Thursday, 09 April 2009

Why don't we do it in the road? (Updated)

If you talk to Streets Alive's Chris Gittins about organising a street party, and maybe you should, one of the things he'll suggest is that the organisers' meetings be held in the street rather than in people's houses.

'A good place to hold meetings is in the street as it is more welcoming and you can catch people as they go by.'

Just a few neighbours for half an hour or so sitting on a wall working out who's going to do what.

This came up in a conversation today and sparked someone to tell me that where they live, in south London, ward councillors have meetings in the street. If you can do it, a brilliant way of making democracy visible, and minimising the fussy trappings of power.

Someone tell me this happens where they live too.

Postscript

Thanks to Chris Corrigan for this pic of the 'hedgenda' he mentions in his comment. Pic by openspace facilitator Michael Herman.

9 Apr 2009 21:38:28 | Citizenship and democracy, Space and place

3 Comments

A few years ago we held some Open Space meetings about our local village here on Bowen Island, BC, right in the village, on a piece of grass next to the library. We posted topics on a cedar hedge (which became our "hedgenda" and various poeple joined and left over the source of the day.

Worked great...will do it again.

Posted by: Chris Corrigan | Thursday, 09 April 2009 at 22:09

Our City Council has been talking for years about going out into the neighborhoods and conducting their meetings. While this is not as informal as what you are suggesting, it does take our elected out from behind their towering diaz and imposing City Hall and into a less intimidating "gathering place" for community business. 45% of what Council converses is about "process", "outcomes", and regurgitation of staff reports. Informal meetings outside the trappings of government structure could be refreshing and conducive to accelerating creative action. Regards, Bob Yoder, Redmond, WA. "Home of Microsoft" redmondblog.org

Posted by: Bob Yoder | Saturday, 11 April 2009 at 16:05

We do street meetings, usually outside the post office. Casual, informative and friendly. They just happen every day. That is the good thing about community engagement, any hot topic is sure to be discussed. As long as it isn't raining that is. Highly recommended.

Posted by: Chris | Saturday, 11 April 2009 at 21:44

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Privacy and the home Google Street View continues to expose the fact that we haven't done our thinking about the changing nature of privacy. On Wednesday, residents in the village of Broughton, near Milton Keynes (described by the Mail, which doesn't like to burden its readers with accuracy, as being in Cambridgeshire) blocked the passage of a Google Street View car and persuaded the driver to turn around. Ah the playful rebelliousness of middle England. The Times has them as a 'village mob'. There's an account here that is altogether more placid. In the Beeb's report, one of the protesters said: "If they were simply going to view the street as a street scene rather than drive almost into people's drives and take pictures of the houses - I think that's a different issue." Almost into people's drives? That would be like what we call 'going past' then, would it? The Mail managed somehow, don't ask me, to raise the possibility that 'it's an invitation for burglars to strike': "I don't mind estate agents taking pictures but this shows people how to get in and how to get out." Getting out as well as getting in? I didn't realise there was so much detail. But don't we need to get beyond the petty mindedness of the property-obsessed, to reflect on how the house-as-home remains central to our understanding of notions of privacy, even while that privacy has been reshaped by other forces around e.g. data, citizenship and broadcast media? The excitable defensiveness of wealthy home-owners is not enough to convince me that I have a fundamental, irrevocable human right to stop people looking in my windows. As I recall, Witold Rybczynski's book Home is a good start for understanding how very recent the idea of the private home is in human history. The privacy part of it may already be in decline - not because the notion of 'home' has changed necessarily, but because the notion of privacy is changing. There are other confusions, such as discussing Street View with reference to the high number of CCTV cameras we have in this country (about 20% of the world's total, I heard recently). But as one comment here notes, There is a big difference between cctv and streetview for example, number of violent crimes caught on street view isn't quite as high. It's privacy invasion for the sake of privacy invasion. But that's my point - what do we mean, 'privacy invasion'? Where's the public debate that gets us away from knee-jerk insistence on a vague sense of interference and the self-righteous defence of property? I can't say I'm particularly bothered about Street View, and the notion of there being people who might describe themselves as 'Street View Enthusiasts' is just depressing. But it's more depressing to have people getting pompously worked up about keeping others away from where they live. If having lots of stuff gets you so fussed about losing it, maybe don't have so much stuff. And if I find myself feeling...
PREVIOUS POST
Object This is my mother's breadboard. Thirteen inches by nine. There's a burn mark on one corner. The surface scuffed with an unintelligible geometry of honest scars, the full alphabet of blademarks in the service of bread. Even the underside is scored. Towards the centre it's worn down almost half an inch lower than the edges. The rake of the everyday. What can have happened there? In her last years, the hands at this board were gnarled and knotted. How explain that they once have shared Chopin and Schubert, to satisfy some other hunger? Shaking now they might let fall a slice where not intended, like a choked chord. Her feeble eyes would deceive her to start too thick at the moment of incision then taper to a wretched scatter of crumbs. No reference there to previous expertise, to the effortless grace of home. It was my past too. I'd come in from the street trailing others, all with the boisterous claim of hunger. The buttered chunks piled on this board, devoured, we'd scram back to some traceless game, occupying only the present. Beckett wrote somewhere that the role of objects is to restore silence.

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments