There’s ‘listening’ and there’s really listening …

A short way into the Copenhagen episode of his series on Liveable Cities, Mikael Colville-Andersen emphasises the importance of listening in creating good spaces. But as we all know, human interaction is a bit more subtle than that. There’s ‘listening’ (as in “I hear what you say …”) and there is real listening, which results in taking account and in change.

Listening, often managed through a consultation process bringing together experts and the representatives of the public, is an inevitable, but often unsatisfactory, part, of the planning and development processes. All too often the default model is the kind of consumer study carried out by large manufacturers in the heyday of mass consumption. The departmentalised structures within these companies bred a culture where each specialised group performed a task on a product, then pushed it ‘over the wall’ to the next team to deal with. Only in the lofty realms of management was a complete picture available. The public response in focus groups or surveys was just part of the process. ‘Listening’ took place, but there it ended. Expertise went unchallenged, and there was no accountability.

Listening properly challenges both the experts and the elected representatives charged with governing the process. It can be painful for specialists to hear ‘non-experts’ suggesting other ways, and generally having to accept the status of equal in the dialogue. Politicians, having received a mandate from a majority of electors to get on and deliver manifesto commitments, might also struggle to deal with conflicting views from diverse communities, regarding them as something to be overcome in pursuit of an objective, when in reality they are part of a process of shaping it. One of the biggest flaws in the Government’s recent White Paper on the planning process is that the creation of a new local plan, however much debate is entailed, marks the end of the consultation with the people who will live with the consequences, rather than its beginning.

Having declared a climate emergency in 2019 York has set itself the task of becoming both more liveable and to emit net zero carbon by 2030. The urgency of the issue has focused some truly impressive brainpower on the situation, as the recent York Climate Change Commission report shows. Writing the report involved a ‘citizen jury’ to give their views on priorities, the stated purpose of which is to secure ‘licence’ for the actions recommended. There listening might end, unless a genuinely mutual partnership emerges that monitors, shapes, and helps govern York’s progress towards that utterly vital target.

In what we must hope is a sign of a better year to come, the UN has declared 2021 the Year of Creative Economy for Sustainable Development. As you would expect of a UNESCO Creative City, My Future York is only one of several models of good practice in partnership and co-production. York is part of a national programme, Enabling Social Action, that promotes ways of working with communities to commission council services. In York the Local Area Coordinators ‘walk alongside’ members of their community, sharing their stories, and helping them to find support, whether that is medical, social or cultural. They are not just being consulted; they are co-producing their own support. The ‘ladder of co-production’ – seven steps we can take to enable people to be fully and properly involved in shaping their surroundings – is transferable to the process of making cities more sustainable.

https://www.thinklocalactpersonal.org.uk/_assets/COPRODUCTION/Ladder-of-coproduction.pdf

We could ask ourselves ‘How far up the ladder are we with York Central?’ and feel somewhat depressed. But I reflect on my single experience of Copenhagen, around twenty years ago. Then Christiania was not in such good shape, even for a hippy commune. It had yet to recover from the economic and ideological pasting it got from the Danish government, which was always keener on Thatcherite dogma than their Scandinavian neighbours. Although Stroget was already a stroller’s paradise, even in the bitterest depths of winter, it was at what Jan Gehl called an early stage of pedestrianisation, devoted to conspicuous consumption rather than sociability. I saw very few bikes back then, and I was not surprised to learn that 20% of the growth in cycle usage has happened since 2006.

In twenty years, in other words, Copenhagen has been ‘Copenhagenized’. It’s wrong to think of that as a planning prescription, for bike lanes, play spaces or any single ‘solution’. The result, which is never finished, owes its richness and vitality to layer upon layer of listening, dialogue, changes of mind and direction. Two decades in a city’s life is not such a long time, provided you are constantly trying new things, learning from mistakes, and making things stick.

Chris Bailey
10 January 2021

The first of our Screenings and Conversations took place on 6^th Jan, drawing inspiration from Copenhagen and the Life Sized City film presented by Mikael Colville-Anderson. This is a brief blog noting some of the issues which the film raised, and some of the discussion which followed.

The film looked at a number of factors that have shaped the city:- movement, the relationship between citizens and administration, and the failures of the development process.

Copenhagen is well known as a city where cycling dominates local transport – far more journeys are made by bike than by car, and there are 40,000 cargo bikes in the city, showing the broad use of bikes for a range of purposes. Two interesting points were made – people cycle because it’s quicker, not for health or to save the planet (a point proved by testing a suburb-to-centre journey – eighteen minutes by bike, twenty-four by car) and cycle infrastructure was built by the city because it was cheap – the entire infrastructure (safe routes linking the centre with the periphery) cost less than a handful of kilometres of ring road.

The film looked at the process of planning and development – how having a mayor allowed bold decisions to be implemented but also how good democratic process ensured grass-roots ideas get heard and form the basis for policy. And they don’t always get it right – their “finger” plan for Transport Oriented Development has resulted in a major development which has failed, where economics of building transport infrastructure have driven the building of a huge shopping mall – now largely dead, and surrounded by only partly built and occupied development, many years behind programme.

Children and young people, and their role in the city, was touched upon – the film visits a school where the kids get to explore the building of furniture using a clever kit of bits, and explore how they can influence their surroundings. When asked what they like about their home city – this is where Colville-Anderson lives, and where his Copenhagenize design practice operates – his kids both say it’s how they can cycle around the place easily and safely. They have mobility and with it, independence.

Copenhagen is regularly in the top ten global “most liveable cities” but this popularity brings problems – it’s an expensive place to live, and marginalises many. The Christiania project was explored as a response – raising questions about ownership and finance; how can collective ownership work in an area of high demand and high land value?

There was wide-ranging discussion, with views from inside the council and one or two other major York bodies and from people involved with YoCo as well as interested residents of York and elsewhere. There was a mix of frustration – York isn’t Copenhagen either in terms of its current reality or its apparent current capacity for positive change – but as many pointed out, we have opportunities in York as a result of the various bodies active in the city and some valuable work to date. Copenhagen was described as imperfect but “work in progress” – a question for York is “are we in progress, and if so in what direction”? And fundamentally – if we’re to build city-wide citizen engagement to push for bold future vision, how do we do this?

There was discussion around ownership – or lack of it – and how that shaped places; what was the difference between mutual / co-ownership and no-ownership, and how might this guide thinking around YoCo’s proposals? How do you avoid what one participant called “developmentitis” – the perils of development for its own economic purposes, and the potential of that to fail to fit the needs of people, and to hence fail to take on any life? What makes good public space and what leaves dead routes linking dead places? And for York Central – given the council’s limited leverage over the shape of development beyond the constraints of the planning process, how do the people of York exercise some control?

Our next screening and conversation will visit Milan on 13^th January. Before then, please email or tweet us your comments to give us a starting point to build upon, and some key points to carry into the fourth session and our focus on York Central.

Organised by YoCo in partnership with My Future York

January 6^th, 13^th, 20^th and 27^th at 7:00-9:00pm on Zoom

Eventbrite booking:-

January 6^th, Copenhagen – https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/life-sized-york-central-with-yoco-learning-from-copenhagen-tickets-133351125807

January 13^th, Milan – https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/life-sized-york-central-with-yoco-learning-from-milan-tickets-133355392569

January 20^th, Montreal – https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/life-sized-york-central-with-yoco-learning-from-montreal-tickets-133355545025

January 27^th, lessons for York Central – https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/life-sized-york-central-with-yoco-lessons-for-york-central-tickets-133355783739

The Life Sized City was originally a documentary series made in 2017 and fronted by urban planning pioneer Mikael Colville-Andersen, very much the public face of the Copenhagenize design practice. Made in response to Colville-Andersen’s young daughter’s question “when is my city going to fit me, Daddy?” the series looked at six very different cities and found in each examples where the city did, despite challenges, fit its citizens. We showed the first series as part of The Festival of York Central in 2018, and were delighted with the way in which each example prompted questions and thoughts about our own city. When a second series was filmed in 2018 it was an obvious choice to prompt further conversation.

The first three of this four-event series will combine screening of one episode of The Life Sized City Season Two, followed by open discussion of the issues it raises and how these are reflected in the design decisions yet to be made on York Central. We’ll look at Copenhagen, Milan and Montreal – each with a distinctive character and each exploring creative responses to the need for change. Sit back and enjoy each episode (and have your tea) and then bring your thoughts to the Zoom room and help identify key issues we should be relating to York Central. (The Life Sized City is not currently available for viewing elsewhere in the UK!)

Watch the trailer here.

The fourth event will be a panel discussion, with a number of key players in the York Central development and will be your chance to hear their responses to the issues raised, and to take part in a lively discussion on how these can shape YoCo (York Central Co-Owned) and York Central as a whole. We will blog the events to ensure nothing gets lost or buried, and will ensure that our collective vision for this key development is a little richer for this experience. Please sign up via Eventbrite – we’d love your company for all the screenings and the final discussion.

Want to know more about YoCo? Click here and if you want to get involved click here!

Want to find out more of the background to the public vision for York Central? Click here and if you want to join the My York Central mailing list click here!

 

One of the recurring themes within public engagement is “how do you reach the hard-to-reach”.

This merits a little unpicking straight away; There will be people who really do have a stake in a place or a question but who are often bypassed by “conventional” means of engagement – and here swapping “easy-to-ignore” for “hard-to-reach” is a fair criticism. With our work we’ve always been willing to work with the “usual suspects” but have also always made efforts to engage far more broadly – we’ve run appropriately-tailored sessions in church hall drop-ins, school classes, pay-as-you-feel cafes, midnight walks with the homeless – the harder to reach.

But there are still a lot of people out there beyond this. A big development – like York Central – feels like it should make ripples right through the city, but does it? Are there people who live in suburbs on the opposite side of York for whom it means little, who would argue it’s for someone else? I would argue that there are, and this then prompts reflection on the purpose both of the process of engagement and the subject itself – in this case York Central. How can we frame questions which engage both with the development proposals but also with the lives of everyone in the city? And how can the development be shaped to ensure it as generous as possible, bringing benefit to as wide a constituency as it can?

Ensuring that a process of engagement is agile enough to fulfil this broad range of purpose isn’t straightforward, and it can’t simply be extractive – it relies heavily on two-way communication which enables ideas to be identified and addressed within a conversation, bridging between fairly specific questions about the development – York Central – and everyday topics of conversation where the conversation is taking place – that largely unrelated suburb, for example. What connects the design of a street in York Central with “you said you’re looking forward to the weekend – what especially?”

Within our work, Helen and I talk often about citizenship and democracy, and particularly a type of distributed democracy which engages with everyday conversations in everyday settings. We have had conversations with people who work in the Local Area Coordinator (LAC) teams about the role of their work in big city-wide processes. We often look at how apparently specific decisions about – say, the design of a junction – actually connect with very broad policies around transport hierarchy and about personal experiences around, in that case, movement and travel.

Covid-19 and the response to it has added a layer of complexity to those everyday conversations; issues of loneliness or poverty may well have been heightened, and the opportunity to share and connect with others has been diminished. But is has also created opportunities – a call for volunteers brought over four thousand responses; an over-subscription which has meant many people who are happy to be involved in the city’s response to the virus have not been able to take part. For many people, thinking about the future might feel impossible due to uncertainty and fear, but there are many others who could – potentially – help kickstart a city-wide conversation linking their own neighbourhoods and offering collective reassurance, along with new networks connecting people with their neighbours.

So – what does all this have to do with York Central? What does York Central provide as a framework within such a broad conversation? It can be:-

• At the very least, the development is an idea, a “what if”, a tool for discussion around how we shape our city in future, what oft-misused words such as “sustainability” or “zero-carbon” really mean.
• It may be a future place where people might live or work – where there is a question “what would it need to be like for you to be there?”
• It may be a place of exchange – where people go to learn, or teach, or share – to be excited and challenged by it.
• It may be a place to go through – a new route into the city (with better buses or greener cycling routes. Or just less traffic).
• It may be seen as a catalyst for the city – a place where we pilot bold ideas which make broader change across the whole of York; where aspirations are deliberately set high because of the opportunities to test new futures.

There are routes we can use to connect these opportunities and questions back to that broader context. In our work to date we’ve used film-making terminology to talk about how you make use of an agile viewpoint – “panning” and “zooming”. Here, we need to be able to use:-

• Panning – to examine and understand existing neighbourhoods and use that understanding to shape York Central, the city centre, and those existing neighbourhoods themselves, and…
• Zooming – to use broad understanding to then shape detail decisions about specific places or issues.

Can we set up conversations which allow this to happen? We have the Local Area Coordination teams out there already, engaging with people at neighbourhood level, joining in their conversations and enabling them to be richer in purpose. We have thousands of Covid-19 volunteers, spread across the city and all, to some degree, already engaged with their own neighbourhoods. Can we – within whatever constraints on contact endure – start conversations which begin with simple questions:-

• What about your home makes you happy?
• What about your neighbourhood makes you happy?
• What about York makes you happy?

…but then start to allow us to pan and zoom in order to work with the stories which are generated, while at the same time ensuring that the conversations build connections within neighbourhoods, and start to identify opportunities for local collective action. Conversations – which start maybe by phone (an invite through the letterbox) and maybe continue via socially-distanced doorstep chats or tea in the street when that becomes possible – all facilitated by people who themselves live in that neighbourhood, who know some of its issues, and who will share some of their neighbours thoughts on what function York Central might play for them.

This could be a genuine process of imagining and re-imagining; of giving form to ideas around happiness and wellbeing, bridging between the solid piers of the lives of individuals in their neighbourhood, and the largest and most important new part of the city. It would add meaning to work on more specific York Central design issues too; conversations with interested groups and individuals have always identified broader issues, and this city-wide network of conversations would be a perfect way to take this process of “exploring the challenges” out to a much wider group of citizens, to create a richer democratic process which itself can lead to more broadly supported directions in policy and process.

“Active citizenship” – especially in a time of great change and amidst fears of disengagement with the democratic process – must be something we seek to bring out of the current crisis. York Central can be both a tool and a beneficiary if we have the courage to engage generously; to share, listen, and to then work within neighbourhoods to support people in creating better places, alongside York’s wonderful new quarter.

This event was hastily reconvened as a Skype online session due to Coronavirus – many thanks to all who took part. We’re looking at ways of using a more robust platform for ongoing events, but it was extremely helpful to see how this session went.

Many thanks especially to Chris Thompson, managing director of Citu, and to Ian Gray, project director at York Central Partnership (YCP). Here are some notes which summarise today’s discussion.

After brief introductions from everyone, Phil gave a brief update of where we are up to with the York Central Co-Owned (YoCo) proposals – starting from the My York Central big ideas and leading through a number of public events to this one here, which set out a sketchy check on the scale of development we could fit on the site adjacent to Leeman Road which we’d investigated.

Ian then briefly outlined his thinking on the early stages of the development of York Central. He noted that initial phases off Leeman Road had the potential for around 400 homes, and that he was keen that this first phase “set the tone” by showing an intention to do good quality development working in partnership with the community. He also said that while involvement of YoCo in providing affordable housing might “tick a box”, he wanted to show how we could jointly go further and do something which demonstrated that innovative community-led development was possible. Ian also clarified that the recent funding announced for York Central wasn’t the expected HIF funding – he’s yet to find out exactly where this is coming from and what it’s to be spent on.

Chris outlined Citu’s aims – a company very much driven by a wish to address climate change through the developments they do. He described their “vertical integration” – taking on everything from timber frame manufacture through to marketing in order to control their product and ensure quality. He described the Leeds Climate Innovation District – 280 acres overall – and their part in it which will ultimately comprise around 850 homes, some workplaces, a school and care home and a lot of high-quality public realm.

Chris said that a key element in making their approach a success was making efficient use of land; by eliminating roads and surface-level parking they had achieved densities more than three times higher than usual (the Leeds scheme has low parking provision, and buried under the homes and public space). They have found that sales prices have been comparable with others in the area – higher quality and energy performance doesn’t immediately translate into higher values – but that as the development has progressed values have risen (from around £300/sq ft to around £310). Ian commented that YCP would want to act as “master developer” on York Central to ensure they controlled the overall identity of the development.

Chris was asked whether the building methods they were using in Leeds would translate easily across to York Central. Chris noted he was talking very much about the technology – designs and housetypes would be site-specific (they don’t have a range of houses which they drop just anywhere – thank heavens) – but that on the face of it they were currently doing 4-6 storey developments using timber frame. Post-Grenfell timber structures can’t be used above 18m height; this would still allow 5 storeys but there is uncertainty around whether this might be reduced to 11m in upcoming legislation – which would then require different building methods and flies in the face of “zero carbon” aims. Chris noted their Leeds factory had been designed with capacity to serve all of Yorkshire, so if a scheme was built in York the frames would be made in Leeds, but erection and finishing teams might be local.

Chris was asked about mixed tenure and affordability. Citu have been working with Leeds Community Homes – basically aiming to build housing within the mix to be owned and managed by LCH. At present all completed units are market sale, so there’s no experience yet of how a mix of owned/rented works there. The same approach can in principle be taken in York.

Chris was asked about the energy systems at Leeds – these (along with the freeholds of the houses) are collectively owned. Chris noted that control doesn’t actually shift to the occupants until the scheme is finished, but commented that there was an argument for doing this as soon as a critical mass had been reached. In response to a later question he also pointed out that the scheme has its own comms networking, so each house has superfast internet – a key consideration right now and one that helps resilience in future.

Ian was asked about the upcoming spending review and what impact this might have; he commented that the government saw housing as a priority. He was also asked about whether Homes England could apply political pressure to ensure a shift towards more sustainable development (and practically fewer cars = more housing land). He responded that exemplar schemes would be useful in demonstrating this; that he’d been successful in achieving this previously in Oxford and was hopeful about York – he noted the scheme “needs to work for fifteen years or more into the future, not for last year”.

There was a conversation about The Gatehouse – meanwhile use of the existing building on Leeman Road current leased by HE to Network Rail. Ian noted practical difficulties with getting possession of this but said he agreed it was important to get meanwhile use on the site – either in this building or in another, and he was working to make this happen.

We concluded by talking about what conversations needed to take place next. Chris said he felt a key issue in working with any partner was shared values (sustainability etc) and that there was a need to work together all the way through the process – so engaging on developing a joint brief which fitted with their approach to construction would be essential. Ian discussed the contractual basis which starts with Homes England’s standard framework (basically requiring developers to be on a register) but he said he was keen to be flexible in ways that allowed innovation. Ian said he was very open to a community coming forward with an idea for what they need and say “this solves your community-led problem and takes it to the next level”.

Phil gave a brief update on the YoCo bid for £10k start-up funding which had been successful, so the group now has some money to fund technical and legal support, fact-finding etc. We would collectively look at how to use this to move things forward. Imelda will be in touch with people about how they want to be involved.

Thanks again to everyone who took part, and to Helen for setting up the event and chairing it. We will be running a second online workshop next Tuesday 24^th March at 4:00pm with Neil Murphy from TOWN and (hopefully, again) Ian Gray.

Event held at York Explore, Wednesday 12th February 2020

Nineteen of us turned up at York Explore (many thanks to Barbara Swinn for use of this excellent space – home to all sorts of creativity judging by the stuff which surrounded us) to share ideas and creative thinking about the outdoor, public bits of our proposed Co-Owned Neighbourhood. And we did it playfully.

Starting with Pictionary – we drew stuff on the tables to reflect what we’d like to see / hear / smell in the neighbourhood, and we then wrote on cards which put in words what we thought the pictures showed. We then split into groups and used these cards as tools. We spent some time thinking about less appealing stuff – what are we likely to end up with, whether we like it or not? Delivery vans, money-grabbing developers and similar stuff immediately came to mind, and was written down. We then used the cards to identify, with each issue, where we wanted to be and how we might use the good stuff to build a bridge across to this. After a lively set of discussions we came back together to talk through how those bridges would get built.

Here are the very summarised responses…

CARS:- make the place somewhere people want to be > encourage activity (jungle gyms and fun stuff) > make sure there are bikes and routes for them > FEWER CARS.

SPECULATIVE DEVELOPERS:- make gardens and bring garden love > create a bit of wildness > re-balance the private and public > cafes and the smell of baking > treehouses > DIVERSITY WHICH DOESN’T APPEAL TO SPECULATORS.

BIN LORRIES:- create secondhand swap shops > recycling and upcycling > have collective bin areas > use new, clean technologies – BIN BIKES / BIN ZEPPELINS

BIG BOX RETAIL:- ensure interesting local competition > put shops on the perimeter to reduce traffic into scheme > CREATE PEACE & QUIET IN CENTRE

SECURITY CAMERAS:- make facilities shared where possible > create camaraderie > ensure overlooking and people knowing each other > CREATE JOUISSANCE

GATED COMMUNITIES:- Crime and fear of it > natural security > mixed development and demographic so not everyone disappears during daytime > places where people naturally meet (“proper Secure by Design”) > active space and frontages with gardens > SHOPS AND COMMUNITY SPACE AT GROUND LEVEL

STORAGE AND GARAGES:- Create library of things > make it inclusive to build trust > make parking areas wild so people brush against nature > SHIFT AWAY FROM UNNECESSARY CARS

DELIVERY VEHICLES:- reduce van movements > centralised delivery spaces > REDUCE ROAD NETWORK

ROADS AND SERVICES:- bring services above ground where possible > reduce need for services (local water recycling / sustainable drainage etc) > easier for other stuff underground > HIDDEN BINS (FRENCH STYLE)

DISTRICT HEATING:- no need for gas but think about collective systems > solar panels in the best places > LOCAL ELECTRICITY NETWORK

TRAIN NOISE:- plant trees to shield visually and from noise > TREES FOR COPPICING

CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND DISRUPTION:- use modular construction > TRANSPORT COMPONENTS BY RIVER OR RAILWAY

We then did a round of “when I go to York Central, in my suitcase I will pack…” which created a fun A-Z for our neighbourhood:-

A lot of children to make the streets busy

A BRIEFCASE full of tools

CHAIRS so I can sit outside and talk with people

A DRIVER of screws

EARS so I can hear the birdsong

A FRUIT TREE for every household

GARDEN seeds – for wildflowers

HELLO’s for the people I meet

An INTERN (well paid) to research the neighbourhood and tell others

JAMJARS so I can make use of the fruit from the trees

A KAYAK for my river commute to work

LOADS of chocolate

MUSIC of all kinds

NUMEROUS ideas to turn inequality on its head

ORANGES to make marmalade

PEACE and quiet

QUOSH for hot summer days

RIGOROUS RECYCLING

A SWIMMING pool

A TRAMPOLENE and a TRESTLE TABLE for events

A spirit of UNITY

VIEWS of special things

The back-end of a FOX running off into the landscaping

Lots of YUMMY food

All of it being ZERO carbon

We finished off by agreeing on our next steps:-

• Let’s get local children involved by working with schools in the area (St.Barnabas and Poppleton Road) to get their participation in shaping the place
• We have an application submitted for Community Led Housing start-up finding – as soon as we hear more about this let’s think about what we can do with these resources
• We’ve been looking at “meanwhile” use of The Gatehouse on Leeman Road – let’s pursue this and explore how we can build links with the local community and use the place to articulate ideas.

Our workshop on Monday 13th January in the Cinder Building comprised four inter-related sections; the first was simply getting there – high winds and driving rain put a fair few people off and one or two abandoned on the way there, soaked and disorientated. Twelve participants made it, plus Phil & Helen, and Steph Hiscott from Homes England – more about her input in a moment.

The next main chunk of the session was doing some initial thinking about an outline brief – what do we want this place to be, and to do?

Phil started this process rolling by outlining the progress made so far – starting with the Big Ideas from the My York Central public engagement…

• Homes for living, not investment – forever affordable housing
• Exploiting the benefits of high density
• A community made through exchange

…and the questions which emerged from discussions around them…

• How can we create an intergenerational circular economy?
• How can people downsize and use capital to invest in stuff which enriches neighbourhood and their lives?
• How can we make use of York’s inequality for good; How can we help York’s hidden creative industries flourish?
• How might the mixed-use neighbourhood of the future be more like the past than the present?

He then set out some initial steps to draw out some physical scale to this. How big a project are we thinking of? We had had discussions with York Central Partnership a year or so ago, where we put a red line around an area which had various positive features:-

• It was next to The Gatehouse building – still being pursued as a “meanwhile” use to get a community presence on the site
• It was next to the Foundry buildings – identified in the outline consent as being for possible community or educational use
• It was close to the edge of the site and the existing Leeman Road and St.Peter’s Quarter communities
• It was – it turned out – next to the area initially identified as being a likely first phase of development.

The area is shown red-lined below:-

He then outlined some basic thinking from David Sim’s book Soft City (based on very extensive work done by urban design practice Gehl Associates on urban components which work well) on perimeter blocks comprising walk-up mixed use buildings around a space where privacy/access can be controlled by those buildings.

He then described the constraints on building height set out in the parameter plans – part of the approved outline consent. These restrict building height in this area to around 17.5m – realistically around five storeys maximum (allowing a 4m floor-to-floor ground floor and 3m floor-to-floor for the storeys above. So – four or five-storey walk-up buildings would fit.

He then described measuring the perimeter of the red-lined site, which gives around 300m of frontage. Divide this by (say) 10m between dividing walls, multiply by 5 floors, and you get around 150 units which could be one or two-floor apartments, workshops, offices, shops, café’s etc. This is a very rough figure, but gives some starting point for thinking about the scale of what we’re shaping.

Using this as a starting point, we then asked “what would a day be like here? Living or working, what would you do here, what would it feel like, what would the place need to provide you with?” These were the narratives which came out (via Post-Its, obviously)…

“I’ve got a mezzanine live/work apartment but the neighbourhood is important to me too. There’s a community nursery with outside space and a forest school. for me there’s a shared “natter” and hobby space and a studio to do yoga. And as a treat for after there the York Central bakehouse which does the best sourdough in town. Plenty of activity – the public spaces are properly wild so there’s a Saturday morning Park Run through the streets, but also public art and playspaces. There’s off-road trail bike terrain and a climbing wall, plus a lake for wild swimming (and for people who want hotter water there’s a sauna).”

“The central, convenient location is important to me – I can hop onto my bike, head off to Bishopthorpe off road or walk into the city centre avoiding the roads. I can cycle back into town and almost to my door along the riverside, just making a detour to call into our local shop for milk. I’ve got secure cycle parking close to home, and I’m already in a good mood as I get home to change and go meet friends.”

“I love the pleasures of this place. There’s the social – I can walk to work along a green route and use bikeshare to cycle home, but either way I’ll likely say hello to neighbours as the places is designed so you meet people. There’s good stuff in the neighbourhood too – getting to the cinema and pub is easy, and there’s a tapas bar and a patisserie.”

“This is a mixed neighbourhood – there are all sorts of ages, and while some people need a bit of care, others are happy to give it. It’s a place where public health has been thought of, and made positive – there’s a rooftop infinity swimming pool with fantastic views. The streets have been designed for people – children can play there as they’re car-free, and there are places to linger where you know you’ll meet people – there’s no reason to be lonely.”

“It’s a place where once you get outside, you hear birdsong. The public spaces are green, and not just at ground level – go up to the rooftops and there are gardens linked by walkways; the streets aren’t the only way to get around. You can see the distant skies, but there is lots to do; people are neighbourly and impromptu stuff is going on all the time. There are places for public play too – ping pong and stuff like that, or you can just hang out and enjoy the views.”

“It’s a great place to live if you do things on the spur of the moment – there are local facilities including useful shops. It’s social too – you can walk the dog on local streets and spaces to meet and chat with people, and if you want to go further afield there’s direct access to the riverside too.”

“For me I appreciate being close to the station – I can walk there for my commute to Sheffield and the local car club is handy for more awkward journeys. But when I’m home I just love the views – a place to read and be online but immediately return to reality to watch the sunset. There’s secure communal bike parking at the foot of the building, and a shared workshop where you can repair stuff or work on your own stuff. The neighbourhood brings people in too – there are classes, singing groups, and the best bakery.”

“The neighbourhood offers so much – an easy walk into town, maybe through the park or alongside the river. It’s convenient for cycling too (and there’s a shared repair shop!). Stuff to do – art classes – and local shops selling useful stuff – groceries and a bakery. My home’s lovely too – I can use the roof terrace for a glass of wine or a coffee with friends.”

“Surrounded by a lazy river, the neighbourhood is made by its gardens and green space (and the gardens are made by local people – there’s plenty of opportunity to get your hands dirty). In fact it’s the people that drive everything – the place is set up so it’s easy to get involved and to share things, to meet people, though it’s still your own space behind your own front door). The things people need are shared, and places are designed to bring people together – a natural amphitheatre to eat lunch in, and shops and bars on bridges that connect us to the rest of the city. Good walking routes and public transport means the place isn’t dominated by private cars, and there are well-lit places for dog-walking after work too.”

“It’s the collective space that makes it special – there are skill share repair workshops for everything from bike maintenance to electronics repair. There’s a hack space for being creative too. And if you want to simply people-watch or see the world go by then there’s the café upstairs.”

“It’s a real focus for community-led stuff; James came over yesterday and stayed over as we had a morning meeting today with various co-ops and groups within York Central. There’s always food involved and lunch came from our local food co-op – bread baked locally, food grown locally! In the afternoon we had a meeting with members of our housing co-op – we’re one of three on York Central and are finalising plans to build a local strawbale hub building.”

“I’ve got a top-floor apartment and have a short walk to work in a co-owned workspace on the ground floor of my building. Temptingly, among the many local social enterprises, next door is a cooperative coffee shop – and for something stronger there’s a community pub just down the way. If I manage to tear myself away from the neighbourhood it’s an easy walk into town to the cinema. But coming home is good too – I can have a swim in our rooftop pool before bed.”

“The streets are places where people can meet their neighbours – unlike most streets you feel comfortable there, conversations and encounters are unhurried. It works well for all ages too – kids can mix, play – and explore too. Some of the public space feels wild, but safe.”

The third part of the evening was a brief presentation by Steph (on behalf of the unavoidably absent Helen Fielding from the regional Homes England office) and Tim Moon (York’s Community and Self-Build Housing Officer) on ways in which Homes England was working with development partners and communities to provide affordable (in the widest sense) housing. Steph noted that key aims were to increase community-led housing provision, and to secure 130,000 affordable housing starts in the region. Tim pointed out the council’s commitment to 5% of housing on York Central being custom or self-build – which (assuming 2500 overall) sets that requirement at around 125 homes. All of this would be on top of the requirement for 20% Affordable housing – of which 80% would be social rented. Steph’s presentation is available here as a PDF.

Lastly James Newton talked about the role of Yorspace – the community housing group that has been successful in getting a co-housing scheme included within the Lowfields Green development, and is working more broadly to support and enable community-led housing across York. Yorspace is committed to supporting community-led housing on York Central (with any exact relationship between this project and Yorspace to be decided further down the line) and with that in mind James offered to assist in putting together an initial funding application – for up to £10k of reasonably readily-available funding – to support bringing a group together, fleshing out some initial questions about what sort of legal body would be most appropriate, and gathering information by contact with other projects which have experience to pass on. There was general support for this next step.

The session closed, having made good progress and consumed plenty of cake (thanks to Caroline Lewis (Twitter’s @singingfoodie) for maintaining the tradition of cake-fuelled meetings). Thanks also to York Central project director Ian Gray for arranging the venue.