaces and buildings made without the involvement of architects, produced through communal enterprise, before architecture ‘became an expert’s art’. It argues against architects and for builders, showing examples of buildings made by builders and without the direct involvement of users, and others which are a collaborative effort between builders and users.

Adhocism: The Case for Improvisation, by Charles Jencks and Nathan Silver stated that users should have more involvement in design, outlining the merits of architectural bricolage. Architects Jeremy Till and Sara Wigglesworth constructed a house in North London MSA Prints

which, rather than the typical creation of a finite, consistently detailed object, saw design as an endless flowing cycle of designing, making and using. Lucien Kroll in designing the Medical Facility at the Catholic University of Louvain, organised architects and students into groups who worked with models rather than drawings, reorganising the groups a number of times as the design developed. However, his emphasis on user involvement can be seen as oppressive, as he nearly demands the participation of the user, disparaging those who do not want to adapt their environment (Hill 2003: 61).

Hill describes that whether or not users are involved in the design process, it is possible to make buildings and spaces that are more accessible to previously excluded groups, for example, to ensure that physical disability does not restrict access to and movement

through a building. Involving users then makes it possible for architects to respond to their needs and desires as individuals and groups (Hill 2003: 61).

This shows how the inclusion of participation in a design alters the role of the architect in ways which can be valuable to society. The city can be improved through individual designs, but the involvement of others in the design process extends the attention of the architect to embrace wider social issues, to tackling how life can be improved for the people who live in a city. Participation in design is one facet of ensuring that people, including those from oppressed or disadvantaged groups, are not excluded from centrality and can participate in making decisions that affect them (Sandercock 2000). This inclusion can help to produce visions and goals for urban landscapes in which positive expressions

of already-existing differences can be played out (Sandercock 2000), and which explore, as Nussbaum (2011) describes, the opportunities and potential available in each person, what each person is actually able to do and to be.

References Hill, J. (2003).

Actions of architecture. 1st ed. London: Routledge.

(0) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

When Architects Plagiarize (Rybczynski, 2014) (1)

Sandercock, L. (2000). Cities of (in) difference and the challenge for planning. disP-The Planning Review, 36(140), pp.7--15.

(12) (13)

Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating capabilities. 1st ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

(14)

Young, I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. 1st ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Above: Lucien Kroll, Catholic University of Louvain (Hadrien est Ou, 2014)

Hadrien est Ou. [online] 31.media.tumblr. com. Available at: http://31.media. tumblr.com/9cf520c296bba8fbd90d3ad 68db9f342/tumblr_mgd7wis19s1qcrxw5o1_1280.jpg [Accessed 22 May. 2014].

MSA Prints

35

Buddleia

Carla Nuttall Public Engagement Manager, MMU c.nuttall@mmu.ac.uk info@mustardtree.co.uk

ZEST

Randy Deutsch

Rainbow surprise

Dan Aris

Public works

PLACES Projects

Kerenza McClarnan http://buddleia.co.uk/about/ 18 Sparkle Street, Manchester, M1 2NA info@buddleia.co.uk

Caron Martin http://www.zestactivities.blogspot.co.uk/ Abraham Moss Centre, Crescent Road, Crumpsall, M8 5UF zest@manchester.gov.uk

Community Group https://www.facebook.com/pages/ rainbow-surprise/130968680385903 rainbowsurprise@ymail.com

Torange Khonsari http://www.publicworksgroup.net/ Queens Yard 43 White Post Lane London E9 5EN

36

Associate Professor, University of Illinois rdeutsch@illinois.edu

Hulme Community member dan.aris@libralato.co.uk

John Bishop Catherine Clements Daniel Wheatley http://placesprojects.co.uk

MSA Prints

MSA Prints Editor in Chief Stephen Lovejoy

Associate Editor Konrad Koltun

Design Editors

Madeleine Mooney, Will Priest, Tuan Viet Pham, Tim Spiller, Amaobi Ike

Content Editors

Dammy Fasoranti, Adrian Coelho, Matthew Shanley, Alexander Watts, Emma Naylor

Communications Team

Maliha Ramiza Ramlan, Nawal Nabila, Michele Lim, Wan Syafiqah, Nedelcu Adelina, Archontia Manolakelli

EXCESS Edition Contributors

Madeleine Mooney Matthew Shanley Michele Lim

MANUFACTURING COMMUNITIES: DESIGNING REAL PLACES A five-part series from the students of the MSA_Projects atelier at the Manchester School of Architecture, the final part being a special Housing edition.

MSA Prints

37

MSA Prints

Territory MSA Prints prESENTS

Excess * tHe special cHeetHam Hill issue *

includinG an interview witH

MSA Prints

ann tHorpe

presents

Manufacturing coMMunities: Designing real Places Part 3

|

CuraTINg SpaCE

|

a wasted space

arT aNd SpaTIal OWNErSHIp

101 ways to enGaGe

FrEE SpaCE

GloBalised consumerism

dO CITIZENS OWN THE CITY?

How do we address consumerism in modern society?

OpEN EvENTS

|

FrEE SpaCE

msa

NEIgHbOurHOOd pOTENTIal

bullETIN

prints

00

Citizens

* PRIORITIZING THE USERS *

INCLUDING AN INTERVIEW WITH

MSA Prints

LOUIS WOODHEAD

PRESENTS

MANUFACTURING COMMUNITIES: DESIGNING REAL PLACES PART 4

Grow your own

|

tesco town-ed

|

retHink

Housing+ * SPECIAL EDITION *

MSA Prints PRESENTS

BULLETIN THE GAME

FAVELA RISING HOUSING CRISIS

ENGAGING THE HOMELESS

LIFESTYLE + GENDER

PUBLIC / PRIVATE

SHOULD THE DESIGN PROCESS BEGIN WITH THE USERS? THE TRIAGE CENTRE

|

YOUTH WRECKREATION

|

THE COOP

RE- APPROPRIATION

PRAXIS | HOUSING | COMMUNITY | EVERYDAY | PARTICIPATION MSA Prints

1

MANUFACTURING COMMUNITIES: DESIGNING REAL PLACES A five-part series from the students of the MSA_Projects atelier at the Manchester School of Architecture, the final part being a special Housing edition.

38

MSA Prints