Wednesday, 09 July 2008

The district is the hotel

Transvaal I fancy a few days away. The European Urban Knowledge Network has a piece here about art and urban renewal, referring to the neighbourhood of Transvaal in The Hague.

The neighbourhood is in the middle of a 15-year period of regeneration, with much demolition, boarding up of properties and what is described as 'a cheerful collection of ghost streets.'

So how about Hotel Transvaal, where

All rooms have been attractively furnished, some by artists, others by local shopkeepers. You may literally sleep in a work of art, or be seduced by the atmosphere of the different cultures in the neighbourhood.

Meals and various odd jobs for the hotel are provided by local entrepreneurs and residents. With defiant originality, the hotel describes itself as just a small operation with a few rooms but also claims to be 'the largest hotel in the world'  because 'the district is the hotel.'

The rooms of our hotel are situated in houses in an area designated for demolition, a so-called action area. At this moment the surrounding houses are still being lived in, however, in time the original occupants will move. Often these houses will then be used temporarily by students or artists. Also, there are several local organizations that organize interesting cultural activities and events. The hotel rooms never stay in an action area until the very last moment. As soon as too many houses are being boarded up, we will move our rooms to the next action area. In future we also plan to locate rooms in newly built houses that have not yet been sold or let. We are even considering using empty rooms in people's homes. The organization of Hotel Transvaal also has the intention to use the post-demo[li]tion wasteland to realize temporary expansion of hotel facilities.

More here. If the only people who visit the hotel are those interested in this approach to 'seeking clues to link the past to the future and by showing that areas in transition really have potential,' then it will still have made a point.

9 Jul 2008 11:32:17

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Online networks and neighbourhood action Keith Hampton points to a New York Times piece reporting a case in which local people posting online about their anti-social neighbours contributed to arrests: peering turned to blogging, and blogging turned to action... Critical mass on the open list, Bay Ridge Talk, probably made the difference. There are at present 486 posts on this thread, which began in October 2006 as 'drug house on 93rd St - why haven't the cops done anything?' Dipping into it offers some insights into how residents encouraged one another to report what they saw, and how they viewed what was happening. For instance, one comment notes - i've talked to people who live near that house; all they can do is continue to call the police and show up at meetings.
PREVIOUS POST
Community engagement 'may be delusory' I've had a couple of revealing discussions about community engagement this week, with one local authority practitioner commenting: It's a very complex area, it may be delusory as a notion. It evolves of itself... It's about being alive to possibilities. He was reacting against the 'project approach' of funding specifically for community engagement: 'We want you to do this, we want you to do that.' It's not helpful. In some sense, the 'project' is the evaluation. The previous day, I'd been asked to give my views on improving people's perceptions of police performance. I chose to highlight the contrast between the development of measures that are as objective as we can make them, and the randomness and fluidity of individual perceptions. The mistake we continue to make, I suspect, is to take the robust methodology of objective measures and try to apply it in a kind of consumer-satisfaction approach to service delivery. When afterwards I was told how the police collect such material - an independent board member accompanied by an officer door-knocking with questionnaire proformas, and structured 'consultation days' - I admit my heart sank. I've banged on often enough about the need to be stimulating conversations with residents and service users on their terms, in their context, at their pace. The issue seems to be how we capture the content of the conversations: but increasingly I'm wondering if that isn't a minor or even a non-issue. My former boss at CDF, Alison West, used to say, sometimes to very august audiences, that consultation without engagement is crap. What she meant was that if you find yourself consulting people with whom you're not already in conversation, you risk failure. If you're having the right kind of conversations on an ongoing basis with people, it's then straightforward to ask their views, for instance, 'Would you rather have locked gates on your park?' or 'What conditions should be imposed on the renting of lockup garages on this estate?' It's taking so long for this cultural change to come about because of the embedded resilience of performance management culture, which requires practitioners to track everything they do and systematise it all. I interviewed a practitioner last week who said he understood community engagement when he realised he didn't need to feel he'd failed because a box wasn't ticked. Not being rigid about how you achieve something, so long as the principles of involvement are demonstrated in what we do. Somewhat generously, he attributed much of this to a throw-away remark I'd made in a meeting, when I'd said that if you just run formal meetings, you'll get people who are comfortable attending formal meetings, and the rest you won't see. Which is another useful lesson - turning up at meetings and tossing-in remarks sometimes makes a significant difference, which may or may not subsequently be revealed.

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments