Tuesday, 13 October 2015

A Place for Everyone? Glasshouse Debate Series 2015-2016

The good folk at the Glasshouse have announced a new series of debates, ‘around the common elements in place that bring us together, the points of tension within them, and the role of the individual and the community.’

‘In partnership with the Open University and the Academy of Urbanism, we want to explore how we design and shape our environment today to create a place for everyone and what that means for concepts like shared assets and common good, alongside individual aspirations, ownership, diversity and, rights and responsibilities.’

Edinburgh / 21 October 2015
Place: designed for sharing?

Manchester / 11 November 2015
Place: the sum of parts?

Nottingham / 3 February 2016
Place: a shared responsibility?

London / 9 March 2016
Place: who belongs here?

 

13 Oct 2015 14:01:22 | Space and place

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
This is a platform altercation (well almost) Here’s a wee tale about responses to incivility in public space. I was on a train the other day – corridor carriages, seats facing – and sat almost opposite a young couple who were dozing, the young man rather slumped with his legs sticking out. Some ticket inspectors came through, and then at the next stop a woman got on and the first I knew was to hear her cursing the young man: “tuck your legs in you silly sod! What am I supposed to do, jump over them!?” Etc. But she sat next to him even though there were other places available. He apologised quietly and pulled himself up. She was still cursing. I stared at her dark glasses and suggested that if she took her glasses off she might be able to see well enough to notice that there is plenty of room to pass. I said that her remark was unfair. She said “I’ve got arthritis.” The young man kept saying “I’m sorry.” Then one of the ticket inspectors appeared from beside the doors – I had not realised he was still with us – and suggested to the woman that she apologise. “I thought that was very rude,” he said. And she did.
PREVIOUS POST
The interplay between formal and informal modes of operating How much do tensions between formal and informal modes of operating affect what happens in the community sector? People in community groups tend to feel more comfortable with informality and may be intimidated by formal processes, codes and context. But formal regulations, structures and policies, as Alison Gilchrist made clear in her William Plowden Fellowship lecture at NCVO this week, can rightly be seen as ‘necessary mechanisms for mitigating risk and maintaining standards’. Red tape and the sins of bureaucracy can restrict, delay and hinder progress. But if emotions are curbed and personal biases constrained, sometimes that can be a good thing; and formality may well protect collective goals so that these can be pursued regardless of the individuals involved. Likewise, reflecting on the effect of informal processes we may see that while they can be liberating and creative, allowing people to nurture trust and loyalty, they can also mask and perpetuate hidden power imbalances. Alison set out to challenge the default position of ‘formal as normal’ and concludes that ‘informal and formal modes are best regarded as neither opposite ends of a spectrum nor a dichotomy. A more nuanced, dialectical approach is needed.’ Watch out for her report and hopefully a few short articles expounding on this work. For the moment, I’d select the following from her recommendations: For policy: seek to enable, not control Informal as valid and valuable; Be aware of power/status issues; For practice: uphold responsive flexibility Encourage opportunities for informal learning and exchange; Use ‘just enough’ formality where functionally useful; Build in conviviality - fun, food and face-to-face interactions.

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments