Tag Archives: community

Playwork as Community Development: interview and podcast with Mike Barclay

In our respective day jobs Mike Barclay, from Wrexham’s Play Development team and Ludicology, and I with Communities First, first met in November 2015 when we began liaising over research into the social benefits of playwork in Wrexham.

We finalised the research brief and in so doing I gained a much clearer understanding of playwork (as distinct from play). But more than that it prompted me to consider community development in a different light.

In the research brief Mike referred to community development in a way that caught my eye. Here is a precis of the interview with Mike in which he expands on this idea.

The full interview is available in this podcast:


 

Russell: What do people need to know about you Mike?

Mike: I have three main roles in relation to children’s play and playwork. One I’m a dad, so working in some support, or not, of children’s play on a daily basis. But then I run an organisation called Ludicology with Ben Tawil. And Ludicology means a study of playfulness, so that’s what that organisation is really about and we provide advice, research and training around children’s play and that’s really about supporting anybody that’s working with or on behalf of children to better understand children’s playfulness and therefore how we work with them. But I’m also the Play Sufficiency Lead for Wrexham Council. So I manage Wrexham Council’s Play Development Team, I support and manage a lot of playwork provision and I’ve only ever been a playworker. I’ve managed to make a career out of being a playworker and there’s not a lot of people who can say that because there’s not many playworkers. So playwork is a real passion of mine. I think the playwork profession has a lot of value that isn’t widely recognised.

Russell: What’s brought us to this situation of sitting around the table now, was that with my work hat on in the Communities First programme in Wales and you with your Wrexham Council hat on, we’re working on a piece of work around trying to better capture, better articulate some of the social benefits of playwork. I’m not going to talk about that now. But as part of the brief there was a sentence that made me stop in my tracks as I was reading, and that was that:

“Playwork might best be understood as play centred community development”

Mike: It’s something that I’ve been thinking about for quite a while and I think for a lot of people who are in the UK who have been in playwork for a long time, this is really the way, within playwork, a lot of those people would have thought about it. But I suppose to make sense of it we should start talking about what playwork is about and in terms of what playworkers do, they are first and foremost concerned with supporting children’s right to play. So the outcome of playwork ideally is more playing. A playworker is concerned with the child agenda of playing which is pretty unique really. If you look at most adults who work with children they usually, and this isn’t to diminish their roles at all, come with some form of adult desired outcome. They are working with children towards some future developmental outcome. And playwork isn’t. Playwork is concerned about whether children are able to play as an everyday part of their lives.

“And so primarily, in simple terms, playwork is primarily about enabling and supporting children’s play.”

But then when you think about how do you go about supporting children’s play and think about the realities of children’s play, most people through their own childhoods or through having children, would recognise that children play in all kinds of places. Children don’t just play in these designated times and spaces where playworkers might be: adventure playgrounds or play schemes. Those places are great for playing, but they’re not all of children’s play lives by any means. And actually if we wanted to really support children’s play it would be about making sure that children could easily find time and space for playing wherever they find themselves. In those communities where children rate a very high satisfaction with playing, you find examples of them playing all over the place and that leads you to think it’s more about developing the conditions for playing rather than only about that specific provision. How do we cultivate more favourable conditions so that children can find time and space for playing? And that’s where I think we start to look at this community development role because playworkers, when they’re at their best, are looking at how do you cultivate a culture of playing throughout a whole community.

Certainly some of the best playwork that I’ve seen and I’m really proud to say that I’ve seen it in Wrexham, is those places where playworkers are right in amongst their communities. They might have a designated place, a junk playground which offers certain things, but they’re also right in the middle of their communities, they’re involved in community celebrations, they’re playing hide and seek on estates, they’re cleaning up patches of grass, creating that kind of sense that children’s play is welcome in this community.

“I think in that way, playworkers are doing community development work; they’re trying to develop communities that are supportive of play.”

Russell: You describe it like that and, well, why had that not really occurred to me previously? And I think it’s because maybe it’s that interpretation or conception of play as a certain thing that happens; and defining it in a certain way. It looks like maybe play schemes or council playgrounds and parks, and I think I feel almost a tinge of guilt that I’d overly simplified it. When we first started working together, I picked up quite early on from you – what’s the polite way of saying this? – that you were quite determined to make the distinction between playwork, play and playing. I didn’t want to say the word obsessive! But playwork is a particular thing that is distinct from other things. And that was something I found myself having to coach myself not to annoy you with.

The principles behind doing this podcast is that you see reference to community development quite a lot and you go, well it’s immersed in the community, it’s well intended, it might one day become community development, but it’s not at the moment. And I sense a sort of parallel between how you are describing playwork.

Mike: I’m now very wary of maybe me using community development in the wrong way! But children are driven to relentlessly try and find opportunities for playing. And what we’ve seen over recent decades, I think, is adults almost trying to take ownership of the word play. There always has to be a why children play. So children play because it’s about learning; or children play because it improves physical activity. That’s not why children play. Children play because they are driven to do it and they’re motivated because of the pleasure they gain from doing it. It is that simple. We don’t really treat children often as people. But playworkers do and we say those kinds of people are very playful, that’s what they do and therefore we should support that because they have a right as a person to do that stuff in their communities. And so for playwork, play is about stuff that kids do for whatever reason they do it. But in saying that, we recognise that all kinds of benefits are coming from them doing it. The irony is that when adults try and take ownership of that play and try and make it purposeful to get to the developmental outcome they desire, we see adults getting involved and making play less playful.

Russell: It’s quite powerful I suppose to say children do it for its sheer, intrinsic value and the pleasure they drive from it.

Mike: That’s what the Welsh Government says.

“The definition in the Play Policy says that it’s freely chosen, personally directed and intrinsically motivated. It’s more or less child led. It’s highly variable, it contains all of these kinds of elements of uncertainty and it is done for its own sake.”

And when adults try and support it for some other external goal it isn’t really playing, and children know it. And where they get enough playing they have a better attachment to the places because they can recognise people and instiutions who are supportive of play, and they can recognise communities that are supportive of play. It’s about recognising that children aren’t quite as simple as you might think.

Russell: So playworkers get that

Mike: Hopefully

Russell: And when I say playworkers, in the same way that there’s a particular definition in your mind and the sector’s mind of what is and what isn’t playwork, does that follow the same for what is and isn’t a playworker? The reason I ask that is because in the community development sector there has been for the last few years this drive to professionalise it, and I always use that term advisedly because there is a certain pejorative connotation that that throws up. But to develop, articulate and form that consensus around values and principles and to develop occupational standards. So a community development worker is somebody that does these things, informed by these values and abides by these principles. Is there the same parallel with people who are playworkers?

Mike: Yes, I think so and I think the really important point is like you say there, that I think there has been a danger in the past that it’s seen that playworkers are the ones that work with play, therefore other people don’t. And that’s certainly not the case. And in terms of the things we do with Ludicology and in Wrexham, we’re saying that anybody who works with and on behalf of children and their families would be best placed to do so where they have a good understanding of children’s play and how to work with it. Many of the problems we come across is where we work against children’s innate playfulness. So everybody would be better off understanding children’s play. But I do think playwork has a distinct role in terms of being focused on play as the outcome, not coming at it from other adult prescribed outcomes, and being primarily concerned with cultivating these more favourable conditions and relating to children by supporting their play.

I think there is real value in that profession being appropriately recognised and that’s what playwork has been trying to do. Playwork came out of the junk playgrounds, the concept of which was brought to the UK from Denmark. But it was through that emergence of playwork over probably 60 years that we then worked towards what we call the Playwork Principles which is a kind of ethical framework that guides playwork practice. Only eight principles. But that stuff was only introduced around 2000 onwards. But those values and ideas had been developing for 40 years before that and I think within playwork there is certainly a shared appreciation of what playwork is. I don’t think that playwork’s always been very good at articulating what it is and that’s maybe why it’s not as well-known as it should be.

Russell: People tend to have conversations with each other, within that very, sort of, closed shop. Community development is the same. Communities First as a programme is the same. We talk to each other about things, we learn from each other, we don’t necessarily tell other people or stakeholders and certainly not those people who don’t get it or don’t want it, for whatever reason. I can certainly see a parallel there.

MIke: Yes and I think part of it comes down to going back to play as an outcome. It’s all about how we construct childhood and play in the UK and the fact that play isn’t really currently seen as a legitimate outcome in its own right. Play is not as important as learning or sport or these other things in our society we value more than playing; although the irony is that for children playing is probably the most important one. But if play was really valued, and people really understood what happens when you work in support of play, then I think that position might change.

Russell: So is part of the role of playworker about persuading others – funders, the powers that be, political leaders, community leaders – of its intrinsic value, that it as an outcome is enough in itself? And something else you wrote in that initial brief was about the extent to which playworkers support the development of positive attitudes towards children and that corrected me where you think, ‘Ok, they’re just supervising kids playing’.

Mike: Yes. Advocacy is one of the Playwork Principles and I think it’s advocacy at many levels. As a playworker I hardly do any work with kids now. I still count myself as a playworker but I spend most of my time advocating to strategic decision makers, funders, elected members and parents and other professionals. But we’ve got playworkers out today and they’ll be advocating maybe in a very subtle way to parents and people wandering past. So I think there’s all kinds of little bits of advocacy but really maybe ‘conversations’ is a better word. I think there’s all kinds of conversations to be had about children and their position within communities. And that stuff has to happen on a day by day basis. Also sometimes I think it is taking a stand and I’ve seen playworkers do that, who won’t allow children’s rights to be railroaded. I think there’s a real justice issue around children in communities, particularly around spatial justice and this idea that it’s very easy to overlook children’s rights because they have less power.

“And so often adult decisions and preferences get prioritised, sometimes at the expense of children. And it’s not about saying we should prioritise children’s rights over adults’; it’s about a more equal distribution. So I think often playworkers are mediating between child and adult agendas and giving children more of a voice.”

Russell: In the first place, identifying and drawing attention to those power imbalances or inequalities, doing something to address, maybe even them out a little bit more is I suppose bread and butter to somebody calling themselves a community development worker. The community with whom you are doing that, whether it’s children and young people; whether it’s with communities of interest, based around ethnicity or other characteristics; whether it’s to do with what’s been primarily my background, areas of deprivation and disadvantage, you’re having to redress those power imbalances. And sometimes some of the most deeply rooted ones are not between the haves and the have nots, so to speak, but within the have nots where you’ve got people or some sort of very prominent community role “representing”, in inverted commas, the community. And although that’s important – a traditional representative form of democracy is a staple of our society – you can do it in a participative way and the power imbalances or power struggles that have come about where your traditional councillor has found his or her role a little bit undermined, have been absolutely fascinating to see up close.

Mike: Yes and I think playwork is political and it has certainly been at the centre of many political issues within communities. There was a community recently and they were doing a consultation around the redevelopment of some of the housing; maybe adult priorities are given greater emphasis. But then the playworkers take the children into the consultation and it’s not always an easy situation for adults to be in, but it does start to change those processes and maybe it does enable something that is a little bit more democratic or at least something that’s a bit more just. But as a consequence playwork is always going to be tied to political issues.

Russell: Absolutely. You sometimes hear this within Communities First: “We’ve got to be apolitical, non-political”. The reality is what we’re talking about is the distribution of wealth and resources and power. If that’s not politics then I don’t know what is. That’s been the case for thousands of years.

 Mike: Yes and maybe it’s politics at a local level, with a small p.

Russell: But I think it should be embraced and if we’re talking about trying to create more rounded, more fully engaged citizens, we know there’s a big democratic deficit in a lot of disadvantaged communities. Then surely showing young people or people at whatever formative age that there’s merit in getting involved, in putting their view forward. That can only be a good thing. It comes back to this thing about well why do we have to justify this? There’s clearly an intrinsic value in it; they’re the community leaders of tomorrow, they’re the informed parents of tomorrow.

Mike: And they’re the children of today. That’s a big part of it for me, is about how often do children meet an adult who is pretty much on equal terms with them? I think that playwork spaces are pretty democratic spaces. They should be places where if children go, “Actually we want to pull that down now”, they can pull it down. It’s pretty empowering for kids really. More so now than ever, I think children spend time in environments that are supervised and run by adults and those adults can, I think, overextend their authority.

We were looking at different levels of satisfaction with opportunities for play in communities and a couple of the places where children didn’t just say it was good but the majority of kids in that community said it was great, were the places where they had sustained playwork. I was talking to the kids, and these were in some of what would be seen as more economically deprived areas, and we asked this group of kids, what’s the thing that helps the most? And they were saying, without a doubt the adventure playground. Which perhaps was no surprise but what was really interesting was they then went on to talk more about what the adventure playground did for them when they weren’t at the adventure playground than what happens inside the adventure playground. And they were telling real stories of things that had happened to them. They got chased by a dog, they could go and find the playworker. They forgot their coat and they were cold, they went and found a playworker. There was some scary bloke chasing them, the playworker walked them home and when it got dark they rang mum to say, kid’s on the way. These might seem like really little things but to kids they’re really big things and they build up.

What you get from that is a really trusting relationship, that there are these adults out there who are keeping an eye, who are making the community feel a bit safer, helping them get along with stuff, and as a consequence what you see where you have sustained playwork is this culture of playing.

Russell: Which is why I’m interested in this, it’s about how that can help make, in that instance, slightly more cohesive communities, which might sound big and grand, because it might be what you’re talking about is a little cul de sac of 20 houses, but then a lot of people talk about how they don’t know their neighbours anymore. So we can overlook the significance of that at our peril.

Mike: I think play is just a really important part of the human condition. And when we talk about community development, like you were saying, redistributing power and stuff like that, often the ways in which we do that are through a form of playing or another, whether it’s bringing people together to have a bit of a picnic or a water fight. It isn’t done for some external reward, it’s just something everyone can do. And I think there is something very powerful about adults being around children playing. I think that’s some kind of evolutionary thing where we benefit from seeing kids having a good time.

Russell: I think that’s absolutely right. That’s fascinating. I could probably talk for another couple of hours. Do you want to give another little plug for yourself and Ludicology?

Mike: Yes, so people can visit the website www.ludicology.com where we also do a podcast, so there’s more on there really about playwork and the concept of play sufficiency as an organising principle for communities. If people are interested in this stuff they can find out more there. And in terms of the work in Wrexham they can visit www.wrexham.gov.uk/play and find out more about what we’re doing in and around Wrexham.

And if anybody ever wants to come and visit stuff we’re always open. We have visitors from all over the world coming to Wrexham. It would be nice if we made more of it in Wales and particularly in Wrexham ourselves. But there are still many other places where good playwork happens in the UK. Unfortunately in Wales we have seen a significant reduction in it as a consequence of reductions in public funding.

Russell: Which is an ongoing challenge for a lot of us in this sort of work. Mike, diolch yn fawr, and it would be nice to do this again some time.

Mike: It was a pleasure, thanks for having me on.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under community

Role for the community in tackling substance abuse?

I recently stumbled across this tweet during a lunch break at work spent idly browsing the internet. I’m still reeling from the power of the HMO Hitmen and Profits of Addiction I re-blogged recently and the tweet’s reference to substance abuse resonated given the frequency of overdoses.

Station House is an American treatment centre for substance abuse whose philosophy is

“…to combine a safe, supportive environment with evidence-based care to help our patients enter a long term recovery from their substance addiction”

A key part of this philosophy is about supporting emergency services (or ‘first responders’) to better respond, prevent and treat substance abusers. The clip is a brief but interesting glimpse at the role of community in tackling substance abuse. A supportive and sympathetic community appears to be the ‘cement’ that binds together the proactive professional interventions and treatments, abusers themselves and their families

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Community development and community journalism: reflections on the @C4CJ #CJ15 conference

c4cj

I recently had the pleasure of attending the ‘What Next for Community Journalism?’ event held by Cardiff University’s Centre for Community Journalism (Storify of the event here). Since it is a topic with which I am not much familiar I attended with a degree of trepidation and, indeed, found myself surrounded by a number of journalists, both of the ‘traditional’ and community variety (the distinction between which came to be much more blurred by the end of the day), and lots of talk of business models, meta data and coding.

Wales, and Cardiff/Caerdydd, was well-represented with Wrexham.com, Tongwynlais.com, Port Talbot MagNetGrangetown Community Action and my own Llandaff North/Ystum Taf community in the shape of Llandaff North Post among others in attendance.

lnpost

There were several English and Scottish-based hyperlocal news sites in presence and the keynote address came from Dan Gillmoor an esteemed American journalism academic and commentator. It was pleasing to see a Communities First area present in the form of North Merthyr cluster where a Cardiff University hyperlocal journalism project with young people operates. And there was also on show a copy of the Butetown, Grangetown and Riverside Communities First newsletter

The day was fascinating, in fact I was a little punch-drunk by the end of it. There’s a live and fluid regulatory landscape that hyperlocals need to aware of; against a backdrop of profits of as little as £100 a month (and seldom above £500), the financing and staffing of hyperlocal news is fraught; there is research into different business models in Europe and elsewhere in the UK; there was a plea for input to an effort to merely count how many hyperlocals exist in the UK; and there were two terrific examples, from Bristol and Greenwich, of investigative hyperlocal journalism. The former in particular pricked my interest as it is a member co-operative and one case study it highlighted was of an investigation into working conditions in Bristol’s catering sector, a sector in which many of the co-operative’s members had had poor experiences.

The thought occurred to me that sound community development principles underpinned this particular venture: collectivising to challenge power imbalances and effect positive change. That the Bristol Cable does so with a satirical and entertaining style only served to enhance its appeal.

If I have a criticism of the conference it was the extent to which it creates the impression that hyperlocal news only exists in English.

There was only the very briefest, blink-and-you-missed-it of references to Pobl Caerdydd and given that the Papurau Bro culture in Wales is so long-established – and judging by this directory in relatively rude health – this is a shame.

Equally, the American examples of hyperlocals cited in Gilmoor’s address were all English-medium with no suggestion that there are any hyperlocals in Spanish, minority or immigrant languages. There was a lot of reference to hyperlocal journalism’s proximity, tuned-inness and responsiveness to ‘community’ and ‘communities’.

But communities aren’t homogenous, and though I have no doubt that hyperlocals operate largely in English, if, as was stated, the principles of hyperlocal journalism are identical to traditional journalism – thoroughness, accuracy, fairness and independence – but with added transparency, it is only ‘fair’ and ‘accurate’ that the non-English speaking elements within communities, particularly urban ones (which were overwhelmingly those in attendance and/or profiled), are given room on the hyperlocal platform.

If this linguistic issue was one that occurred to me during the conference, another that I brought with me to the event but which was not explored – and is related to the notion of heterogeneous communities – is the extent to which hyperlocal news replicates ‘traditional’ media in its exploitative and pejorative coverage of disadvantaged communities; and the extent to which hyperlocal news offers such communities the opportunity to reclaim their ‘news agenda’ and express and describe the issues that affect them. I wasn’t alone

The term ‘poverty porn’ has entered popular lexicon to refer to television programmes such as Benefits Street and Britain’s Hardest Grafter (a proposed BBC programme which aims to pit low-paid workers against each other to “show their worth”; answers on a postcard if you can spot the public service aspect here…) which exploit and degrade people living in poverty. The programmes dehumanise poor people and serve their struggles with poverty up for and as entertainment; it is a sad but very real dystopia. In Wales, Sky broadcasted A Town Like Merthyr which portrayed it as a benefit-dependent, work-shy town. It was a further dark day for journalism when headlines such as those below suggested men in Merthyr Tydfil/Merthyr Tudful had a lower life expectancy than Haiti or Iraq:

Capture

Screen grab from Fullfact.org

Health professionals, authors of the report and politicians all rubbished the headlines and pointed out that the media had not only misrepresented the statistics, but had misunderstood them (assuming that they had read them at all).

As the Director of Public Health at the Cwm Taf Health Board told Fullfacts.org:

the figure that has been picked up in the press actually refers to the male healthy life expectancy (i.e. the average period for which a man can expect to retain their good health). This is obviously much lower than the total life expectancy.

(emphasis added)

The full Fullfacts.org exposé is well worth a read. I am sure there would be few, if any, delegates at the community journalism conference who would suggest Sky, the Daily Mail or Mirror are bastions of tasteful and ethical journalism, but I cite these only in order to highlight how disadvantaged communities are often written about but are seldom their own authors.

If hyperlocals replicate ‘mainstream’ media in exploiting and misrepresenting disadvantaged communities and writing pejoratively about them, then the fact they are more local is no justification. Should hyperlocals not consider issues affecting disadvantaged communities such as lower levels of literacy, digital and financial exclusion, and poor broadband or mobile infrastructure they will only serve to further entrench information deficits and further exclude people from civil, democratic and community life. If affluent communities with hyperlocals only read hyperlocal news from affluent communities, it will serve to obscure and conceal poverty in neighbouring communities.

It was clear in the conference how much volunteer energy, effort, passion and expense is expended on people’s hyperlocal enterprises and it is a big ask of volunteers to consider outreach and engagement work in disadvantaged communities and with under-represented groups in order to encourage readership and contributions by them. The community development sector should consider it the prime advocate for, brokers with and facilitators of disadvantaged communities’ involvement with hyperlocals; which in turn will benefit from a greater plurality of news and voices. Communities First should identify local community news outlets and develop relationships and practical arrangements with them. It is not a simple gap to plug should they not exist coterminously or contiguously with Communities First and/or disadvantaged communities; and arguably community development workers should not be setting up hyperlocals for disadvantaged communities. All credit to Cardiff University then for establishing community journalism projects in  and crucially with areas of disadvantage in Wales (such as in Grangetown and north Merthyr).

The Bristol Cable’s investigation on behalf of low-paid catering workers was a terrific example of how under-represented or seldom-heard groups can be given a voice by community journalism. But that the conference failed to address the issue of engagement with and by disadvantaged communities in any greater detail was a slight disappointment for me; but this is not to detract from an excellent event overall.

3 Comments

Filed under community

Community Development and local football – thoughts inspired by watching gap Connah’s Quay

Back in November 2012 I attended a football match between gap Connah’s Quay (known as The Nomads) and Airbus UK Broughton FC. It was my first visit to the Deeside Stadium and though the fixture was relatively low-key, being as it was a midweek League Cup fixture, it was an enjoyable game, that offered good value for money (especially as it went into extra time) and benefited from a good atmosphere.

An exchange at half time with a fan running a modest merchandise stall (I bought a pin badge incidentally) has led me since to reflect on the role of community development in local football.

The friend with whom I attended the match mentioned that I was visiting from south Wales…

Nomads fan: You should come and watch us at Port Talbot next week.

My friend: Are you going?

Nomads fan: Oh yes.

Friend: Do you have much of an away following?

Nomads fan: We don’t have much of a home following!

Connah’s Quay’s average home attendance this season is 486. It is the sixth highest average in the twelve team league, and is 27% higher than the league’s average of 382 (source: Welsh Premier League website). All in all it is not the worst attendance in the often-maligned league so perhaps the fan’s self-deprecation is unjustified. But the exchange has got me thinking about the role of Community Development in the development of small football club.

Community Development is founded on, among others, a principle of self-determination and this is at the root of many of the supporter-led ‘takeovers’ of clubs in recent years such as Wrexham and Portsmouth, or the establishment of new clubs in response to the perceived mismanagement, exploitation or betrayal of values of ‘traditional’ clubs e.g., Chester FC, FC United of Manchester (FCUM) and AFC Wimbledon. In each of the above cases supporters have collectivised across a broad demographic and challenged the incumbent ownership in terms of personnel, business model and power balance.

Community Development can be at its most urgent when/where oppression is manifest. In the case of Wrexham a succession of owners looked to profiteer at the club’s expense by asset-stripping it of its core infrastructure (ground and training ground in particular). The club was constructively forced into administration in a bid to expedite the fire sale. FCUM was set up following a succession of decisions made by the family that owns the club to take it into private ownership, leverage enormous debt against the club and the increase in season ticket prices.

Such overtly pernicious influences do not appear to be present at The Nomads. Perhaps there is a view that the fan base is so small that to collectivise would not leverage much additional influence or bargaining power. However Community Development maintains that collectivising allows not only for the sharing of values but skills, knowledge, experience and networks. Even a modestly-sized collective can bring about considerable change, for the sum is often greater than its parts. Oppression in this instance is an inadvisable word to use but the ambivalence that local people may have towards the club might be the motivating force behind taking action. The neo-consumerist, ‘build it and they will come’ model that has inculcated itself in professional football is arrogant in its expectation that people will by some invisible hand be enticed to consume what it has to offer. Supporters are viewed increasingly as solely consumers of a brand, whether it is at the turnstile, in the club shop or of a myriad of other products, including credit and loans. Conceiving supporters in such a reductionist way, and by prohibiting them from having any say in the running of a club, sees clubs place no value on local people who do not attend football matches but nonetheless recognise and value the role a club plays in shaping identity, cementing social cohesion and fostering civic pride. Since they do not go to matches and clubs cannot ‘monetise’ their values they are of no relevance.

So one initial objective for a club like Nomads could be to reach out to parts of the Deeside community that it currently does not reach. The recent popularity of the share issue of Oviedo in Spain is a case in point (and the Wrexham experience is also illustrative here). People with no affinity with the club, indeed resident outside Spain, have bought into the club because they had an affinity with the values of the campaign to save and revive the club. Many fans are increasingly aware that their own club might one day need to call on the support of traditional ‘non-affiliates’ in order to rescue it. What is this if not a form of collectivism? So Nomads must expand beyond the confines of its fanbase and work with people who may not be interested in football but recognise that the club contributes to other aspects of local community life: providing opportunities for young people; the commercial benefits of the town’s profile being raised; infrastructure that could be used in health and exercise intiatives; local facilities; local supply chains; opportunities for volunteering, work experience and job-ready schemes. Such ‘reaching out’ could take the form of a share issue. Should it do so Wrexham FC’s current experience is surely a local, north east Wales example to follow.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

publicsq:

From PPS, Brendan Crain writes:

Looking at cities from what Jan Gehl calls the “airplane scale” is what allows proponents of cut-and-paste urbanism to do what the Modernists did, using lifestyle instead of architecture. Rather than suggesting that the city be reorganized into tower blocks amidst grassy lawns, today’s one-size-fits-allers call for cafes and artisan markets. They are presuming that the city as a whole will benefit from the indiscriminate application of a specific set of amenities. It won’t. Neighborhoods need to define their priorities for themselves; in so doing, they often discover that there are untapped opportunities to grow their own local economies, without needing to import talent from elsewhere. Even if your city’s brand is busted, your community is still capable of re-building itself. As Jane Jacobs once argued, “the best cities are actually federations of great neighborhoods.”

Opportunity is local

Leave a comment

February 8, 2013 · 2:38 pm

blurthelinebetweenselfandothers:

Cool Spot… Byd o hwyl, oriel heb do, / Man cŵl imi encilio by bara-koukoug on Flickr.

Yn anffodus mae’r wal graffiti Ystym Taf dan fygythiad dwi’n meddwl oherwydd bydd tai newydd ar safle yr hen ffatrioedd. Os yw’r wal o elw i bobl dylai ymdrech i sicrhau ei bod yn dal fel rhan o’r datblygiadau tai.

Diweddariad: Ymddengys y bydd y wal graffiti yn dal. Mae manylion y cais cynllunio yma.

Update: It appears that the graffiti wall will be remaining. Details of the planning application can be found here

Leave a comment

January 30, 2013 · 11:40 am

2012legacy:

image

I recently interviewed Lance Forman, owner of H Forman & Son, a family business from east London. Their business was once where the Olympic stadium now stands (on the running track I believe).

The audio can be heard here. Here is a transcript…

How was H Forman & son founded?

It…

I have previously blogged twice on the notion of legacy in Wales: how a community development approach might help establish a sporting one at community and neighbourhood level; and how ‘succulent lamb journalism’ in Wales all too often fails to hold to account government, its sponsored bodies and the vested interests that promote huge sporting events for the supposed public legacy they bring.

This is a sobering insight from a long-established business that could not be any closer to the Olympic site so would appear to be well-placed and informed to comment on the post-event regeneration upon which the Olympics were justified not just morally and commercially but (as the blog saliently reminds us) legally.

Succulent lamb journalists in Wales would do well to follow the 2012legacy blog….

Legacy 2012 – What happened next: Regeneration is failing – Lance Forman

Leave a comment

January 28, 2013 · 1:28 pm