Architecture for Meaningful Impacts by thomasjenkins

Architecture For Meaningful Impacts

A case-based essay learning from the ideas, development, design interventions and impacts of emerging ‘system change’ initiatives. The report will demonstrate and substantiate why architecture should embrace, as a practice, profession and product, its primary responsibility being for the creation of public value and participation in innovative ‘system change’ approaches to co-produce initiatives alongside communities.

“This Study is presented to the Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Building at Coventry University as part of the BSc Architecture Course.”

Word Count (main body text only): 6551

This dissertation is just a snapshot of my enduring journey of discovery in this emerging social culture. I have chosen to focus this dissertation upon the celebration of the wonders of just a small selection of many emerging ‘system change’ projects of which I have been lucky enough to experience and witness in their attempts to make the world a better place, step by step.

I would like to say thanks to Architects ‘00’, the Social Spaces team, the Church Conservation Trust and everyone else for their willingness to give up their time from their busy schedules to talk to me, share with me some great ideas and to inspire my journey even more. I am so grateful! Thank you also to my close friends and family, especially Samantha Roberts who has been so supportive.

The front cover photo was sourced from the nspca. The front cover’s idea was inspired and borrowed from Cassie Robinson’s book ‘Hand Made: Social Potential’ which has influenced my thinking heavily throughout the process of writing this and to my general thinking.

Contents Summary: Introduction: Prologue 7 Architecture as ‘a matter of concern’ 8 System Change: Emerging evaluation and learning frameworks

Case studies: The Common Room, Norwich 13 Reusing a underused church as a shared-space for the community

Economic Viability 16 Live Prototyping 17 Meaningful Impacts 20 Singeldingen, Rotterdam 23 The Potential of place 23 Research Approach 23 The intervention 24 The Work Shop, Lambeth 27 Using a physical space as a collaborative platform for Collective Impact

Prinzessinnengartern, Berlin 32 Reuse of an urban wasteland 32 Engagement from the community 32 Lean interventions – discovering the potential of ‘temporary use’

Lessons Learnt:

Architecture as an agency, not a consultancy Beauty is in the system, not just the object

34 34

System change’, and architecture, is forever a learning process The development of a solution is non-linear, dynamic and innovative

36 36

Architecture + Community = Innovation 37

References:

List of Illustrations Figure 1. Participatory Action Research Iterative Cycle Figure 2. The Common Room Norwich ‘Prototype Day’ photo Figure 3. Collective Impact and Asset Transfer Figure 4. Isometric of The Common Room showing design interventions and space design Figure 5. Overview of the development of The Common Room Norwich Figure 6. Potential social impacts of The Common Room Norwich Figure 7. A summer’s day at Singeldingen Figure 8. Isometric of the Singeldingen Kiosk Figure 9. Photo of outside The Work Shop Figure 10. Isometric of The Work Room Figure 11. Prinzessinnengarten, a mobile urban garden Figure 12. Google search for ‘Architecture’... where are the inhabitants?

Summary: ‘Architecture for meaningful impacts’ explores the ideas, development, design and impacts of four trailblazing community-led projects in the quest to learn and demonstrate their ability in tackling complex social problems across communities and transforming place with little budgets. By showcasing the power of social potential and learning key lessons from each case-study the essay will conclude by substaniating and demonstrating why architecture as a profession should embrace its primary responsibility for the creation of public value and participate in innovative approaches to co-producing initiatives. The first chapter will firstly introduce the reader to emerging community-led ‘system change’ initiatives and suggestions as to why they have come about (‘prologue’ and ‘small things, little impacts’). The paper will then introduce theories from the field of architecture and sociology from minds such as Indy Johar, Alastair Parvin, Tatjana Schneider, Jeremy Tiiller, Bruno Latour, Michel Bauwens and Julien Gracq in order to critique architecture as a profession, practice and product. The introduction will finish by exploring the’ Emerging evaluation and learning frameworks’ that will be seen to be put into practice when studying the four case-studies. The second chapter will briefly explore four carefully selected case-studies. Through studying their ideas, development, design and impacts, we will learn key lessons that will be taken forward to the final chapter ‘Lessons learnt’. These lessons will be used as evidence of why architecture should re-evaluate its process, practice and product and embrace its primary responsibility for the creation of public value and participate in innovative approaches to co-producing initiatives alongside communities to create solutions with meaningful impacts.

Introduction Prologue Throughout Britain the last 20 years have seen cities, towns, and society as a whole, dramatically change away from industry and production towards consumerism and the rise of communicative technologies (Johar 2009: 1). In recent years however, uncertainty about the future of these new systems has grown, fed by the rise in unemployment and complex social issues such as personal isolation, personal violence, truancy, depression, inequality and crime. This has fed into an energy of possibility within our society that has influenced the increase in desire for civic participation aiding the emergence of the civic economy and social culture (Ahrensbach, Beunderman, and Johar. 2011: 1) In Gracq’s ‘The Shape of Cities’, there is a recurring tension between the idea that place is built of both a physical, more permanent system, and something more mutable which is ever-changing due to its relationship with its inhabitants and their rapidly-shifting trends and cultural perspectives (Gracq 2005 cited in Boyer and Hill 2013: 6). These two systems both move at different speeds. The permanent systems made of practices, municipalities, ministries and institutions move slowly as they tend to be shackled to the culture of ineffective, slow-moving, heavy-handed bureaucracy characteristic of 19th and 20th century systems (Boyer 2013: 10). The other dynamic system is made of the rapidly moving speed of its citizens, through the emergence of the ‘digital flaneur’, and their daily use of tools and media in a network culture (Boyer and Hill 2013: 6). This ineffective, slow moving bureaucracy is ever present in the traditional methods found in architecture practices, community building, the welfare system, local governance and many other top-down initiatives; disillusioned with these problems communities are increasingly taking on the roles of these out-dated systems, creating empowerment and a stronger sense of community. As Michel Bauwens has argued, a peer-driven society will not be ushered in by a violent Marxist revolution, but grow through infiltration into the existing frameworks via new tools and new modes of production. Bauwen’s argues that through the spread of a more humanistic, social culture the peer-driven society will develop incrementally, a position this report agrees with (Boyer and Hill 2013: 6). This social culture is emerging and has formed a new breed of community projects in which communities and individuals have begun to reflect on how to build more sustainable routes to shared prosperity (Ahrensbach, Beunderman, and Johar. 2011: 9)

This emergence of a social culture goes beyond corporate social responsibility (CSR) that aims to put social opportunities and ecological concerns at the core of operations, and comes in the form of a new breed of community projects have emerged in which communities and individuals have begun to reflect on how to build more sustainable routes to shared prosperity (Ahrensbach, Beunderman, and Johar. 2011: 11). These locally driven initiatives re-shape local places and reform the existing images of ‘community’, as well as creating new opportunities for the people who engage with them (Britton 2010: 7). Through their fruitful ideas, research approach and resourceful, strategic and social thinking, these projects have bypassed many of the complex issues and stumbling blocks of traditional community projects such as exclusivity, boredom and bureaucracy that many project faces and subsequently these projects have far greater localised, social impacts (Britton 2010: 7). Throughout this report we will refer to emergent community-led projects as ‘system change’ projects, primarily for their adaptation of emerging evaluation and learning frameworks.

Architecture as a matter of concern, not a matter of fact Borrowing the ideas from Bruno Latour’s essay, “Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern” (2003), and applying his argument of critical attention to the subject of architecture offers an intriguing constructivist view on architectures behavior and modes of making (Latour 1993). In Bruno Latour’s terms, critical attention is shifted from architecture, as a discipline, from a matter of fact to a matter of concern (Awan, N. Schneider, T. and Till, J. 2011: 32). Architecture as a matter of fact can be seen as buildings being subjected to rules and methods and can be treated as objects without site-specific qualities. Architecture as a matter of concern, in Latour’s theory, would establish Architecture as a discipline which is deeply interwined with socially embedded networks in which their systems are ever changing and more volatile. This means that architecture, as a profession, practice and product is exposed to the contingency of the outside world and where the stability of architecture’s knowledge base is put into real life. As a result this rather static knowledge base goes awry as the universalised nature of the knowledge base cannot cope with the particulars of the real world (Awan, N. Schneider, T. and Till, J. 2011: 32) (Architecture + Philosophy research seminar 2013). In an attempt to control these uncontrollable aspects, the RIBA generated a linear sequence exemplified in the RIBA plan of work and even though this work is progressive, it still fails to see what architects also do (Till 2009: 2).

System change: Emerging evaluation and learning frameworks These emerging community projects are more than just meets the eye and can be seen as tangible examples of architecture as a ‘matter of concern’ as behaviors and models that are wholly embedded in social networks. These ‘system change’ initiatives flourishes in complex social networks as the frameworks utilises lots of people to pool knowledge, experience and ideas, in order to effect change which is meaningful and incredibly impactful on local communities. Referring back to Gracq’s suggestion on place, these initiatives and their systemic frameworks connect themselves directly with citizens which puts these ‘system change’ projects in the fast lane, alongside the rapidly moving system of it’s citizens; leaving ineffective, slow-moving, heavy-handed bureaucracy characteristic of 19th and 20th century systems behind (Boyer and Hill 2013: 6). These ‘system change’ projects succeed in being socially embedded and important within emergent community projects as they all adopt, in some way or the other, emergent evaluation and learning systems which are non-linear, dynamic and innovative (Billings 2014). These systems can be built of many emerging models which include Participatory Action Research (PAR), the Theory of Change, Live-Prototyping and Collective Impact (Civic Systems Lab 2014). All these models more or less support each other and within a community project they usually result in the adoption of certain characteristics from all of the models to suit their approach, formally or informally. The significance of these models are imperative as they create the process, the ‘doing’, to every decision made in these community-led projects. Theory of Change The Theory of Change is a powerful tool for developing solutions to complex social problems (Taplin and Clark 2012). At its most basic, the Theory of Change plans and breaks down the development of a community change initiative into small steps. Through studying, analysing and evaluating each outcome, from the early stages to the final stages of a project, it is possible to measure the success of a project and its progress in achieving its long-term goal (Anderson 2005: 1). As a project design tool, The Theory of Change can be developed to produce impactful solutions in unique, dynamic social contexts, producing solutions which are specific and unique to the context in which they are developed (Britton 2013: 8).

Live-prototyping Live Prototyping is a Research & Development (R&D) process in which a project is developed in a live setting, where ideas can be tested quickly and cheaply by local people (Hollingworth 2012: 15). The process enables the rapid iteration of ideas and concepts ensuring that they can be developed and assessed eliminating problems and making sure the ideas and concepts are meaningful and would be successful once implemented (thinkpublic 2013). Collective Impact In short, collective impact is a group of people from a series of different backgrounds coming together, under a common agenda, to solve a complex social problem or create a long-term goal (Kania and Kramer 2011). Collective Impact exceeds the social sectors and the architectural practice’s traditional approach, whereby it is presumed that problems can be solved by a single group of expertise (Civic Systems Lab 2014). Instead, Collective Impact works under the assumption that no single organisation can create large-scale, long lasting social change alone, that it requires a collaboration of different stakeholders with different assets. For Collective Impact can generate meaningful results however it’s success relies on several conditions. Firstly, all participants must share a common agenda. Secondly, recording and evaluating preconditions and feedback continuously is key to learn from results. Third, constant communication and dialogue between all participants is key, and fourth, a core governing team must exist who form a ‘back-bone’ to the project (FSG 2014). Participatory Action Research (PAR) Participatory Action Research (PAR) is defined by Cohen and Manion as “a small-scale intervention in the functioning of the real world and a close examination of the effects of such an intervention” (Cohen and Manion 1994 cited in Britton 2013: 7). PAR, is a simple but very powerful framework which involves three steps; look, think, act. Reflect

Reflect

Act

Look

Think

Act

Look

Think

Reflect

Act

Look

Think

Figure 1. Participatory Action Research Iterative Cycle

Through the iteration of the PAR cycle, shown at its most basic in figure 1, initiatives can begin to investigate, discover, analyse and evaluate problems and find effective localised solutions to specific complex problems. Whilst traditional approaches focus upon post-evaluating problems and looking for general explanations that can be applied to any context often overlook issues that PAR can allow projects to overcome throughout the process of project-building (Britton 2013: 7). PAR is only successful when it involves many stakeholders, especially locally people as they often have great knowledge and experience of place. Understanding that â&#x20AC;&#x153;all problems are local, all solutions are localâ&#x20AC;? it is clear a problem can be best solved by local people who are fully aware and witness these problems everyday as they therefore have a better knowledge of them. As such participation with local people to solve problems can lead to meaningful solutions to localised problems (Sinclair 2006).

Figure 2. The Common Room Norwich ‘Prototype Day’ photo (Pattern Which Connects 2012)

Case-studies: The Common Room Norwich Nestled in the medieval fabric of Norwich lies St. Lawrence Church, a 15th century church with a 21st century purpose. Its purpose is as a shared and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;commonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; space for the local community to bring the beautiful St. Lawrence church back into re-use, reactivating a previously latent and underused asset. Through a trailblazing initiative the shared-space acts as a common space for local enterprise and communities where knowledge, skills and resources can collaborate to produce a place which emits a rich social value evolving the town-center around it. By weaving new networks, giving the people of Norwich a platform to contribute to their community and express their own ideas through participation in member-led activities, the church offers an engine-house for social and economic impacts built upon the power of dialogue, creativity and innovation (Hollingworth 2012: 12). - large open space - high ceiling - beautiful building with great heritage - proximity to high-street

LOCAL PEOPLE - enthusiasm - fresh / great ideas - knowledge/experience on area - networks to local communities - transferring individual/group assets

- experience with over 80 communities across UK - professional knowledge on community & enterprise development - undertaken wider research - clear vision on what could be achieved - enthusiasm

- manpower - enthusiasm once built - lots of individual skills, knowledge and experience - support through materials (offer second-hand chairs or money) - ideas relevent to communities demands

- knowledge on churches & heritage - experience with working with communities to bring places back to life - passion to make the church a centre to the community again

FOUNDING/ORGANISING GROUP

ARCHITECTS + SOCIAL SCIENTIST

CO-PRODUCER

Figure 3. Collective Impact and Asset Transfer 13

Activities and interventions 1. Entrance 2. Stores 3. ‘Free’ space (dance, yoga, dinners etc) 4. Tidy making (sewing, cutting sticking) 5. Messy making (woodwork, saws) 6. Stage 7. Living room (wiﬁ, relaxing, chatting) 8. Green house (classrooms, workshops, meetings) 9. Darker area for projector 10. Garden boxes

3 2

Figure 4. Isometric of The Common Room showing design interventions and space design

7 IER

S ES

6 E , ER CTIV D L A CO RE IER D O I T M

10 1

, ER EA M R AR WA ING LIV

Reusing an underused church, creating a shared-space for the community Previous research conducted across the UK by Architect’s 00 and Social Spaces, found that there is an increasing desire across many communities for more ‘common’ spaces; this increasing desire coming from the emergence of a new social culture, and civic economy and transition movement in Norwich which has promoted the desire for local resilience (Hollingworth 2012: 7). The St. Lawrence church in Norwich can be seen to contain massive potential for hosting this new type of social infrastructure for two main reasons (Hollingworth 2012: 1). Firstly its central location within the city high-street offers the opportunity for it to become a hub, and common space, in which several communities can connect (Hollingworth 2012: 1). Secondly, the structure and typology of the medieval church offers high ceilings, large doors and good sized open spaces which offer the potential for a large array of activities and the multiple use of space. Previous to its use by The Common Room, St. Lawrence was underused and becoming increasingly run-down from the lack of maintenance; due in part to the decrease of weekly-church goers in the UK since the 1950s, similar to many other Churches across the UK. It should be understood that the church, for centuries in British society, has been a central gathering space for communities and since the rise of secularism communities have not replaced this ‘common’ community space. The Common Room provides an opportunity for St Lawrence and for other church spaces that are underused across the UK to serve the community once again as a ‘common’ space. Economic viability and Lean start up Being based in a medieval church could be seen as a great financial burden and therefore too expensive for such a community space to occur. To create a sustainable and viable project, a financial and funding model was produced which could achieve the long-term objectives of all the stake-holders, including the Church Conversation Trust (Hollingworth 2012: 38). This model was based on the co-producers helping fund the project directly, whilst founders and members would crowd-source and seek donations for upkeep of the church. Furthermore, with many people come many networks of many third-party organisations, especially from the Church Conservation Trust, who can help fund the project (The Common Room NR 2013: 18). The long-term goal of The Common Room is to provide a space and community-asset that is resilient and economically viable. In the early stages of development, Architect’s 00 and Social Spaces saw that a lean start-up was required where modest interventions were added. These modest interventions included second-hand furniture donated by the local community and cheap installations such as interior Green House which can provide a warm space for the church without expensive new installations like new central heating. In later development it was proposed that these lean interventions could be transformed if required, into more permanent elements such as a fully-fitted kitchen and perhaps new heating systems.

Live prototyping a physical space The Common Room was produced through an innovative strategy formed by [the collaboration of] 00, Social Spaces and the Church Conservation Trust. This strategy was built upon the approach of live-prototyping in a live context whereby The Common Room, within the space of St Lawrence would become a prototype for a newly proposed shared-space for the community. As this was an emergent concept it was required that the process of live-prototyping was imperative as ideas would need to be simultaneously tested whilst involving the surrounding community (Hollingworth 2012: 15). This produced a strategy of ‘doing’ whereby the social scientists and architects were effectively co-producing the space, injecting knowledge and constantly engaging with the community. This strategy by the co-producers created a unique proposal in which their assets, shown in figure 4, and the assets of the local community combined to produce a powerful initiative adopting the ideals of ‘collevtive impact’ to produce a model which exceeds the traditional models of community-projects which can often ignore community demands and problems. Broadly studying, step-by-step, the development of The Common Room Before undertaking the project, 00 and Social Spaces researched deep in the fabric of the place (Norwich) and critically tested if such a space as they proposed was needed or even wanted by the people. They built upon their findings to produce something meaningful for the community (Hollingworth 2012: 5). Usually decision-making processes are top-down and decided by the client, developer or architect who often has little knowledge of the place itself and the existing social problems and desires of the people who inhabit it. By asking questions and listening to the answers it’s possible to create a real grassroots projects where community needs are weighed before pursuing further development (Anderson 2005: 7). Through 00 and Social Spaces collaboration with the Church Conservation Trust, permission to temporarily use the church was offered to the co-producers, the co-founding group and partnerships, meaning that even before physical investment had taken place they were able to test the proposition and see its viability. Through the initial design stage, and prior to the official launch of The Common Room, ‘Prototype Day’, 00 and Social Spaces began creating a founding team of local people who could inject local knowledge, enthusiasm, fresh ideas and provide the project team with new networks (found in figure 3). This early participation of local people meant that all solutions and space design could be relevant, specific and meaningful to the local context.

networking and engage local people

is there need for such a space in Norwich?

research

What is the potential of such a space?

CONCEPT DESIGN

Who would use it?

generate new ideas

PROTOTYPE DAY

spread idea through flyers and word of mouth

desk-study

goo attend abou people dur Prototy + 60 peop feedb

design spaces

site visit

what similar spaces already exist in Norwich?

form team of founding members

discu eval feed

Figure 5. Overview of the development of The Common Room Norwich

greenhouse for warm activity space

space opened for 3 days a week

MAKE DAY

protocols developed

further design to cater new activities

increased attachment to place and members build long term ethusiasm

uss and luate dback

impact on physical fabric

increase in confidence in members increases overall participation

activities grow and projects develop

toilet facilities

permenant, long-term furniture and equiptment

impact on equality impact on communito cohesion

FUTURE....

begin membership strategy

nsurance

kitchen

lean start-up for furniture and equiptment

set up website

od dance ut 200 visited ring ype day + ple left back

mobile kitchen

long term goal to provide a shared space which has a meaningful impact on the local place and community

impact on social capital impact on economic regeneration employment

set up intermediate governance

contracts

form cooperative

“Prototype Day” was an indicator to how successful The Common Room Norwich could be. If attendance and interest was low the development of this space would have ended however, as attendance and interest was high and the feedback gained from the event helped the next stage of development. This moved the space forward into the “Live Prototyping” stage whereby the space was opened three days a week for bookings. In community projects, people’s engagement and enthusiasm can make or break a project so for a community-led initiative the attendance and enthusiasm from local people was seen as an imperative indicator to whether the long-term goal could be achieved. The long-term goal for The Common Room was for the space of St Lawrence to reach its greatest potential and generate social value through providing a shared-space in which local people can make their ideas real and run their own activities without traditional bureaucracy slowing the process down or even becoming a ‘mental block’. However for such a space to work, it necessitates community involvement with the space to ensure an ever-growing, enthusiasm, engagement and attachment to St. Lawrence. To achieve this, 00 and Social Spaces devised a membership strategy. This membership strategy was built upon the natural, incremental development of an individual’s enthusiasm aiming to maintain enthusiasm and engagement for the long-term. Meaningful Impacts Through its ideas, participatory strategy and interventions, The Common Room has the potential to create a platform and become a catalyst social change for the community (Hollingworth 2012). Utilising a shared-place, the community-led projects and activities that occur inside bring about that change. As such it may create solutions for many deep rooted social problems that perhaps other interventions, even those with bigger budgets, couldn’t. Figure 6, displays some perceived activities of The Common Room and how this broad array of community-led activities and projects can transform Norwich as a place to produce meaningful impacts and change in the local community. Many of these impacts come from very natural and very simple forms of relationships which are created in The Common Room, for example, by creating different opportunities for people to meet and share ideas you can form new social networks which then builds upon the social cohesion and social capital of place. If two people meet and they perhaps live on the same road they could begin to form a friendship which would then create a natural form of ‘neighborhood watch’ resulting in potential decrease in crime. This is just one example of an endless number of simple

Figure 6. Potential social impacts of The Common Room Norwich

MAKING

OUTDOOR

LEARNING

HEALTH

SOCIAL

ENTERPRISE

Hacker space Repair/reuse workshop Bike maintenance workshop Painting workshop / classes Menâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s makerspace / workshop School holiday workshop for art & craft Knitting and weaving workshops Heritage skills training workshops (wood carving/stonework)

Permaculture classes Vertical gardening Gardening classes

Trade school - barter for knowledge/skills Book club Crowd-sourced library Education sharing for home schooling Language classes Guest speakers History appreciation / bell tower tour Writing classes Student study area

Yoga classes Self-defence classes Dance club Dance evenings for retired Ping Pong club Hula hooping / phusical activity / community gym Nutritious food cooking class Baby food cooking class

Community cinema (bring your own popcorn) Creche space / playspace Community meeting space Social and work area for creative (music/art discussions) Dinner parties Exhibition space (I.E. community fashion show) Community incubator for changemakers/community officers Free wifi / internert cafe Project incubation

Shop selling products made by users Meeting space for local shop owners Open trading space Local freecycle exchange centre Jobs club (meeting for unemployed) Incubator for start-up business hot-desking

Impact to employment: Opportunities to re-enter employment Part-time opportunities in community building Learn new skills to improve employability

Impact in knowledge: Out-of-school learning Less truancy Alternative skills available Knowledge available to anyone

Impact to physical fabric / heritage apprasial: Revival in traditional craft Learn how to remove potholes

Impact in Equality: Learn about cultures / world problems Learn new languages (Polish?) Free internet for anyone New resources/tools for anyone

Impact in Social capital: New social networks New places of belonging

Improvement in environment and recycling: Upcycling goods Learning how to repair goods

Impact on safety of place: Sharing mobiles (new neighbourhood watch) Closer-kmit communities

Impact on Health: Learning how to cook nutritious food at home Growing natural food (vegetables) at home

Impact on Well-being: More active from activity groups New sport hobbies New gardening hobby

Improvement in Social Cohesion: New social networks New economic networks New knowledge networks

Impact on local/social enterprise: provides new services to area Locally based prosperity

Improvement in traditional economic prosperity: New potential customers Increased profits

but impactful scenarios.

Figure 7. A summerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s day at Singeldingen (Roza 2014)

Singeldingen, Rotterdam Running along the Heemraadsingel canal in the vibrant Heemraadpark, communities from the surrounding Neighborhoods come out and the choreography of human connection is acted out long into the summer evenings. Before all this, Heemraadpark was a typical Rotterdam park conforming to the governmental ideals of a clean, intact and safe city. As such Heemraadpark was surrounded by high steel fences and large overgrown grassy areas (Hillen 2010: 2). However this all changed when three local residents from the surrounding neighborhoods of Middelland and the Nieuwe Westen, saw the potential of the park. These three citizens with different interests and assets came together to create a lean and simple idea that had a profound effect in transforming the park, the neighborhood and the community (Hillen 2010: 3). The potential of place The idea sprouted from the coming together of three local residents of the Delfshaven neighborhood who saw a great potential in the park. The first recognised the parks central location surrounded by neighborhoods and saw that it would make a nice meeting place (Hillen 2010: 2). The second resident wanted the park to be a place of relaxing and fun where the large grass areas were not overgrown but accessible; furthermore she realised that the park lacked any amenities such as food, drink and toilet facilities meaning the park was only able to be used for short visits (Hillen 2010: 2). The third resident was keen to start a cafĂŠ in the neighborhood and had a strong interest in re-earthing the old character of Rotterdam and Delfshaven which flourished during the 19th century. Within the meetings of these three local change-makers it wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t just the physical potential that inspired them, it was the neighborhood and its people as well. They saw the social dimension to the neighborhood surrounding the park that traditional developers would never have noticed, giving the project the power to make Singeldingen something beautiful. Research Approach: From the ideas of these three local people a seed was sown which through the latter engagement and enthusiasm of people of neighborhood, sprouted and grew into something beautiful, where the potential of the park was unlocked. In a well-orchestrated grassroots fashion this high-quality project transformed the park and positively impacted the surrounding neighborhood. The long-term goal for the Singeldingen project was to provide a summer program which would bring the park to life, but also transform the place so that throughout the year it could be a meeting point for the surrounding community of Delfshaven.

Borrowing some key ideas of “Live Prototyping”, the Singeldingen project undertook six week trial period to measure its success. The success was measured using the most important kernel to any community project, attendance, enthusiasm and engagement from the community. The creation of a blog for the local community to offer feedback and ideas on a constant basis was made and this soon developed into a fully curated, high-quality, website. After a successful first season the voluntary organising team that had started with the pioneers who began the project, grew. This increase in size of the organising team allowed Singeldingen to come back the next summer and provide a summer long program. This longer program meant that more activities could occur, more friendships could be made and more enthusiasm and engagement could be built. During the second season better amenities were introduced in the form of a new kiosk to serve food and drink. The kiosk was of a bespoke design tailored to the exact ethos and goal of the Singeldingen project, which aimed only ever to be a small, simple but high-quality project for the local community of Delfshaven. The third season saw the inclusion of a temporary toilet. The inclusion of toilet facilities and a food and drink kiosk now made the park a place in which people could stay for a longer time transforming the park as a place and also providing more potential to the project as activities could run on for longer. The intervention The intervention as a whole was very modest – Beginning with an old converted food cart and a weekly program events (Hillen 2010: 3). However after the first season the organisational team saw the need for a unique, good quality, but small, versatile intervention with the ability to be removed during the winter months. The team contacted SUBoffice Architects who designed a compact square pavilion that could open up on both sides transforming into a distinctive T-shape, making the kiosk large and visible when open and less so when closed during the night (Hillen 2010: 5). To be a valuable addition to space and depart from the image that community projects are often ‘scrappy’ and of a ‘low quality’, the kiosk was designed to be an elegant piece of street furniture built of robust steel and timber. A decorative pattern was made on the steel openings where the pattern reflected an art-nouveau influence which is found across Heemraadsingel in iconic locations such as a nearby bridge over the Heemraadsingel canal in the Delfshaven neighborhood (Hillen 2010: 5). During the night, when the kiosk is closed and secure, light emanates through cut-patterns in the steel forming a lantern which releases auras of patterned light celebrating heritage and place.

Figure 8. Isometric of the Singeldingen Kiosk

Figure 9. Photo of outside The Work Shop (Lambeth Council 2012)

The Work Shop, Lambeth In Britain local governance and councils are shackled to the culture of ineffective, slow-moving, heavy-handed bureaucracy found with 19th and 20th century systems. These systems are based on linear systems of consultation and decision making where the innovating and ideas only come from the desks of chief executives. This has made councils ineffective in solving complex social problems in their local areas (Britton 2013: 5). Through the recent deep budget cuts to local councils, there has been increasing pressure for councils to achieve a high level of service provision with a smaller budget (NESTA 2010: 3). In response to the pressures of budget cuts Lambeth Council has re-branded itself as the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Cooperative Councilâ&#x20AC;? with their focus now shifted onto collaboration and empowerment. This has resulted in the development of new systems, activities and behaviors, which work to create a platform for dialogue between the council and local people (Britton 2013: 4). The difficulties of innovation within local government are well-known however, this project, proves that innovation can occur in Local Government with small budgets through modest interventions that can generate huge impacts (NESTA 2010: 4). Using a physical space as a collaborative platform for Collective Impact For dialogue to occur between both council and local communities, it was proposed that the Workshop Project would be based in a vacant corner-shop on the high street of West Norwood (Britton 2013: 10). Having this exciting space on the high street ensured the space was highly accessible, conveniently located and exposed to the public utilising large shop windows and doors that open straight onto the street. One reason to have a physical space, not a virtual space that many agencies use these days to connect with local people can be justified through numerous pieces of research. A study by Owen-Smith et al 2012, found that researchers who occupy the same building as one another are 33% more likely to form new collaborations than researchers who occupy different buildings. Furthermore, researchers who share the same floor are 57% more likely to form new collaborations than researchers in different buildings (Owen-Smith 2012). A further study by Kyungjoon et al 2010, supported the idea that despite the rise and advance in technologies for communication, human-to-human and physical proximity in space creates far better conditions for collaboration (Kyungjoon 2010). These studies support the idea that providing an accessible space in which face-to-face communication can occur is better at generating dialogue, therefore using physical space as a collaborative platform is of far greater value than using virtual platforms (Britton 2013: 10).

Activities & interventions 1. highly visible corner shop 2. large shop-front windows 3. large windows with vinyl impact writing 4. black-board with days programme written on 5. mapping spaces 6. mapping existing activity 7. mapping collaboration 8. conversation and cups of tea 9. sharing ideas 10. program of talks 11. exhibition

Figure 10. Isometric of The Work Room 28

This research however is not just limited or appropriate to this project, it supports the idea that physical platforms can lead to meaningful levels of collaboration and dialogue for communities and organisations and this research and findings here can be applied to other projects which look to provide spaces in which collaboration occurs. In-store interventions The Work Shop and it’s instore interventions, were generated through a process of ‘rapid prototyping’ which borrowed thinking from product design and applied it to a social environment and captured the culture of ‘cooperative thinking’ within a physical space. Having large windows on both sides of the corner-shop that were covered by large vinyl’s to draw attention and clearly communicate the purpose of the project. A blackboard was also put outside the front door to introduce visitors and walkers-by what was happening in the shop. This level of transparency and openness was meant to surprise and shift expectations of what characterises ‘council’ (Britton 2013: 14). Inside the bright and welcoming shop, a number of interactive installations which had different tasks in achieving the goal of the project were installed in the hope of creating a dialogue between both local people and their council. Inside the store spaces for exhibitions were set up. In the light of many other projects, the co-producers used the exhibition spaces for many of the starting weeks as a showcase of inspiring projects across the world to excite and generate enthusiasm from its visitors. As part of the process of creating collaboration between council and local people an installation to ‘map existing activity’ encouraged visitors to think how their existing activities helped contribute to the community. This activity helped surface and promote the amount of existing activity and to inspire other local people as well as the council about the potential of the neighborhood (Britton 2013: 16). Other activities included the mapping of spaces and organisations that already exist. By the council becoming aware of spaces and existing organisations that work with the community the chances for collaboration or the future appropriation of underused spaces can be carried out alongside local people (Britton 2013: 16).

Figure 11. Prinzessinnengarten, a mobile urban garden (Nagal and Weber-Newth 2012)

Prinzessinnengarten, Berlin Francesca Weber-Newth believes that Berlin is a place that is home of many urban grassroots movements, from squatting to gardening collectives (Community Lovers Guide 2014). Berlin is a city where human informalities such as graffiti are treated like public art and the ethos of Berliners encapulates a high-level of tolerance for new ideas generated from the cities past experiences of war and segregation, meaning that as a place it is tolerant to unusual ideas (Bell and De-Shalit 2011: 191). Prinzessinnengartern, a self-organised urban garden, is just one example of these grassroots projects that are thriving in the urban landscape of Berlin. The reuse of an urban wasteland In 2009, learning from projects such as ‘agricultra urbana’ in Cuba, a couple began a project to transform an urban wasteland in Moritzplatz, an intersection in the borough of Kreuzberg (Nagal and Weber-Newth 2012: 20). Learning from ‘agricultra urbana’ in Cuba, where growing food in the city offered a solution to increasing food shortages which in turn built resilience within the city, the program was then proposed in Berlin, where, food shortage was not the issue but desire for such a project was nonetheless existent. From this the project was born, grown from the project’s potential to add value to the city challenging the problems of tomorrow, and the rethinking beyond the neo-liberal agenda of modernisation and privatisation. Moreover pursuing this project allowed Berliners to seek satisfaction from building cohesion and connectivity with their city in a far greater and more natural way to any neo-liberal projects could provide. The purpose of this project was to create a space for learning, relaxing and space to celebrate social diversity and social potential of Berlin (Nagal and Weber-Newth 2012: 20).

Engagement from the people An ethos of a city can go a long way in creating enthusiasm and engagement for a self-organised space. From the beginning hundreds if not thousands of people came together and helped develop the idea. Through engagement and people’s investment of their time, passions, experiences, as well as hard-work, the idea came to life, transforming the former wasteland at Moritzplatz into an urban garden (Nagal and Weber-Newth 2012: 20).

Lean interventions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; discovering the potential of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;temporary useâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; As the urban garden was situated in the Moritzplatz, a central crossroad of the city, there was always the chance of the land being given up to investors therefore the model of a mobile urban garden made a feasible solution for the long-term existence of the project (Nagal and Weber-Newth 2012: 21). A simple, very lean, intervention was thought of to make this a mobile urban garden. All the plants were grown in crates that were originally used for industrial food production, the interior spaces were housed in shipping containers and the potatoes and tomatoes were grown in sacks (Nagal and Weber-Newth 2012: 21).

Lessons learnt: To conclude we will use the lessons learnt in the four selected case-studies to help substantiate why architecture should embrace its primary responsibility for the creation of public value and participate in innovative approaches to co-producing initiatives alongside communities, focusing upon the case studies which provide interesting evidence of architectural reevaluating its process, practice and product (Johar 2009: 5). We should understand that architecture as a subject is contingent and deeply layered, making it very hard to distinguish; therefore we can only pick at a few points and not provide a holistic approach to a critique. Architecture as an agency, not a consultancy Buildings and even homes have become consumer products, classed as assets whereby they are treated as transferable places for wealth storage. Unfortunately, architects in general, have done little to help this situation and have in many ways, directly or indirectly, contributed in inflating these assets which subsequently has made big incomes for architectural practices (Johar 2009: 1). This has in turn transformed architects into a consultant as opposed to a professional, or agent. Consultants can be defined as a subordinate to market and state behavior, whereby profits and economic efficiency is seen as top priority. Professionals on the other hand are effectively there to look after public value; architects should be more than both of these (Johar 2009: 1). Agency on the other hand, highlighted recently in the ‘Spatial Agency’ project led by Nishat Awan, Tatjana Schneider and Jeremy Till, is a concept that sees Architecture as a discipline that is inherently political and therefore immanently critical. Architecture as an agency is seen to be involved, critically, in the social, economic and political formations of society in order to engage and help provide meaningful impacts (Schneider 2009: 2). Furthermore, engaging with social formations of place through co-producing, side-by-side, through a strategy of ‘doing’ can unlock the social potential of place. As we have seen so well in all the projects, especially Singeldingen, we can see the importance of people in making and unlocking the full potential of place. This can help substantiate the point that people are ones who offer solutions and relationships and at the end of day that’s all there is (Robinson 2010: 1) Beauty is in the system, not just the object Michael Hansmeyer once suggested “There are unseen objects that await us, if we as architects begin to think about designing not the object, but a process to generate objects.” (Hansmeyer

2012). Even though Hansmeyer was discussing his computer-numerical production of form when he said this, we can borrow his thinking and apply it to addressing the significance of ‘emergent evaluation and learning systems’ in the production of tangible solutions. In all the case studies we have explored, the research and their participatory processes lead to the production of their design solutions. Most interesting is Prinzessinnengartern. The informal outcome may not be aesthetically beautiful as in the other case studies; however it holds a beauty and fascination in the form of its social relations and its social impacts on the city. For too long, architects have prioritised the production of static objects dominated by style, form and technique, promoted through systems of accepted codes, set about by the RIBA in a ploy to decide what is good and what is bad through the media (Awan, N. Schneider, T. and Till, J. 2011: 32) (Till 2009: 2). This subsequently ends in narrow minded and limited thinking which has ignored architecture as a contingent discipline and its role, as an agency, to embrace its roles in social, political and socio-economic development. This prioritisation on style and form is evident when searching the Internet for ‘architecture’. The results suggest an obsession with form, beauty and cleanliness, none of the images contain people or any inhabitation, and the place of the buildings is indistinguishable. Jonathan Charley suggests this focus merely contributes to the edifice of capitalism and does little to contribute to real people, or help solve ominous issues even developed countries such as Britain suffer from (Conisbee et al. 2005 cited in Ahrensbach, Beunderman, and Johar. 2011) (Johar 2009: 2).

Figure 12. Google search for ‘Architecture’... where are the inhabitants?

System change, and architecture, is forever a learning process Louis Kahn once stated ‘a good question is always greater than the most brilliant answer’. This statement suggests that instead of prioritizing the final output (the building), architects should focus upon the process where real value and meaning is found. These projects support this as their process, in which the design is just a precondition of trying to achieve a final goal (Harriss 2009: 4). Through asking questions and developing a project incrementally which we have seen in The Common Room through its development (chapter ‘Live Prototyping’) and its particular use of PAR, we can learn from these projects and through that gather meaningful experience and knowledge which could, in some of the other situation, be applied in other system change projects. Too often architects seek an answer through a ‘matter of fact’ approach, where maybe information is learnt on building technologies and the art of form, but these answers lack meaning. As discussed, treating architecture as a contingent discipline and through the adoption of a ‘matter of concern’’ approach, we can learn far greater things (Till 2007) (Awan, Schneider. and Till, 2011). Furthermore, Collective Impact, as a model, displays the power of asking questions and working as a collective of people to solve problems. In the Work Shop, we see a tangible example of a space which provides the platform for collective thinking and impacts to solve some of the biggest questions we have today as a society in Britain. The development of a solution is non-linear, dynamic and innovative As have mentioned in the introducing chapter of ‘Architecture as a matter of concern’; When faced with the contingency of the outside world architects get a bit nervous as the stability of architecture’s knowledge base is put into real life and goes awry as the universalised nature of the knowledge base cannot cope with the particulars of the real world (Till 2007: 120). In attempt to control these uncontrollable aspects, the RIBA generated a linear sequence exemplified in the RIBA plan of work and even though this work in its own right is progressive it fails to see what architects also do (Till 2009: 2). The projects we have discussed operate well beyond the limits and limitations of the RIBA plan of work and are constructed through a system which is non-linear where the dynamism and unpredictability of the outside world is seen as good. Working in a system with a lot of people it opens up opportunities to pool knowledge, experience and ideas in order to effect meaningful change (Billings 2014). Working in this emergent way to design new change processes means that the necessary functions of the designer (architect) and developmental evaluator are naturally complementary and intertwined (Billings 2014).

Architecture + Community = Innovation In conclusion, the word â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; for too long has been misunderstood and even seen by architects, and other traditional bureaucratic practices and systems, as anti-architecture, or anti-system however; I believe, on the basis of the above argument, that this statement is wrong (Comerio 2014). Architecture is a contingent discipline and through re-evaluating its role within society, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s possible to depart from the primary focus on producing buildings that do merely more than contribute to the edifice of capitalism and an ineffective, out-of-date bureaucratic system (Charley 2013: 4) Instead architecture can embrace its role for its primary responsibility for the creation of public value and can participate in innovative approaches to co-producing initiatives alongside communities, and in so doing, create architecture with meaningful impacts.

References Ahrensbach, Beunderman, and Johar. (2011) Compendium for the Civic Economy. London. 00:/ Anderson, A. (2005) ‘The Community Builder’s Approach to Theory of Change. A practical guide to theory development’. New York. Aspen Institute Architecture + Philosophy research seminar (2013) Matters of Fact vs. Matters of Concern in relation to Biopolitics/Biopower. [online] available from http://philosophiesresarc.net/2013/03/11/ matters-of-fact-vs-matters-of-concern-in-relation-to-biopoliticsbiopower/ [7 February 2013] Awan, N. Schneider, T. and Till, J. (2011) Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture. London. Routledge: Chapman & Hall Bell, D. and De-Shalit, A. (2011) The Spirits of Cities: ‘Why the Identity of a City Matters in a Global Age’. Princeton: Princeton University Press Billings, L. (2014) Next generation evaluation in system change processes. [13 January 2014] available from <http://www.civicsystemslab.org/field-notes/> [6 February 2014] Boyer, B. and Hill, D. (2013) Brickstater. Helsinki: Sitra Britton, T. (2010) Handmade. Portraits of emergent new community culture. Learn Share Make. Unpublished booklet. London: Social Spaces Britton, T. (2013) The Work Shop Project Report #01 London: Lambeth Council Civic Systems Lab (2014) Learning and Evaluation [online] available from http://www.civicsystemslab.org/evaluation/ [20 March 2014] Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1994) Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge Comerio, M. (2014) ‘Design and Empowerment: 20 Years of Community Architecture [online] 13 (1), 15-28. Available from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23286240 [23 February 2014] Community Lovers Guide (2014) ‘Editors’ [online] available from http://www.communityloversguide.org/#!services1/c1qwx [14 March 2014]

Conisbee, M. et al. (2005) ‘Clone Town Britain. The Loss of Local Identity on the Nation’s High Streets’. London: New Economics Foundation FSG (2014) Our Approach: ‘What is collective Impact’ [online] available from http://www.fsg.org/ OurApproach/WhatIsCollectiveImpact.aspx [3 March 2014] Gracq, J. and Kohn, I. (2005) The Shape of a City. New York: Turtle Point Press Hansmeyer, M. (2006) [online] TED. June 2012, 11:07. Available from http://www.ted.com/talks/ michael_hansmeyer_building_unimaginable_shapes [12 December 2013] Harriss, H. (2009) RIBA Research Synopsis 2009: Change Practices. ‘The taxonomy and transposition of architectural knowledge’. No. 08. London: RIBA Hillen, M. (2010) Handmade. Portraits of emergent new community culture. Singeldingen Coming together and relaxing in the green heart of Delshaven. Unpublished booklet. London: Social Spaces Hollingworth, S. (2012) ‘St Laurance The Common Room Prototype. Findings Report’. Unpublished. London: 00:/ Social Spaces Johar, I. (2009) RIBA Research Synopsis 2009: Change Practices.Community generative urbanism – opportunities and limits. No. 14. London: RIBA Kyungjoon et al. (2010) Close proximity leads to better science’. Journal of PLoS ONE December 15 issue Lambeth Council (2012) ‘Cooperative toolkit. The Work Shop - from pop up council to coop council’. [online] available from http://cooperativecounciltoolkit.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/the-workshop-from-pop-up-council-to-coop-council/ [21 April 2014] Latour, B. (2003) “Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. Chicago: The University of Chicago Nagal, I. and Weber-Newth, F. (2012) ‘Community Lover’s Guide to Berlin’. London: Community Lovers Guide NESTA. (2010) ‘Small is Beautiful. Innovation from the frontline of local government’. London: NESTA

Owen-Smith, J. et al. (2012) ‘Zone Overlap and Collaboration in Academic Biomedicine: A Functional Proximity Approach to Socio-Spatial Network Analysis. Environment & Behavior;. Michigan: University of Michigan Pattern Which Connects (2012) ‘The Common Room’ [online] available from http://patternwhichconnects.com/blog/the-common-room/ [22 April 2014] Robinson, C. (2010) Handmade. Portraits of emergent new community culture. Social Potential. Unpublished booklet. London: Social Spaces Roza, C. (2014) ‘Singeldingen. Ben Jij Onze Gedroomde Kioskiutbater?’. [online] available from http://singeldingen.nl/nl/ben-jij-onze-gedroomde-kioskuitbater/ [22 April 2014] Schneider, T. (2009) RIBA Research Synopsis 2009: Change Practices. ‘What architects also do’. No. 04. London: RIBA Sinclair, C. (2006) [online] TED. February 2006, 23:34. Available from http://www.ted.com/talks/ cameron_sinclair_on_open_source_architecture [12 December 2013] Taplin, D. and Clark, H. (2013) ‘Theory of Change Technical Papers: A series of papers to Support Development of Theories of Change based on Practice in the Field.’ New York: ActKnowledge The Common Room NR (2013) Membership Strategy. The Common Room Proof of Concept Phase 2 Strategy Draft. Unpublished. Norwich: The Common Room Norwich Think Public (2013) co-production and prototyping [online] available from <http://thinkpublic.com/ our-services/co-production-and-prototyping> [2 February 2014] Till, D. (2007) ‘Field. Architecture and Contingency’. (1), 120-135 Till, J. (2009) RIBA Research Synopsis 2009: Change Practices. Architecture is not architecture is not architecture is not architecture. Jeremy Till. No. 15. London: RIBA Charley, J. (2013) ‘Memories of Cities. Trips and manifestoes’. London: Ashgate