Change by Design Cape Town (2017) by ASF-UK

CHANGE BY DESIGN Participatory Design and Planning Tools & methods to support grass-roots neighbourhood development in Cape Town

Workshop Report - September 2017

Workshop Team

2017 CBD Participant using action-research tools - Image: CBD 2017

Facilitators & Organisers Development Action Group Helen MacGregor Rourke, Zinzi Gatyeni, Naemeeah Sadien, Ryan Fester and Sizwe Mxobo.

Architecture Sans FrontiĂ¨res - UK Sophie Morley, Katherine Wong & Liz Brown Jhono Bennett (1to1 - Agency of Engagement) Olwethu Jack (UGM) & Claire Du Trevou (PEP)

Workshop Participants Community Representatives PJS - Thabisa, Xolile, Andrew,Frances,Gibbs,Sasa, Nombaso, Tatera, Xolelwa KFM - Adiel Baseer, Fairouz Luddy Adiel Bassier Abdul Bashied Ohlsson OM/MG - Hudson Mcombe & Tammy Paulse

Local and International Participants Amy Leibrandt, Zareen Hadadi, Francesca Giangrande, Vendela Gambill, Kristen Loberg, Phillipe Suessmann, Michaela Usai, Tendani Butale, Vanessa Duarte, Tracy Wong, Mara Dermitzaki, Zeineb Mhir, Vittoria Camisassi, Maragarita Dimitrakopoulou, Stefana Laschevici, Fidan Uyran, Eve Parsons, Sigrid Lonnerholm, Mirette Asser, Dylan Masjoos, Maggie Zaki, Priti Mohandas and Shereza Sibanda

Foreward Cape Town is internationally renowned for itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s gleaming beaches at the foot of majestic mountains, wine farms nestled in hidden valleys, and beautiful summers that allow visitors to take full advantage of the natural beauty and all that goes with it. But for many local residents, Cape Town is a far more complex network of neighbourhoods, layering of history, and daily contestation within the spatial legacy that defines this city. Cape Townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s city plan and spatial layout is still dominated by divisive planning and infrastructural decisions made during apartheid to ensure that racial segregation was achieved through physical separation of differing race groups. The spatial legacy of apartheid means that many working class residents have to travel long distances to work; the urban fringes are dominated by low cost and informal housing; and the economic nodes have high land prices and so are devoid of affordable housing opportunities. Now, some 24 years post apartheid, residents still grapple with the navigation of the city on a day to day basis. For 30 years, the Development Action Group have been working with marginalised urban residents to address issues of spatial injustice and inclusivity, in democratic and participatory ways. Through partnering with Architecture Sans Frontiers UK, DAG is able to open the debate, and allow practitioners from all over the globe to enter the conversation at a hyper-local scale. The Change by Design workshops seek to provide international practitioners with an opportunity to enter a new urban environment, challenge their design practices, and critically reflect on the way in which they think about engagement and participation. And doing this while fuelling local projects with an injection of energy, skills, and diverse ideas for the two weeks of the workshop. Building on the success of the first co-hosted Change by Design workshop - focussed on inclusive regeneration in the inner-city neighbourhood, Woodstock - this next workshop set out to engage with community leaders from 3 different neighbourhoods within the Cape Metropol. This workshop allowed for the inclusion the neighbourhoodsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; leaders in the design and fabrication of the participatory tools, thus exposing them to the Change by Design methodology and action research tools and approach. The intention here being that the short 2 week workshop would have a much longer

sustained impact on spatial practices within the neighbourhoods. In reflection a year later, it is impossible to not acknowledge that some of the Change by Design methodologies are difficult to replicate without the level of energy and additional human resources the workshop brings. However, the learning that takes place over the course of the workshop - through exchange of ideas, development of tools, various participation and engagement activities, and reflection - should not be taken lightly, or discounted in any way. The deep shifts that I experienced as a 2015 participant, the questioning of how I practice as a spatial practitioner; continue to shape my day to day work within the built environment. And so while it can be difficult to understand the benefits of the workshops while one is deeply involved in it, or maybe viewing it for the first time from the outside - the benefits are exponential. Not only for the communities involved in the workshop - but for all the future communities who participants are able to engage with in a far more democratic and participatory manner because of what they learnt here.

Workshop Discussion Sessions - Image: CBD 2017

Workshop Tools - Image: CBD 2017

Contents

Team 2 Foreward 3 Contents 4

Introduction 5 Context 6 Change by Design: 2017 Approach 8 Field Work: Policy and Planning

Field Work: KFM

Field Work: PJS

Oude Molen Eco Village/Maitland Garden Village

Post-Workshop Reflections

Dwelling: KFM Community: KFM City: KFM Findings KFM Dwelling: PJS Community: PJS City: PJS Findings PJS

Dwelling: OMEV/MGV Community: OMEV/MGV City: OMEV/MGV Findings OMEV/MGV

Final Workshop Exhibition - - Image: CBD 2017

16 18 18 22

28 30 32 34

40 42 44 46

Introduction

This report captures the processes undertaken by the 2017 Change By Design (CBD) Workshop of a week-long participatory workshop facilitated by Architecture Sans Frontières-United Kingdom (ASF-UK), the Development Action Group (DAG) with support from 1to1-Agency of Engagement from the 23 of June to the 9th of July 2017.

Workshop Outcomes

The workshop is part of a multi-year partnership between DAG and ASF-UK and in 2017 the CBD methodology was employed to support DAG’s local activists support programme, the Active Citizens, in addressing issues of spatial development in Cape Town. In addition the 2017 workshop was supplemented by a short Challenging Practice Workshop with DAG and their CBO partners several weeks beforehand.

2.Articulating Information into a resource pack that is accessible for groups that captures social, economic, cultural, environmental aspects of the site across scales. Identify challenges and opportunities to assist in developing plans for action. In this process recognising localised knowledge exchange, exploring ritual, identity, culture as a tool for knowledge transfer.

The workshop participants included community representatives from local neighbourhoods across Cape Town, DAG staff, local and national NGO’s as well as representatives from local universities and institutions. During the workshop participants worked closely with local leaders from the Kensington-Fracterton-Maitland Residents group, the Oude-Moulen and Maitland Garden Village groups and leaders from Nonqubela Informal Settlement.

Workshop Aims 1.To Support DAG’s active citizenship programme and wider strategic aims “the creation of sustainable human settlements through development processes which enable human rights, dignity and equity”. 2. To strengthen the partnership between DAG and ASF-UK and build the capacity and learning across both organisations through the co-design of methods and tools. 3.To Explore a common language of community/ citizen led development in Cape Town through meaningful engagement that can add to the wider debate on the production of inclusive cities in South Africa and beyond. 4.To Provide an experience for participants from which they can learn in action, develop and share their skills in integrated participatory design, collaborate with a diverse group of practitioners and question the role of professional and local knowledge in the production of equitable cities.

1.Develop Strategies/tools for inclusive decision making among stakeholders using participatory tools. Identifying spaces that facilitate collective discussions, strengthen the relationship and collective power of CBO partners

3.Producing A collective ‘vision’ for the site through the engagement process which captures aspirations of local people while contextualising site with the wider city level vision. 4.Capture This process to form part of a method/ tool-kit of participatory tools for inclusive city making that DAG can use in other locations.

Methodology The Change by Design programme is concerned with advancing the thinking and practice of participatory design in ways that contribute to the democratisation of city-making and to addressing urban socio-spatial inequalities. Activities focus on contested urban sites such as informal settlements and inner city areas that have been earmarked for regeneration, both in the Global South and the UK. Through its commitment to action learning and knowledge co-production, Change by Design uses urban design and planning skills to support community groups in developing plans and strategies that foster the production of more just cities. In 2015/2016, the Change by Design programme in Cape Town focused on the development of long-term collaborations with civil society partners, with the objective to enhance the impact and sustainability of its activities. Two strategic partnership documents were produced, one focusing on activities in London with Citizens-UK, and one building on the relationship with Development Action Group in Cape Town,

Context

Time-line for DAG/ASF-UK Partnership - Image: CBD 2017

Structure of the Report

Cape Town, South Africa

The report serves to support Outcome 2 and 4 of the agreed outcomes of the workshop while offering a reflection on the workshop with DAG a year after the workshop as part of the findings section.

Cape Town is the oldest colonial city in South Africa. Situated at the tip of the African continent the city as experienced today, is a rich collection of cultures, a diversity of people, and defined by a dichotomy of space.

The first section outlines the context for the workshop and the approach undertaken by ASFUK and it’s partners.

The socio-spatial landscape of Cape Town is a highly complex and contested space, still shaped by its divisive historic past, where apartheid planning laws separated the population out across the city by racial grouping, and in doing so set in place an unjust spatial legacy that still dictates spatial development even today.

The second section goes into detail around the tools, methods and activities used by the workshop facilitators for each site. This section carries a reflection by the facilitators as a means of sharing the nature of the tools for future facilitators for such activities. The final section unpacks the final event and reflects on the workshop’s outcomes with DAG staff a year after the workshop. The report has been designed to serve sociospatial development practitioners and grassroots community leaders in their work between spatial development and social mobilisation.

During the dawn of the ‘New South Africa’, the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) saw millions of state-subsidised houses being built and provided to the ‘poorest of the poor’ in an attempt to redistribute wealth. However, these single-use, low-rise neighbourhoods were built on the urban peripheries, further entrenching the spatial divisions along racial lines. Cape Town’s ‘City Bowl’ or CBD is the primary economic and commercial centre within the City Metro, with wealthier suburbs located close to

the mountain. The urban periphery is home to working class, and urban poor, who have to travel greater distances, on congested roads to access work and economic opportunities. The metro has two other CBD’s, both centres of employment and economic activity, but not as active and attractive as the City Bowl itself. The spatial development plans of Cape Town currently focusses on promoting densification and intensification along the major corridors connecting the 3 major CBD’s. The transit orientated development approach adopted by the City of Cape Town hopes to reduce the time and expense of long commutes most working class citizens face, as well as promoting the development of well located affordable housing opportunities, located along active transport routes. The 3 sites selected for the 2017 CBD workshop fall within two of these corridors and all present interesting, different scenarios for citizen lead development within these development zones.

The intention to ‘undo’ the apartheid spatial legacy is yet to be achieved in any of the major South African Metros. Cape Town remains a city divided by transport infrastructure, historic planning, and post-apartheid housing developments. However, with the rise of strong community lead organisations, and support organisation, the integration and transformation of the city is beginning to take shape. The 3 sites chosen by DAG have an established history with the organisation and all had leaders and residents taking part in DAG’s Active Citizens programme at the time of the workshop. The workshop was preceded by a Challenging Practice Workshop run by 1to1 - Agency of Engagement with DAG staff and the community members from PJS, OM/MG and KFM as a means of preparing the participants with the methods and tools of visual thinking and actionresearch approach.

KFM OM/MG

PJS

Cape Town Map indicating location of Workshop Sites - Image: CBD 2017

Change by Design: 2017 Approach The Change by Design The Change by Design (CBD) workshops explore participatory design and planning as tools for advancing social justice and improving democratic decision-making in processes of urban change. ASF-UK’s theory of change speaks to a clear goal of supporting the development of equitable cities and sees the CBD Programme as vital part of this mission. The workshop series has an established history of iteration and reflection and through its commitment to action-learning and knowledge co-production:

• • • • • •

Salvador, Brazil 2009 + 2010 Nairobi, Kenya 2011 Quito, Ecuador 2013 London, UK 2014 + on-going Live Project Cape Town, South Africa 2015 + 2017 + 2018 Freetown, Sierra Leone 2017 + on-going Live

Community Based Organisation (CBO) on site the 2017 methodology adapted the CBD model to work through each scale of the methodology by dedicating a day to each scale of inquiry. Facilitators and participants were required to coproduce the tools of inquiry, the specific research inquiry and the structure of the action-research into day-long engagements that employed CBD’s stages of investigation. To accomplish this task while supporting the NGO and CBO leaders in their own spatial mobilisation skill sets, the co-production of the tools was a crucial element of the 2017 workshop’s approach. In previous workshops this is typically broken into day long engagements,but for the 2017’s ambitious aims these stages were synthesised into the action-research tool development and ultimately translated into the hand-over artefacts (summaries at the end of each section) and the support of the NGO and CBO partners during the action-research.

Project The CBD approach uses urban design and planning skills to contribute to the empowerment of urban marginalised groups and communities. The workshop typically follows a multi-scalar approach to the aims and questions set between the local partner and the ASF-UK organisers that breaks the scales into 4 distinct levels: Dwelling, Community, City and Policy&Planning. The CBD methodology has a built in reflexive mandate to question the participation in design and focuses on issues of Power, Process,Product and Time as variables.

A Multi-Neighbourhood Approach In support of the previous workshops and partnership with DAG the 2017 workshop was specifically designed to work across 3 very different sites in Cape Town with their site specific challenges and opportunities while building on the social mobilisation that DAG was supporting through the Active Citizen Programme. To achieve this aim and support the grass-roots

ASF-UK Scale of Inquiry - Image: ASF-UK 2018

Diagnosis > Dreaming > Deloping

Preparation | Fieldwork

Site C - Oude Molan

Asset Mapping

Walk and Talk

Home Visits

Group discussions | Asset Mapping

Timeline

Group discussions

Keep and Change | Manifesto

Planning & Policy

City Tour

Group discussions | Asset Mapping

CBD 2017 Adapted Methodology - Image: CBD 2017

ASF-UK - CBD General Methodology - Image: ASF-UK 2018

What is City of Cape Town?

My city | My home

Asset Mapping

Developing strategic outputs

The Selfie | Talking Box | The Floor is lava

Pictionairy

SCALE : CITY

Learning across the scales and sites

Site A - Kensington

SCALE : COMMUNITY Diagnosis > Dreaming > Deloping

Site B - PJS

Thematic Seminar Policy and Planning Frameworks

SCALE : DWELLING Diagnosis > Dreaming > Deloping

Field Work: Policy and Planning Context The Policy and Planning group focussed on developing an understanding of the broader policy environment that impact the 3 different sites, specifically relating to the context and urban contestations inherent to the three different focus areas. In 2017 the group members were embedded within the site specific group across the workshop. Each site group had 2 dedicated policy and planning representatives, who engaged with the full group grappling with the various different scales, from dwelling, to neighbourhood, to city - but then who also engaged with expert stakeholders, relevant practitioners, and academics while the rest of the group were conducting fieldwork. Despite each site group having contextually specific development issues and varying planning contestations; they all fall within the City of Cape Town Metropolitan area, and are broadly

affected in a similar manner by the overarching spatial development framework (SDF) and strategic (or catalytic) urban development plans - which were introduced in the introductory seminar. The intention of embedding the policy and planning members within the groups was to ensure that there was a better understanding of what residents were experiencing on the ground, and for this understanding to inform the line of inquiry at high level engagements. Additionally, the intention of the group was to better understand the various stakeholder relationships, specifically looking to unpack how these stakeholders see themselves in relation to other actors, in terms of both power and interest. Finally the policy and planning representatives aimed to grapple with the issues that were being identified on the ground through the participatory fieldwork tools, and work with the other group members to identify possible leverage points - or room for manoeuvre- within the policy frameworks, for innovative, civic interventions.

Invited Local Expert Plenary - Image: CBD 2017

Isandla (local NGO) Presentation - Image: CBD 2017

City of Cape Town Presentation - Image: CBD 2017

Focus The aim of the policy and planning group was to unpack the urban dynamics of various development issues across the three sites, with the view to co-designing a strategic way forward with the broader group and neighbourhood representatives. As most of the participants were international participants, it was important for the Day 1 seminar to provide a comprehensive introduction to the socio-spatial history of Cape Town; an overview of the myriad of land use planning policy, tools, and plans utilised by the City; and finally to demonstrate the role of the NGO’s and civil society in the development and shaping of South African Cities. While the 6 members were working across 3 different sites, with differing development challenges, the broad aims and intentions of the policy and planning group reached across these site variations. Thus the Policy & Planning group’s core aims were to:

• ●Gain an understanding the broader policy • • •

•

environment and spatial plans impacting on the site and greater Cape Town context ●Gain an understanding of the role and power relations of the various stakeholders working and operating within the space ●Identify the various frameworks and spatial plans influencing the urban development of the site ●Engage with fieldwork groups to understand the complexities and contestations on the ground, and identify possible room for manoeuvre within the policy and planning structures ●Develop key principles for development within the site group

Tools and Methodology The primary methodology for engagement with the expert stakeholders was semi-formal interviews. All of these engagements with expert stakeholders were arranged well in advance by DAG and ASF-UK, and were structured in such a way to expose the participants to actors and practitioners engaging with the sites on different levels. These stakeholders were selected for

their expertise, knowledge and work across the different sites. As the socio-spatial landscape of Cape Town is complex and contested, it was important for the stakeholders to be able to provide participants with an understanding of the historical context, and how this has impacted on, and helped formulate the intended future plans for the 3 different sites. The knowledge and insight from this seminar formed a critical basis of understanding for the policy and planning representatives throughout the rest of the workshop. This was achieved through a day long seminar, organised for the full workshop contingency, giving the whole group a broad picture of the Cape Town context and an understanding of how the sector operates.

Tool/Method Design & Testing The initial intention was to use the same tools for engagement when conducting research with high level stakeholders. However, due to the nature of these meetings and interviews, this was not practical or possible. As such, the majority of the engagements were structured as semiformal interviews. Some of the stakeholders had prepared presentations for the participants, while some merely opened conversations around the site and topic at hand. One of the participatory tools that was used in a few of the engagements was the ‘stakeholder analysis tool’. This is a visual tool which asks the interviewee to locate themselves among other various groups and actors, within a matrix. The x-axis shows an increase of interest, while the y-axis shows an increase in influence or power. The interviewee was given 10 stakeholders which were predetermined by the participants, to map out on the matrix, according to their understanding of the different power relationships. As with any intense workshop, the major limitation was time. Time engaging with stakeholders was limited, and participants were not always able to follow up with the stakeholders on issues needing clarification or further explanation.

Tool/Method Implementation The workshop was structured to allow for the bigger site groups to meet every second day, alternating with fieldwork days. Without dedicated time for policy and planning members to leave their groups, it was not always easy for the policy and planning representatives from the different groups to come together and meet as in their ‘policy and planning’ capacity to plan and strategize how they can use different tools and engagement methodologies.

City of Cape Town Meeting - Image: CBD 2017

Despite these limitations, the policy and planning participants took on a large amount of additional reading and research to ensure that they were able to best engage with the stakeholders. As the workshop progressed, and the policy and planning participants grew in their understanding of the complexities of the context, as well as their understanding of the issues being experienced on the ground, they were able to better direct their line of inquiry to the various expert stakeholders. At the end of the fieldwork and stakeholder engagements, the groups inconvenienced and completed a ‘SWOT’ (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis and tried to understand, across all scales - where strategic interventions could be made relative to the site.

Tool/Method Reflection Reflection Tool Use - Image: CBD 2017

Discussions with local experts on Cape Town Policy - Image: CBD 2017

Despite the 3 sites differing in context, sociospatial issues, physical challenges, and development trajectories - the findings of the policy and planning groups members were similar across the sites. The overarching finding was that the City of Cape Town has a progressive and innovative policy environment and built environment plans. The City’s inclusionary development zones, Spatial Development Framework, Transit Oriented Development Strategies, and move toward the development of affordable housing in well located areas are all necessary and well defined on paper. However there are still a number of application, rezoning, building, land use planning, supply chain and bureaucratic processes that continue to slow development, and restrict the ease of access of such systems to those who know how

to, and can afford to hire professionals to help navigate such complex application processes. The group found that there is a major gap between what is planned on paper, and what is delivered on the ground. This gap tends to be caused by bureaucratic processes which have to be followed in order to get planning approvals or developments off the ground; often leaving the end users frustrated and exasperated with the municipality. Another common finding was that it seems that big private developers are able to get plans passed and approvals through the City with ease, and civil society groups feel marginalised and frustrated by their lack of power in influencing the development trajectories of the City. The policy and planning group found that while there are avenues and means for civil society to engage with the City and various spheres of government - they are not perceived as accessible, or effective means of achieving a desired outcome. A possible leverage point, or room for manoeuvre, would be to increase civic action through strategic capacity building methods and civic mobilisation.

Stakeholder Engagements • Peter Ahmed

City of Cape Town • Khalid Jacobs Jakupa Architects and Urban Designers; • Mercy Brown-Luthango African Centre for Cities, Researcher • Pogiso Molapo City of Cape Town, Social Housing and Land Restitution, Manager • Marco Geretto City of Cape Town - Spatial Planner Khayelitsha • Johan Gerber City of Cape Town, Informal Settlements Departments, Manager • Adi Kumar Development Action Group (DAG), Execu tive Director • Jodi Allemier EDP, Programme Lead • Nisa Mammom Nisa Mammon and Associates, Director • Rory Williams Transport Planner

• Malcolm McCarthy

National Association for Social Housing Organisations (NASHO) • Marc Turok Two Rivers Urban Park (TRUPA) • Peter van Heerden City of Cape Town; District Planner • Tamsin Faragher City of Cape Town - Development Facili tation Unit; Department of Trade and In vestment; Office of the City Manager; Principal Professional Officer

Facilitators Notes The policy and planning realm can be exceptionally daunting and seem difficult to navigate; it is important for the facilitator to have a good, broad understanding of the critical and formative policies and plans within the context. It is important to be able to provide foreign participants with a rapid, but comprehensive understanding of the city’s history and spatial context to help gain an understanding of where policies and plans have come from, and what they hope to achieve. Using a similar mapping or engagement tool with different high level stakeholders can be fascinating to understand different perspectives and seats of power across a space. However, finding ways to capture this information can be hard. Facilitators must think carefully about what outcomes they wish to achieve through the use of different participatory tools. It was found that the most powerful leverage points across the 3 sites would be through civic empowerment and capacity building programmes which would allow the grass roots level the power to engage with high level stakeholders. If you are dealing with more then 1 site, it can be useful to look for similarities across the sites. In this workshop it was found that the most powerful leverage points across the 3 sites would be through civic empowerment and capacity building programmes which would allow the grass roots level the power to engage with high level stakeholders.

Field Work: KFM Context The communities of Kensington, Fracterton and Maitland (KFM) are located in a logistically welllocated area in Cape Town’s metro on good train, mini-bus taxi routes and even walking distance to many work, retail and job opportunities, The neighbourhood was formed at the beginning of the 20th century when the first houses were erected. By the 1940s, Windermere-Kensington had grown into the city’s largest informal settlement. At the time, this was a mixed area where people classified as African, coloured, and white lived, played, and worked together. Under the policy of separate development Fracterton was built as a new ‘coloured’ area in compliance with the Group Areas Act, and other groups were forcibly removed from the site.

residents feel the government has neglected them in the last decades of development. As a result the are looking for development investment from the City of Cape Town around housing, social infrastructures and the high levels of crime and drug use in the area. The Kensington-Factreton-Maitland Coalition for Social Justice (KFM-CSJ) is a newly registered community-based organisation that has emerged from this concern. The CBO expressed concern by local residents around the presence of African Foreign Nationals in their neighbourhoods and were looking for ways to engage with sector of their neighbourhood. The Change by Design workshop sought to support DAG in their socio-technical methods of social mobilisation, team work and tactical governmental research with the Kensington, Fracterton Maitland (KFM) Coalition for Social Justice.

Since South Africa’s democratic freedom, little has been physically done in the area and KFM

Kensington: Bunny Street - Image: DAG 2017

Fracterton - Image: CBD 2017

Kensington: Typical Street - Image: CBD 2017

Fracterton N1

Kensington

Voortrekkor Road

Maitland Aerial Map of Kensington, Fracterton Maitland - Image: Google Earth

Focus KFM is in their early stages of their organisation’s development and mobilisation as a newly formed CBO whose focus is directed towards lobbying support from the government for ‘development’ of their neighbourhoods.

• A request for an introduction to action

research ways of working, thinking based on the Challenging Practice pre-workshop. • Assistance in helping KFM to mobilise more residents. Specifically to mobilise youth in the area • Help KFM build their team and understanding of the nature of local government, and development processes • Co-design tools, practices and ways of working together in neighbourhood development.

• • • • •

Based on these initial observations, the ASF, DAG and CBO organisers decided to: • •

• During the build up of the workshop the DAG staff facilitated discussions between the ASF organisers and KFM leadership. These prediscussions along with an initial site visit revealed that: •

Residents are divided around ratepayers,

African Foreign Nationals, backyarders and non-engaged residents. Schools are strong element of social cohesion Many residents are research fatigued KFM is still building its presence as a group Many physical sites for development in the area Good local networks between churches, mosques and schools.

•

Collect the perspectives of various resident groups through the scales and steps of the methodology. Use this collection process to support KFM’s presence across divided groups and look for gaps of opportunity for collaboration or support Use the CBD participants to grow a KFM/ DAG practice of research, mobilisation and dissemination of research and visions Document and share the story of Kensington, Fracterton and Maitland in a way that could be used by KFM for future discussions towards development with residents and local government

Dwelling: KFM

Tool/Method Design & Testing The tool for interviewing the residents of KFM and collecting their perspectives on the neighbourhood at a dwelling scale was developed in the face of large scale research fatigue by residents. The intent was to develop a methodology and a tool that allows us to collect, dream and develop aspects of dwelling ( local connections, issues, aspirations values and perceptions) with a resident in the same sitting.

Co-Producing tools - Image: CBD 2017

The tool and method was developed to speak to a demographic mix of residents (age, gender and race) from each neighbourhood to collect their understandings of their context and start to prioritise their shared ambitions, concerns and ways of connecting as a community This was co-developed with KFM, DAG and ASF participants and tested with local leaders beforehand. The tool was a ‘Live Scribed Interview’ that would be gifted to the interviewer and recorded with a group selfie.

Tool/Method Implementation

Discussions with CBO leaders - Image: CBD 2017

The tool was meant to be conducted in a small intimate space and explained by a member of KFM and 3 others; an interviewer, drawer scribe and note taker.

Diagnosis

A simple A4 sheet was folded into 3 sections and drawn on using a shared method of story collecting by using a map of Cape Town to start a conversation. Once a good repore was created by the interviewer the scribe would start drawing the elements of the conversation around a ‘selfie’ drawing of the interviewee.

Dreaming

At key points, the interviewer would refer back to the drawings to ask which of these elements would you keep or leave, the scribe would highlight these with different colours.

Developing Interviewing residents - Image: CBD 2017

The final part of the method asked the

interviewee what would be the first 3 things they would to ‘keep’ the good elements. These were drawn by the scribe. The tool would then be handed over to the interviewer after taking a photo of the findings and a requested ‘selfie’ with the interviewer which was sent over WhatsApp and used to build a communication channel to KFM.

Tool/Method Reflection •

Summary of the Hand-Over - Image: CBD 2017

The tool worked very well with the KFM leadership and participants. It was a quick way to cover the broad issues facing the residents. • The scribe method allowed a less formal way of interviewing, but was difficult for residents to process afterwards. • The selfie method worked well, but was not preferred by older interviewees who did not understand the purpose.

Facilitators Notes

The Selfie Tool - Image: CBD 2017

Key to this stage was having a few people in the community who are willing to show others around their home in order to undertake the mapping exercise. These could either be organised in advance, or identified in a more spontaneous way as the activities unfold. Ideally the resident of the home being mapped would take an active role in drawing their home. However participants might find it challenging to represent their home spatially, and the facilitator might need to start the process. Having pre-prepared icons representing different types of rooms and activities is helpful to allow participants to arrange them in a way that represents their home. It is important to think about the house it its wider context - is it part of a larger compound? Are there shared facilities with other households? The map can also be used as a springboard to engage residents in discussions about the more intangible aspects of their domestic environment, such as social relations, and how residents’ experience of home changes over time.

Hand-Over Element of the tool - Image: CBD 2017

Community: KFM

Tool/Method Design & Testing At the community scale the aim was to develop a methodology and a tool that allows us to collect, dream and develop aspects of the interviewerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s neighbourhood as well as the other neighbourhoods (stigmas, values and dreams for areas) with a resident in the same sitting.

Building the Tools - Image: CBD 2017

The aim was to develop a mix of tools in order to speak to a demographic mix of residents (age, gender and race) from each neighbourhood to collect their understandings of their context and start to prioritise their shared ambitions, concerns and ways of connecting as a neighbourhood. These tools sets also sought to assist KFM in developing a strong presence in the area and share their intent. They were designed to work in large areas and draw public attention.

Tool/Method Implementation The diagnosis, dreaming and developing aspects of the method were embedded in the questionnaire that was used by all 3 tool teams and slightly adjusted based on the target of the tool. The We Love Maitland Tool - Image: CBD 2017

Tool #1: Selfie Frame â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Older People

Working in teams of 2, one person interviews and the other records notes on post-its. The tool is a physical frame that allows a selfie to be taken with a chosen neighbourhood to declare affection to. A person would be asked if they would like to take a selfie with the frame and choose their neighbourhood. Then the interviewer would ask a series of questions about their neighbourhood to the interviewee These would be recorded in the frame on post its and build a community wall of values on each selfie frame about the neighbourhoods. It also allowed the KFM to be publicly seen and recognised.

The Hoe Lyk Jy? Tool - Image: CBD 2017

Tool #2: Hoe Lyk Dit? (How are you?) Story -Box – Younger People

Working in teams of 2 people, one person interviews and the other records notes on postits. The tool is a small ‘boom box’ that holds a recording device. A person would be attracted to the tool and ask what it is, they would be asked if they would like their story recorded.

Hoe Lyk Jy? Tool in action - Image: CBD 2017

The box would hold a cell phone that would record the interview while the note-taker would place the findings in the boom box holding the various stories. This tool worked with a different demographic to the Selfie Frame

Tool#3: Lava Game - Kids

1 team of 3 worked with kids to discuss different perceptions of the neighbourhoods by playing a ‘ lava game ‘ and asking them questions about the areas through drawing. These were collected and collated.

Tool/Method Reflection •

The tool sets were very effective in gathering attention, but due to their public nature were difficult to keep consensus in small groups.

•

The mix of tools allowed the large team to cover lots of ground and different team members interests be explored through the different demographic targets of each tool.

•

The selfie Frame was a very powerful branding tool for the KFM social Coalition.

We Love KFM Selfie Tool - Image: CBD 2017

Facilitators Notes These tools worked well in public open spaces and were strong ‘attractor’ tools that aimed to draw attention to their use. If the tools were meant to work in smaller more intimate areas they should be adjusted and adapted to more engaged activities around their use. The neighbourhood Lava Game Tool - Image: CBD 2017

City: KFM

Tool/Method Design & Testing At the city scale the KFM leadership worked more closely with DAG members on the strategic planning of the Coalition in regard to the City of Cape Town’s large scale development plan. The workshop team used this scale as a way of drawing in other local stakeholders to the KFM coalition’s interest and sought to co-produce an asset map of the area.

Unpacking the ‘City’ Scale - Image: CBD 2017

This scale additionally was used to map and collect stories from specific identified areas based on the previous tool’s findings.

Large Format Asset- Map

A simple large-scale map was used to asset map and collect stories from specific identified areas based on the previous tools. The map allowed various people to contribute to a spatial representation and discuss the value associated to various physical and spatial aspects of the areas in relation to Cape Town.

Tool Implementation

Stakeholder Analysis at a City Scale - Image: CBD 2017

The map was printed, and noted with the findings. It was then glued to a cardboard base and taken to meetings with KFM identified local stakeholders and potential partners.

Diagnosis, Dreaming and Developing

Again the questionnaire developed with the KFM leadership and DAG members was designed to guide the stakeholders through these 3 stages of the CBD workshop. These answers were then recorded on the map that was later added to the site specific final outcome.

Workshopping the Map - Image: CBD 2017

Tool Reflection At this stage of the workshop the leadership and ASF participants were experiencing their own energy levels dropping. The adaptation of the tool allowed a more energy efficient processing of the community scale findings as well as a tangible output for the KFM leadership to work together on with the DAG members.

Local CBO partners with the Large Map - Image: CBD 2017

One of the unexpected outcomes came from the design of a logo for the KFM Coalition from a participant. This small act during the exercises was capitalised on by members of the Coalition for a public meeting that week.

SWOT Analysis - Image: CBD 2017

Facilitators Notes Managing the groupâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s energy and interest is a key part of action research. The complexity of the tool and the intended outcome of the work are important depicts to manage near the end of workshops and exercises. An important aspect of these tools is additionally the manner in which the data can be processed; this should be designed in a way that is easy for the group to record and capture. Analysing the tools - Image: CBD 2017

Findings KFM

KFM Summary of Findings and Hand-Over Pamphlet - Image: CBD 2017

Findings KFM

KFM Summary of Findings and Hand-Over Pamphlet - Image: CBD 2017

Field Work: PJS Context Nonqubela Informal Settlement, (also known as PJS) is located in the historic township of Khayelitsha, approximately 22km south east of the city centre of Cape Town along the N2 highway. PJS is an informal settlement, established in 1989, it now comprises of 886 households. (233 dwelling per hectare). The settlement is comprised of five different land parcels, which make up an area of approximately 3.35 hectares. All five land parcels are under the ownership of the City of Cape Town and are currently zoned for Community Use or as Public Open Space. The neighbourhood was electrified in 2009 and has 21 water standpipes, (42 households per tap) and 194 flush toilets, of which four taps and 27 toilets are not functional (5 households per toilet). Better housing conditions have been a key aspiration for residents living in PJS. This aspiration prompted the need to

conduct participatory land use studies in order to help residents to understand the various options available . Prior to the ASF process, DAG undertook a process of participatory action planning through the National Upgrading Support Programme (NSUP) in 2014. An outcome of NUSP process was the development of short, medium to long term plans, which were developed with community leaders and the ward councilor. The recommendation were owned by the community. • •

•

• •

The community leadership were still consolidating their group and members had varying skills and capacities. There was an opportunity to build trust between the community leadership and the wider community through meaningful engagements. There was no overall vision (short term, medium term and long term) for the community leadership to act upon and no longer-term strategy on how to connect community aspirations into actions. The ward could potentially be divided into five research areas, defined by the streets. There were initial neighbourhood concerns including vehicle access and drainage and sanitation issues.

PJS shared yard area - Image: CBD 2017

Transect walk with CBO’s - Image: CBD 2017

Typical Toilet Block - Image: CBD 2017

Nonqubela/PJS

Aerial Map of PJS - Image: CBD 2017

Focus At the time of the CBD workshop, the PJS Community Leadership, was a newly formed group, made up of resident members with varying skills and capacities. As the leadership had newly reformed due to the amalgamation the two wards in which PJS was situated, they had initial difficulties in consolidating its members. DAG saw the CBD workshop as an opportunity to support the PJS Community Leadership in building its own capacity and the capacity across the neighbourhood. At the time of the workshop there was no clear vision and mission for the Community Leadership to act upon or a longer term strategy on a clear support process on how to connect aspirations into actions. At the time of the workshop there was no clear vision and mission for the Community Leadership to act upon or a longer term strategy on a clear support process on how to connect aspirations into actions. The focus of the Change by Design workshop was to: •

Develop research methods and tools that the PJS leadership could use to engage with the neighbourhood including identify its community assets and networks.

• •

•

Utilise the CBD team to undertake initial research within the field to develop initial findings. Develop the capacity of the PJS leadership to continue to utilise the CBD tools and methods to continue to conduct research into their neighbourhood. Act as future discussion tools to build partnerships and networks across the neighbourhood and city order to facilitate actions.

The workshop aims were to: • • • •

•

Develop tools for mapping and understanding the local area. Highlight and unlock the community assets, networks and skills. Unpack understand the mechanics of incremental upgrading. Develop a process with the leadership to continue to support and nurture the assets, networks and skills of the community. Build partnerships and networks in order to facilitate future actions.

The workshop outcomes were to: • • •

Define the roles and responsibilities across parties and within the community leadership. Develop a tool-kit with the leadership for communicating to different audiences. Develop a tool-kit which acts to research and evaluate change and progress in the community.

Dwelling: PJS

Tool/Method Design & Testing The aim at the dwelling scale was to develop a methods that would allow us to diagnose, dream and develop aspects of dwelling, uncovering local connections, issues, aspirations, values and perceptions. The methods helped to develop an understanding of home as a system of environmental, social and physical conditions.

Tool Development with PJS Leaders - Image: CBD 2017

This was done using a number of tools and methods that investigated themes such as daily activities, tenure security, access to resources, power relations, aspirations and support systems. This was in the hope that this would enable the leaders to continue profiling the wider PJS community within a standard framework.

Tool/Method Implementation Tool 1 - What is Home to you?

In groups of 4 people, the question of “What is home for you?” Was discussed and answered on post-it notes. This allowed the groups to gain an overview of the different elements of what they saw home as.

Tool 2 - Mapping Daily Activities & Home

Analysing tool findings - Image: CBD 2017

An A1 map of the neighbourhood was prepared. A person acted as the interviewer asking the interviewee to outline their daily activities on the map. The interviewee then conducted a tour of their home and surrounding area to share their experience of home and engaged in an exercise of things they would keep and things to change within their dwelling. The experiences were recorded through sketches and notes.

Tool 3 - Things to Keep and Things to Change & Commonalities and Rating

Working in teams of 6-10 people, things to keep and things to change were written on postit notes in two columns and the participant group placed stickers on what they prioritised. Participants were encouraged to talk about why they wanted to keep and change similar things. Commonalities were then rated in a shared ‘top 5’ priority list.

Tool 4 – Manifesto Preparing the tool with PJS leaders - Image: CBD 2017

From the list of commonalities, a five point manifesto was developed on A1 paper to express the top 5 key shared dwelling principles.

Tool/Method Reflection Feedback about the dwelling methods from the two CBO representatives from PJS was overall positive: Tool 1 defined the values of the home of the focus group. Themes such as comfort, family values and security were all discussed. (Whole group activity.) Tool 2 defined everyday activities and values of the home in-situ, where an individual could visually identify aspects of their home and routine to keep and change. Tool Development - Image: CBD 2017

Tool 3 unpacked the priority of needs on the dwelling scale. It defined a series of aspirations for future dwelling conditions within the leadership. Tool 4 developed and refined these aspirations through the manifesto. The methodology formed a process of profiling on a dwelling scale, while the process developed confidences and relationships between participants. Working in the larger groups at times did not allow some voices to be heard within the group as some voices were more prominent than others. Smaller group discussions may have been more suited for some participants.

Collecting perspectives with PJS - Image: CBD 2017

Facilitators Notes • Relationship building should be

• • •

• Discussing Findings with PJS Leaders - Image: CBD 2017

undertaken prior to the workshop to build trust with interviewees and ideally the home visits should be arranged in advance. The process gave the leadership a clearer idea of profiling as a whole. The process developed confidence and relationships between workshop participants and the leadership. A way of documenting the process and issues needs to be clarified from the beginning e.g.. on phones with the camera etc. Clarity on key issues is needed on this scale.

Community: PJS

Tool/Method Design & Testing The aim of the community scale was to focus on the social, economic, environmental and cultural dynamics in relation to community spaces and structures, while uncovering the needs and aspirations of the wider PJS community whist capacitating the leadership team to develop ways of working together of forming a shared community vision.

Sanitation and Drainage Analysis - Image: CBD 2017

The tools were designed to support the PJS leadership to explore a process for understanding the needs and aspirations of the wider PJS community alongside interrogating and analysing current conditions of the physical, social and civic realms of the community.

Tool/Method Implementation Tool 1 - Walk and Talk

The neighbourhood was divided up into study sections A, B & C. Participants were divided into three teams of 6 and community leaders undertook a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;walk and talkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of the study sections where they lived to share challenges and opportunities across the neighbourhood.

Discussing the Neighbourhood - Image: CBD 2017

Community leaders led the group around the sections whilst participants documented the process by writing observations, drawing, mapping and photographing whilst holding semi-structured interviews with the community leaders.

Tool 2 - Asset Mapping

Using a large map and a series of flags, pins and post it notes - the walk and talk route was mapped and different aspects of the neighbourhood were discussed in further detail through the process. This included discussions about the identified building uses, businesses and community assets alongside discussing surface water flooding, drainage and safety issues.

Tool 3 - Our Community Themes & Action Plan Transect Walk in PJS - Image: CBD 2017

A series of community themes were developed on post it notes. The three groups of 6 took a

series of themes and explored how each of the themes related to the previous diagnosis conversations. Aspirations for improvements were linked with the assets and key findings were formed under each theme. These were linked to the assets on the map to spatially represent aspirations. Ideas generated through the dreaming exercise were explored and categorized in working timeframes to manage community expectation of project delivery: Short term: 0-6months; Medium term: 6months - 2 years and; Long term: 2 years. Tool Development - Image: CBD 2017

Tool/Method Reflection: Tool 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The walk and talk gave an overview of the conditions and valued assets within the neighbourhood. Tool 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Asset mapping gave an exact location for the findings and the specific issues raised. Through this, the impact of each issue raised could be measured allowing ideas and solutions to be developed. Tool 3- Helped to frame the diagnosis and dreaming conversation as a series of quotes, photos and sketches, evidencing key findings under a series of themes.

Tool Analysis - Image: CBD 2017

The methodology was a cohesive process that the leaders were actively involved in throughout, while the framework enabled a deep level of investigation that the community leaders could use for future research.

Facilitators Notes The community tools were more effective with groups no larger than 8 people per group, which also enabled idea sharing to happen across the different areas of the neighbourhood once brought together as a whole group. Themes & Action Tool in Action - Image: CBD 2017

City: PJS

Tool/Method Design & Testing The aim on the city scale was to test a process and tools to uncover the existing and aspirational social, physical and institutional relationships between PJS and the city.

Tool/Method Implementation Tool 1 - Questions - What is the city to you? How do you want the city to engage with you? Where do you go in the city? What is the city doing for you? What is the City to You ? - Image: CBD 2017

An exercise looking at the social, physical, cultural and economic aspects of the City, posing a series of questions about the city. Questions were written on A1 paper and answers were written on post it notes and shared with the group. These questions were discussed in groups of 4 to brainstorm and diagnose the current relationship of the neighbourhood to the city. Questions were written on A1 paper and answers were written on post it notes and shared with the group. Using a map of the city and pins, the group mapped on the social and physical links between the neighbourhood and the rest of the city.

Principles Captured - Image: CBD 2017

Tool 2 - City Scale Principles The findings and social and physical networks from the previous exercise, were brought together into a series of headline themes. These headline themes were discussed and formed five city principles that were written on A1 paper to capture 5 points expressing the ideal social and physical relationship with the city. This method enabled a discussion about improvements to transport connections that were linked to livelihoods, civic platforms for community participation, access and better relationships with policy makers, improved communication between neighbourhoods and the city and improved job and training opportunities across the city.

Discussing the Tool - Image: CBD 2017

Tool/Method Reflection Tool 1 worked well in starting a discussion about the relationship between the community leaders and city officials. This tool could be developed further to be more graphically engaging. The tool engaged only a select few members of the working group and may have worked better in smaller groups. Existing transport corridors and networks could have been mapped on a map prior to the workshop discussions.

Collecting Perspectives - Image: CBD 2017

Tool 2 worked well in starting to understand the key city principles, however, it could have been more graphically engaging. Additional tools could have been useful to understand the relationship and structures between PJS and neighbouring informal settlements. Additional tools could have been useful to showcase case studies across Cape Town of different projects and activities of the various informal settlements (e.g.. re-blocking projects)

Summarising results - Image: CBD 2017

Facilitators Notes The city tools could be developed further in general to be more spatial and graphically engaging.

• A space needs to be created to capture the perspectives of different people in differing situations. • There is a concern that the leadership group was divided in its communication and not a cohesive team on the whole. • Some voices were more prominent than others and some disagreements not resolved completely. This is a key issue that needs to be addressed in order for the leadership of PJS to progress with the profiling process productively Findings Discussion with Leadership - Image: CBD 2017

Findings PJS

Summary of Findings Hand Over Pamphlet - Image: CBD 2017

Findings PJS

Summary of Findings Hand Over Pamphlet - Image: CBD 2017

Oude Molen Eco Village/Maitland Garden Village These two neighbouring communities are located next to Pinelands Station along Alexandra Road close to the city centre. They are within the boundaries of the Two River Urban Park, where DAG is supporting community groups as part of the Black River Corridor Project. Currently local government is creating a new spatial development framework for the area, which could attract potential investment, but also put pressure on these communities with a real threat of displacement. The Oude Molen Eco Village (OMEV) situated along Alexandra Road in Cape Town was established by a group of social entrepreneurs as a micro-enterprise entity in 1997. The village is a transformed psychiatric hospital which was decommissioned in the early 1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. Since 1997, the Eco Village has been a point of interest for many developers. The land parcel is stateowned, and is therefore vulnerable to be sold off to private developers. Oude Molen Eco Village Tenants Association (OMVETA) and the Two Rivers Urban Park Association (TRUPA) are currently the main stakeholders who stand

in opposition to the potential redevelopment. They have created an alternative development proposal to establish the village as a social enterprise where profits will be used for addition social, economic and environmental initiatives. Maitland Garden Village (MGV) was established roughly 90 years ago as a neighbourhood for coloured municipal workers. It was seen as the first major local housing development to address overcrowding in the inner city. MGV is located along Alexandra Road and is bordered by Ndabeni Industrial Park, the OMEV and the Two Rivers Urban Park. The village has a pristine view of Table Mountain, and is situated along the Black River. Situated 6km from the Cape Town Central Business District, the village is home to roughly to 1614 people. . The group worked with representatives from both sites using participatory design tools to understand their future aspirations, as well as exploring the threats and opportunities that will arise from these plans.

Maitland Garden Village - DAG 2017

Maitland Garden Village Heritage Structures - Image: DAG 2017

Maitland Garden Village Spaza Shop - Image: CBD 2017

Maitland Garden Village (MGV) Black River

Oude Molen Eco Village (OMEV)

N2 Aerial Map of Maitland Garden Village and Oude Molen Eco Village - Google Maps : 2017

Focus

•

The aims of the workshop were: • To mobilise community to engage in the process of change • To co-produce resources and tools that could be useful to these groups to understand the aspirations for future change and visions for their neighbourhood. • Address the different aspirations of the community young and old and capture in general principles. • Explore how MGV and OMEV can collaborate on issues that affect them both.

•

The Key issues of OMEV and MGV • Development pressure on the land and low density sites close to the inner city. Current proposals ignore the existing community who are at risk of being displaced. • Lack of consultation from city level with the existing community in the future of the developments. OMEV - demolish and rebuilt/ MGV - gentrification and pressure on land value leading to displacement. • Lack of capacity within the groups to understand/articulate built environment (decision making) process and how to influence this

•

How to capture social, cultural, environmental value vs just economic Different aspirations across generations and participation fatigue - how to engage different groups across the sites to capture and articulate aspirations for the neighbourhood. Lack of documentation/records for MGV

Outcomes of the workshops: • Developing strategies for inclusive decision making among stakeholders using participatory tools. • Identifying spaces that facilitate collective discussions, strengthening the relationship and collective power of OMEV and MGV • Articulating information into a resource pack that is accessible for both groups that captures social, economic, cultural, environmental challenges and opportunities to aid them in developing actions plans for the community scale. • Producing a collective vision for the neighbourhood which captures aspirations of local people while contextualising this site with the wider city level vision.

Dwelling: OMEV/MGV

Tool/Method Design & Testing Aim of this scale is to understand the dwelling conditions present in the community, explore residentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s collective aspirations for change and identify the challenges and opportunities that this change may bring.

Tool/Method Implementation Tool 1. What is Home? Where is home?

What is Home - Image: CBD 2017

These initial activities aimed to start a conversation with residents about the meaning of home for them and the values that they associate with this space. It was also an opportunity to identify where people live in the community and how that might have an impact on their experience of home. Using a large map with a clear plastic overlay, facilitators asked residents to locate their home, use stickers to record this as well as any other spaces associated with dwelling conditions that people discuss. In small groups facilitators asked residents to identify three things that home represents to them. Residents recorded their answers on post it notes and then shared with wider group. Facilitators then supported the group to identify common themes (social, cultural, economic etc) to understand values associated with home and dwelling for residents in the area.

Where is Home - Image: CBD 2017

Tool 2. Walking and talking. Visiting Home

After the initial activities if residents were comfortable facilitators accompanied people to their home, asking questions about the home experience and recording this through photography, note taking and drawing. During this visit key topics for discussion included tenure arrangements, physical infrastructure and access to services. Tool 3 was also utilised during the visit.

Tool 3. Home Timeline. Past â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Present Future

Discussing Findings with Policy Group - Image: CBD 2017

This activity aims to explore changes in home conditions over time. Using an A3 sheet of paper facilitators drew a timeline showing present past and future. Residents recorded key dates and changes in the past exploring the heritage of the community, they were then asked to reflect on the present and then to contemplate future changes and how this might affect them.

Tool 4. Things to keep and things to change.

The aim of this activity is to uncover the assets people associate with their dwelling conditions eg location, view etc and factors that might have a negative impact such as security or overcrowding. This can be done as a group activity or with individuals.

Manifesto for Home - Image: CBD 2017

Facilitators used a flip chart to create posters one labelled Keep and one Change. Residents were asked to think about what they would keep and what they would change about their current conditions and record using post it notes. Sticking these on the poster and reviewing as a group, asking residents to prioritise their answers.

Tool 5. Home manifesto, we want homes thatâ&#x20AC;Śâ&#x20AC;Ś. This activity aims to articulate the aspirations of residents for their future housing conditions. This can include typology, tenure, infrastructure, planning, decision making processes etc.. Facilitators and residents reflected on the outcomes of the previous activities to support the group to develop a short manifesto.

Tool/Method Reflection

Where is Home ? - Image: CBD 2017

For this engagement the team had a space in the Eco Theatre on the OMEV side of the site. There was a steady stream of residents predominantly from OMEV in the morning, so the group felt that it was difficult to get an understanding of the different dwelling conditions and aspirations across the two communities. People had limited on time so few managed to do all the activities that the group had planned.

Facilitator Notes

The group did not have a clear idea of who would attend the session from the community partners so needed to be flexible in the process and adapt the tools to suit the residents attending and their time-scales.

What is Home discussions - Image: CBD 2017

In this context the members from the different communities had quite different views on some issues. It was important for facilitators to listen to everyone, respecting different opinions but also guiding discussions to be constructive.

Community: OMEV/MGV

Tool/Method Design & Testing: The aim of this scale is to understand the current community spaces, infrastructure and resources, explore the collective aspirations for change and the challenges and opportunities that this brings.

Tool /Method Implementation Tool 1. What is community to you? Using

What is not community - Image: CBD 2017

post its facilitators encourage residents to write 3 things that describe community to them. The purpose of this exercise is to understand the shared values present in the community â&#x20AC;&#x201C; also identifying any negative reflections of the community.

Tool 2. Walking and Talking. Facilitators

guided by community members and using google maps identifying community spaces, also potential community spaces, discussions framed around community values present in these spaces, why are they important, who owns them and who uses them..

Tool 3. Community Time-line. Facilitators

prepared a large time-line with some key political dates, residents were encouraged to add stories and events to build a comprehensive picture of the community history. The purpose of this activity was to develop a record of the intangible cultural heritage of the community. What is Community to you? - Image: CBD 2017

Tool 4. Things to keep and change.

This was written on a poster and residents were encouraged to share one thing to keep and one thing to change about the community. This was recorded on post its and aimed to capture positive and negative aspects of the current conditions.

Tool 5. Focus Groups exploring community issues

Focus groups were set up with one ASF facilitator and one community facilitator to discuss aspirations from the community. The groups were mixed in gender and age, most people were residents but some were relatives who were visiting â&#x20AC;&#x201C; also residents who had already moved away from the community. Heritage Mapping - Image: CBD 2017

Tool 6. Community Manifesto - We want development that.... In the focus groups facilitators asked the group to reflect on the proposed development plans and create a manifesto which captured what they wanted to see happen for the community.

Tool/Method Reflection

Time-line Building - Image: CBD 2017

This fieldwork day was divided into two locations in the morning in the Eco theatre in OMEV, and in the afternoon the Methodist church in MGV which also involved some key stakeholders from OM. The values identified in the dwelling scale were reiterated at the community scale but expanded to transport also livelihoods and access to opportunities. The repetition of the tools for example the heritage timeline and manifesto built on the information already captured at the dwelling scale. The map was a successful tool throughout the day and the team collected a large amount of contextual information. The keep and change activity was particularly useful in identifying assets and issues however more time could have been spent in prioritising these concerns.

Consolidating findings - Image: CBD 2017

What the activities uncovered was that there was a strong community ethos in MGV with close family ties between residents, youth, elders, lack of community facilities (or access to) in MGV Location is seen as a positive. The connection between the two sites could have been considered more in the discussions but instead it felt like the two communities were not integrated.

Facilitators Notes

There was a large group of residents for this engagement which required strong organisation and a number of facilitators to run the focus groups. There was a lot of data generated from the event and it was difficult for the team to record everything in such a short timeframe.

What to keep, what to change - Image: CBD 2017

The community facilitators thought that the activities were easy to understand and a good method of engaging people in difficult topics. With larger groups it is important to make sure everyone has a voice and is represented. Some people are more comfortable 1 to 1 than in a larger group.

City: OMEV/MGV

Tool/Method Design & Testing Aim of this scale is understand how residents experience the city with a focus on access to spaces, infrastructure and resources. City level dynamics and decision making processes that effect the community should also be explored.

Tool/Method Implementation Tool 1. How do you experience the city?

Identity Identifying - Image: CBD 2017

Using post its facilitators encourage residents to write 3 things that describe their experience of the city. Then using a city map identify with residents how they access the city, what spaces are important to them use stickers or post it notes to record the spaces and activities that are important to them, reflect on if there are barriers to access and why.

Tool 2. City Timeline.

Using the time-line created at the community scale explore city level events that have effected the community. When did changes happen and what impact? Use post it notes and sketches to overlay this information on the timeline.

Tool 3. City networks and stakeholders.

Things to keep, things to change discussion - Image: CBD 2017

With residents identify key actors, institutions and stakeholders at the city level whose decisions have impact on the community. Create a diagram which explores residents understanding of how decisions are made and implemented. Reflect on ways in which the community could have more of a voice in the decision making process.

Tool 4 Things to keep and change at the city scale. Following on from the other two scales this tool was utilised again to discuss the city. The engagement was varied from longer interviews to shorter post it activity depending on the time available from the residents.

Tool 5 City Manifesto

Time-line developing - Image: CBD 2017

We want a city that.....in groups or individually residents were asked to create a short manifesto on their future aspirations for the city. Themes can include transport and services, housing, education, public spaces also access to information about the development plans.

Tool/Method Reflection The stakeholder engagement for the city scale was quite sporadic with new community members attending who had not been involved in the earlier engagements. This limited the depth of information that was generated at this scale. Where we did have people for longer who had contributed to the previous activities we were able to take them through the different activities in which we could draw more useful information.

Heritage time-line making - Image: CBD 2017

Experience of the city varied depending on the personal circumstances of the residents, which community they were from and where they lived. For a longer engagement participatory photography could be used to capture this in more detail. The map and timeline were useful again to build on the information captured in the previous scales. Discussion at this scale supported key themes important to the community that were emerging in relation to future development; • • • • •

Heritage Access to information and resources Communication/Language Livelihoods and enterprise Housing

Facilitators Notes Network discussions - Image: CBD 2017

City scale activities can be the most difficult to visualise as they require looking at a much wider set of complex issues. Although there was a a number of in depth conversations with residents on topics related to the city facilitators felt that much more time was needed. Team reflections considered how the policy and planning scale findings could have been more integrated in the city scale activities to provide more information to residents. Many of the tools used could be designed to support the continued activities in the community. The team discussed how to create a toolkit with maps, icons and post its and guidelines also how the data could be digitalised.

Stakeholder Analysis - Image: CBD 2017

Findings OMEV/MGV

OM/MGV Summary of Findings and Hand-Over Pamphlet - Image: CBD 2017

Findings OMEV/MGV

OM/MGV Summary of Findings and Hand-Over Pamphlet - Image: CBD 2017

Cross-Developing

A Game of Engagement Typically the ASF -UK CBD workshops end in a final event that seeks to tactically bring together the workshop stakeholders with the local partner’s wider network as a way to both disseminate the information gathered and bring potential supporters together.

PJS presenting to guests at Final Exhibition - Image: CBD 2017

The final event in 2017 was held in the Good Hope Center in Cape Town and aimed to use a ‘Game of Engagement’ as the means of critically sharing the workshop findings. The final event was opened by DAG’s executive director and gave a space for the local CBO’s to share their experience of the workshop before the game was started.

Aim (of the game):

To disseminate the information from the 2-week workshop in an experiential and engaging way to support meaningful dialogue and information dissemination between CBO leaders/members, NGO staff and visitors in a 1 hour event with over 150 people.

Summary:

A large scale game format was used as a means to disseminate workshop findings, CBO perspectives and visitor insights into the challenges and successes from the different CBO’s with input from the 100 + visitors to the event. The final Game - Image: CBD 2017

The methodology aimed to allow the CBO members a facilitated platform and shared visual language to explain their group story to the visitors while channelling supportive feedback between the CBO and NGO partners that could be captured by the game process. The tool used a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) framework to host the Summary Document, created from the workshop, to give a base for the workshop facilitators to host the game that asked players to build ‘Resilient Neighbourhood’ together.

Methodology presentation - Image: CBD 2017

Each game was hosted by a Game’s Facilitator with a CBO Leader who introduced the site through the Summary Document and explained the successes, challenges and visions for their neighbourhood.

The Game Process:

the Games Facilitator.

The game is meant to be quick, energetic and fun. The entire game only lasts 20-30 mins with the event hosting 2 games over an hour period, 4 different tables were set up in the final venue.

5. A final round is then played where characters can choose to partner with the option to place more cards on each turn.

1. The game would start by the CBO leader using the Context Cards under the SWOT categories to tell the story of their neighbourhoods. 2. Players would then be asked to choose to either be the Government, the Community, the NGO or the Private Sector and be dealt a mix set of Context Cards by the Game Facilitator. 3. Players would then take turns placing the Context Cards as their chosen character (City, NGO, Private Sector or Government) in support of building a Resilient Neighbourhood. 4. After 3 turns the cards placed are discussed with the CBO Leader and facilitated by The â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

The City/State Final Game Explanation - Image: CBD 2017

6. At the end of the game, a final discussion is hosted by the Games Facilitator to discuss the workshop, the game inputs and moves and recorded by the Games Facilitator. The intent of this to create a shared visual language for discussing the nature of development from multiple perspectives that can be collected and shared by the broader facilitation team. The game allows players to occupy different positional perspectives as the four characters while hosting a co-creation model of ideation. The game also gives CBO Leaders and members a unique position to engage with such a mix of visitors in a supportive manner.

Civil Society Organisation / NGO

The Private Sector

Final Game in Action - Image: CBD 2017

Game Cards - Image: CBD 2017

Cards being chosen - Image: CBD 2017

Final Game Exhibition

Dynamics of Final Game - Cross-stakeholder discussion- Image: CBD 2017

Facilitators Notes; Participants spent the duration of the workshop focussed at a particular scale, enabling them to gain a detailed understanding of the challenges and opportunities at that level. During the defining stage these expand and provide opportunities for participants to develop strategies recognising that actions needs to happen across scales to produce meaningful change. The role of the facilitator here is to guide participant[pants through this process and help to systematise issues, creating key links that could inform future actions but at the same time being wary not to lose the richness and details from different groups. The final event involved large groups and many different voices which was a rich and energetic experience to finish the workshop and give platform and voice to all the participants involved. Facilitators should consider how to record these discussions through different mediums as in this case trajectories were useful but it was difficult to capture everything - this should be designed beforehand and carefully recorded.

...I never thought of this approach before...

Why cant I?

If we partner with this group we can....

Final Game comments overheard - Image: CBD 2017

Okay, but what do need to do then to do this....

Post-Workshop Reflections The 2017 CBD Workshop established a set of clear aims for the engagement around:

• Supporting DAG’s Active Citizen Programme • Strengthening partnerships between DAG and ASF-UK

• Exploring common language’s of community led development

• The NGO shared that although the workshop

tools were useful, the skills, energy and capacity that a CBD workshop brings cannot be duplicated easily

• The Outputs generated from the workshop

have been used by local CBO’s as lobbying tools to garner grass-roots and local governmental support in their efforts

• To provide experience for participants and stakeholders around tools and skills in relation to spatial development and coproduction In regards to these aims the workshop organisers and participants spent several key moments reflecting, discussing and unpacking the nature of these goals. These types of engagements are notoriously difficult to quantify and the establishment of these moments is a vital part of socio-spatial development processes.

Skill Transfer/Learning • In reflection the NGO has mentioned how the

CBO participants have used the tools and the skills developed in the workshop in further projects

• They also mentioned how much energy is required to develop these and comment on how this is a limiting fact in their postworkshop use.

• The reflection revealed that some of the

learning was about confidence building in the existing knowledge and how to speak to other stakeholders that the tools allowed for.

• The use of the tools with an ‘outsiders’

support facilitated the tactical involvement of other local stakeholders that may not have worked with the local NGO and CBO partners

• Adjacent NGO’s (Social Justice Coalition)

who were involved also expressed a learning exchange by using the ASF scales of inquiry in their own advocacy work in Cape Town

Communication • Reflection sessions often brought up questions of communication of process and intent of exercises - this was difficult topic to address, particularity in such a diverse group of stakeholders

• The issue of communication of documentation and the translation of the workshop’s value (in reports, publications, public sharing and other ‘outputs’) was a point of concern

• The workshop allowed for a better

communication of the value of grass-roots groups on particular sites and changed the role the NGO saw certain groups, specifically in OM/MGV

• The role of stakeholders in the NGO, CBO

and grassroots configuration was difficult to communicate and the lack of clarity in these factors made certain processes very difficult

• The reflection revealed that the documentation and follow up processes of such engagements take too long and require reflection

Tool Reflection - Image: CBD 2017