Creating a Makerspace in Portsmouth_UoP Thesis 2016

Sam Asiri 295831 MA- Interior Design

Copyright Š 2016 Sam Asiri.

All rights reserved.

The copyright of this thesis rests with the Author. Copies (by any means) either in full, or of extracts, may not be made without prior written consent from the Author or the author’s thesis tutor.

Creating A Makerspace In Portsmouth by

Sam Asiri 295831 Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Arts in Interior Design

Unit 512 Design-based Thesis U21356

School of Architecture 15th of September 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4

TOC 1.0. Figure List.................................................................................................. 7 2.0. Acknowledgement...................................................................................... 9 3.0. Introduction................................................................................................ 11 4.0. Context....................................................................................................... 13 4.1. Makerspace Definition................................................................................. 17 5.0. Methodology.............................................................................................. 19 5.1. Case studies................................................................................................. 21 5.2. Interview with Eccleston George................................................................. 31 5.3. Participatory Community Workshops ........................................................ 35 6.0. Design Project............................................................................................ 36 6.1. Design Brief.................................................................................................. 37 6.2. Manifesto..................................................................................................... 39 6.3. Local area analysis...................................................................................... 40 6.4. Site Identification......................................................................................... 43 6.5. Site Analysis................................................................................................. 45 6.6. Property Details........................................................................................... 49 6.7. Existing Building Plans................................................................................ 51 6.8. Who will experience the space?.................................................................. 53 6.9. Proposed Building plans............................................................................. 58 7.0. Project Discussion...................................................................................... 79 8.0. Conclusion................................................................................................. 81 Bibliography...................................................................................................... 83 Appendices........................................................................................................ 87 Appendix A – Makerspace definitions & terminology ...................................... 89 Appendix B - Email Interview with Nigel George from Eccleston George........ 93 Appendix C – Lego Serious Play Workshop ..................................................... 97 Appendix D - Proud to be Paulsgrove – Summer day camp ........................... 101 Appendix E – The Odd Triangle, community engagement sessions .............. 107 Appendix F – Hamilton House article................................................................ 111 5

1.0 FIGURE LIST

6

1.0. Figure List Page #

1.0 Page #

14 Fig 1. The maker movement manifesto (Hatch, 2013)

34 Fig 31. Making session - Odd Triangle project (Primary Source, 2016)

17 Fig 2. What is a makerspace digram

38 Fig 33. Makerspace definition key word mind map

20 Fig 3. TechShop member working a CNC mill (Techshop, n.d.)

41 Fig 34. Creative Census Results Infographic (Ekinsmyth, 2016)

21 Fig 4. President Obama speaking on the economy at TechShop (Techshop, n.d.)

42 Fig 35. Portsmouth Postcode Map - Online postcode Maps. (2016)

21 Fig 5. TechShop San Francisco (Tech shop, n.d.)

42 Fig 36. Mapping Portsmouth’s empty property - (Primary Source, 2016)

21 Fig 6. TechShop Detroit (Tech shop, n.d.)

44 Fig 37. Site analysis map of identified property- (Primary Source, 2016)

22 Fig 7. Artisans Asylum workshop (Artisans Asylum, n.d)

45 Fig 38. View 1 - (Primary Source, 2016)

23 Fig 8. Artisan Asylum tools (Porter, n.d)

45 Fig 39. View 2 - (Primary Source, 2016)

23 Fig 9. Mixed materials in Artisans Asylum (Artisans Asylum, n.d)

45 Fig 40. View 3 - (Primary Source, 2016)

23 Fig 10. Electronics in Artisans Asylum (Porter, n.d)

45 Fig 41. View 4 - (Primary Source, 2016)

24 Fig 11. Blackhorse Workshop members (Primary Source, 2016)

45 Fig 42. View 5 - (Primary Source, 2016)

25 Fig 12. Welcome Sign - Blackhorse workshop (Primary Source, 2016)

46 Fig 43. Somerstown Redevelopment area (Portsmouth City Council, 2012)

25 Fig 13. Blackhorse Workshop Cafe (Primary Source, 2016)

45 Fig 43. View 6 - (Primary Source, 2016)

25 Fig 14. Woodworking Equipment at Blackhorse Workshop (Primary Source, 2016)

47 Fig 44. AXON Somerstown Redevelopment area (Portsmouth City Council, 2012)

26 Fig 15. Makerversity assembly space (Makerversity, n.d.)

49 Fig 45. Current unused building in Somerstown (Primary Source, 2016)

27 Fig 16. Makerversity, the old map room (Makerversity, n.d.)

49 Fig 46. View 1 - (Primary Source, 2016)

27 Fig 17. Makerversity Workshop (Makerversity, n.d.)

49 Fig 47. View 2 - (Primary Source, 2016)

27 Fig 18. Makerversity Digital workshop (Makerversity, n.d.)

49 Fig 48. View 3 - (Primary Source, 2016)

28 Fig 19. Entrance and front of Hamilton House Project(Hamilton House Bristol, n.d.)

49 Fig 49. View 4 - (Primary Source, 2016)

29 Fig 20. Studio Space (Hamilton House Bristol, n.d.)

48 Fig 50. Site analysis plan - (Primary Source, 2016)

29 Fig 21. Hotdesking (Hamilton House Bristol, n.d.)

50 Fig 51. Existing Ground Floor Plan

29 Fig 22. Coexist community kitchen in hamilton house (Lemberger, 2014)

50 Fig 52. Existing First Floor Plan

30 Fig.23. Eccleston George Infographic

51 Fig 53. Existing Elevations

31 Fig 24. Eccleston George Team (Eccleston George, n.d.)

60 Fig 54. Prototype Model View 1 (Primary Source, 2016)

32 Fig 25. Corporate workshops (Eccleston George, n.d.)

60 Fig 55. Prototype Model View 2 (Primary Source, 2016)

32 Fig 26. Corporate work (Eccleston George, n.d.)

60 Fig 56. Prototype Model View 3 (Primary Source, 2016)

33 Fig 27. Outdoor community art work (Eccleston George, n.d.)

61 Fig 57. South West 3D Scetion (Primary Source, 2016)

33 Fig 28. Outdoor classroom (Eccleston George, n.d.)

61 Fig 58. South East 3D Scetion (Primary Source, 2016)

34 Fig 29. Lego Workshop (Primary Source, 2016)

79 Fig 59. Collection of reused materials in Copenhagen (Primary Source, 2016)

34 Fig 30. 3D printing - St Michael’s Church (Primary Source, 2016)

7

2.0

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

8

2.0 2.0. Acknowledgement

I would firstly like to thank my family who have persistently supported and encouraged me to follow my ambitions and take the leap to completing my masters degree.

I am also grateful to my fellow students across in the entire school of architecture, who have continually inspired me along my journey.

Finally, big thanks to my tutors, mentors and everyone who I have met and engaged with throughout this year, in particular Belinda Mitchell. You have all pushed and challenged me every step of the way and changed my way of thinking and designing for the better.

Statement of Originality I, declare that this thesis is my own original work. Where I have taken ideas and/ or writing from another source this is explicitly referenced in the text.

I have provided a copy of the electronic source from which this thesis was printed. I give my permission for this thesis, but not to its electronic source, to be used in any manner necessary considered to fulfil the requirements of the University of Portsmouth Regulations, Procedures and Codes of Practice.

Name: Sam Asiri Student Number: 295831 Date: 15/09/2016

9

3.0 INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION 3.0 3.0. Introduction This is a practice based research project that investigates the feasibility of opening a community based creative maker space in Portsmouth, England.

The exponential growth of technology has resulted in a connected world. We now have access to virtually endless amounts of information at the click of a button, which has changed the way the world functions, the way people interact and the way we think. Ideas can be researched, discussed, critiqued, developed and made all around the world, by one person in one place using one machine to do it all. The world we live in is always connected and live. As a result we spend our days feeling connected to everyone and everything everywhere, but physically we are doing so in isolation.

The last decade has seen the way we work change, workplaces are adapting to find a balance between optimising our virtual connections while maintaining healthy physical contact with people. This has seen the rise of co-working office spaces and the encouragement of collaborative working.

Maker spaces are public environments where cross-disciplinary creative practitioners are based, with access to traditional & modern manufacturing tools to create tangible objects. They form part of the local community acting as a place to physically bring people together to collaborate and inspire in an environment harbouring multiple skill sets and endless amounts of knowledge helping enrich concepts and push the boundaries of achievement.

This project will look at the “maker movement” and its influence on innovation, collaboration and its impact on local community. It will also investigate how implementing a sharing economy to re-purpose an abandoned building in the city, could give it new community value.

Researching contextual precedents, analysis of the city and carrying out participatory workshops will inform a design brief and project, which looks to make a lasting impact on the local community whilst attracting interest from the vibrant creative practices based in and around the city, eventually acting as a catalyst to establish funding opportunities to create a functioning practice.

3.1. Questions

• What is a makerspace and how are they set up?

• What impact have makerspaces had on the local communities?

• How can I develop a shared economy through a makerspace?

3.2. Key Words Making, Community, Collaboration, Revalorization, Makerspace

11

4.0 CONTEXT

12

CONTEXT 4.0 4.0. Context We are currently in the midst of the new industrial revolution coined as the Maker Movement. There has been a resurgence and pride in making things established through sharing open source designs, created on open source software, fabricated on open source hardware and brought to market through crowd funding. The influence of the Internet and freedom of information transfer has shifted the power of manufacturing back into the hands of the individual. Chris Anderson former chief editor for “Wired” magazine and Author of “Makers: The New Industrial Revolution” sums up two decades of innovation neatly in two sentences “the last ten years have been about discovering new ways to create, invent and work together on the Web. The next ten years will be about applying those lessons to the real world” (Anderson, 2013).

The crucial concept Anderson is referring to is the transformation of virtual shared knowledge to tangible physical objects and this is where the new industrial revolution comes to fruition. The world now has the ability to convert ideas into products through collaboration in shared co-working facilities with access to technology aiding in lowering costs and accelerating development.

In the last ten years there has been a profound change in the way we interact with everything. From acquiring knowledge to social communication we have shifted to the virtual world. Without investing heavily in physical prototyping, which has been costly in terms of time and money, we have been limited to producing and designing virtually.

Through technological advances in digital fabrication we are now at a stage where digital design can be developed into tactile objects more easily and cost effectively than ever before. Thus shifting focus from the virtual world to physical.

To accommodate for this change in mindset, spaces to make, build, and share have become a priority for many with facilities known as Makerspaces emerging all around the world. Many traditional woodwork and metal workshops and classes had been discontinued in high schools across America. Therefore, in 2012 the Obama administration launched a program to bring makerspaces to schools over the next 4 years, embracing the change in technology and capitalising on the inspiration this generates for the next generation.

Techshop, a well-established network of makerspaces in the USA have 8 spaces located across 5 states, housing industry standard machinery made available to their 1,200 members. (Techshop, n.d.) Incubating successful start-up businesses such as Etsy, which started as an online store for founder Tina Albin-Lax’s laser cut products made in her Local Techshop. (Hatch, 2014). Many highly Innovative products are being conceived and fabricated in Techshop like: C-Loop; a camera strap mount solution funded on Kickstarter, Square an electronic payment system and Dodocase, one of the most popular makers of iPad, iPhone and Kindle covers. (Jackson, 2011)) Fig.1 - Dodo iphone cases Fig.2 - Cloop camera strap Fig.3 - Square card reader Fig.2

Fig.1

Fig.3

13

A CH

4.0 CONTEXT

NG E

PP SU T OR

TI R PA CI

Embrace the change that will naturally occur on your journey. You will be come a more complete version of you as you make

TE PA

The best hope for improving the world is us. The movement needs support from all aspects

PL AY

Join the maker movement and reach out to those around you.

OL

TO UP N

AR

LE VE

GI AR SH E

M E

AK

HATCH’S MAKER MOVEMENT MANIFESTO

You must have access to the right tools for the project at hand

Always seek to learn more about your making regardless of your mastery. Learning more enables sharing more

The act of making puts a small piece of you in the object. Giving it to someone is like giving a small piece of yourself

Sharing what you make and what you know is the method by which the feeling of wholeness is achieved

Making is fundamental to what it means to be human

Fig 1. The maker movement manifesto (Hatch, 2013)

14

Be playful with what you are making, and you will be surprised, excited and proud of what you discover

CONTEXT 4.0 My introduction to the world of rapid prototyping came in 2004 during a tour of the University of Portsmouth’s Faculty of Technology prior to undertaking my undergraduate degree in Product Design. After 3 years of progressing my skills from hand drafting to 2D CAD and finally advanced 3D modelling, the opportunity came to use 3D printers to create a physical manifestation of my imagination. The results brought a great deal of satisfaction and sense of accomplishment. The process of making tangible creations somehow further justified the hard work put into the design process.

Following this I embarked on acquiring a 3D printer of my own and a journey which introduced me to the open source hardware community.

These are types of hardware or products that are designed with the intention of releasing the source designs to the public for free. This gives the opportunity for others to redesign and remake them.

This community has clear links with the DIY and Maker Movements as making things and freedom of information transfer are at their very core. Alicia Gibb; an advocate for open source hardware, researcher, and a hardware hacker describes the emergence of these movements as a “re-visitation of historical methods that were displaced when modern manufacturing came to the fore.” (Gibb, 2014) during that time, producing modern manufacturing hardware cheaply and efficiently and limiting access to said hardware for the benefit of profit, resulted in consumerism and a move away from making. Mark Hatch CEO of Techshop and author of “The Make Movement Manifesto” insists that a focus on easier access to knowledge, a renewed interest in how to make things yourself, along with a desire for more authentic and quality objects is the key driver behind the maker movement and shift in thinking. (Hatch, 2014)

Hatch’s approach to running one of the largest chains of makerspaces in the USA is exciting. His book sets out the building blocks of the maker movement as illustrated in Figure 1. Throughout his writing he demonstrates how his personal engagement with members helps him gain insight to the inspiring projects being created in the workshop. This personal interaction also aids the organic development and growth of innovative ideas and forming an environment that reacts to the needs of the user, creating a valued feeling of community.

When describing the origins of the maker movement in “The maker’s manual” authors (Maietta & Aliverti, 2015) suggest that the culture of reuse and making came about during the Great Depression in the 1930’s a period of high unemployment, job insecurity, homelessness and even starvation in some of the most advanced countries in the world. This shortage of resources led to a culture of recycling, respect, and reuse. In that culture, when something was needed or an issue had to be solved, people tried multiple approaches, starting with the use of readily available materials and often recycling objects in original ways to find a solution, proving that necessity breeds innovation.

Similarities can be drawn between the global economic downturn this generation has endured over the last 10 years to that of the 1930’s, which has helped the pendulum swing back in favour of creating and fixing things rather than just consuming them. I would suggest this has also aided the emergence and growth of spaces where enthusiasts and creators of technology, mechanics, materials and art can meet, share their knowledge, and collaborate to create diverse objects. These spaces are known as hackspaces, makerspaces, and Fab Labs.

15

4.0 CONTEXT Anthropologist Tim Ingold, defines the method of understanding through practice as a process of self-discovery.

“To know things you have to grow into them, and let them grow in you, so that they become a part of who you are” (Ingold,2013) This movement is about people reconnecting with “stuff” through their hands and engaging with new technologies. It is interacting with their personal stories and defining who they are and what motivates them. Thinking through the tangible rather than the theoretical. taking actions first and allowing the thoughts to evolve through those actions.

Ingold poetically describes this notion by stating “You try things out and see what happens. Thus the art of inquiry moves forward in real time, along with the lives of those who are touched by it, and with the world to which both it and they belong. Far from answering to their plans and predictions, it joins with them in their hopes and dreams” (Ingold, 2013) Sociologist and media theorist David Gauntlett draws a link between making and connecting by stating that making is connecting and justifies this statement with three notions • “You have to connect things together to make something new” • “Acts of creativity usually involve, at some point, a social dimension and connects us with other people” • “Through making things and sharing them in the world, we increase our engagement and connection with our social and physical environments” (Gauntlett, 2011) 16

To summarise, this area of interest has emerged from my personal experience of using making as a method to communicate and develop ideas. The relevance of this project is pertinent due to the current social and economic climate, and the resurgence of the making culture that is compelling interest in places to make and create. Current trends in working environments that are focused on co-working and collaborating further fuels the desire to design a space which focuses on making workshops as a tool for uniting communities through sharing skills and collaborating.

CONTEXT 4.1 4.1. Makerspace Definition The term ‘makerspace’ is being used to describe a variety of creative making spaces. However when researching the function of a makerspace, names such as Hackspace or Fablab appear to fit the same description, which causes confusion to the intended audience making it difficult for facilities to define what they are.

To establish a firm identity for the proposal in this project it is important to explain the differences in the use of the terminology. Figure 2 illustrates and summarises a few of the key definitions, which are described in detail in Appendix A. There are key similarities in all the definitions, which helps break any perceived boundaries that exist and proves they all serve the same goal; Facilitating design innovation through the act of making, collaborative working and access to tools aiding in the accelerated fabrication of ideas.

For the benefit of this project I will be using the term makerspace, as it is appropriately descriptive yet open ended, indicative of the activities that takes place within them

a collision of art, technology, learning, and collaboration

a community center that provides technology a variety of t ools and materials

a place that encourages tinkering

Not born out of

A MAKERSPACE IS.....

An informal, playful, atmosphere

a unique learning environment

a place where you make “meaning”

letting curiosity and imagination come to life

tools and raw materials that support invention

materials or spaces, but rather a mindset of community partnership, collaboration, and creation.

a safe area where creativity and risktaking becomes common practice

somwhere to experiment with a different way of living

Fig 2. What is a makerspace digram

17

5.0 METHODOLOGY

18

METHODOLOGY 5.0 5.0. Methodology To achieve the aims of the project, primary and secondary methods of research will take place:

Secondary Research Key texts and internet research will be used to give an overall understanding of the maker movement and give context to why maker spaces are prominent now and how they are being used.

Investigating various precedents and case studies such as; The Artisan Asylum and Techshop, will help set the scene in terms of aesthetics, location and they type of making occurring in the facilities in the United States, where as Makerversity and Blackhorse Workshop achieve this for the UK. Finally Hamilton House has been selected to investigate the process and impact of creating a community based workspace within a previously abandoned site.

Primary Research An interview with arts collective Eccleston George will be carried out to understand the implications of using a sharing economy business model.

Three local community based participatory workshops with a focus on making will be carried out to establish the effect such workshops have on young people in disadvantaged communities.

1.

2.

3.

The Odd Triangle Project Lego serious play workshop 3d printing workshop in Paul’s grove st Michaels Church)

19

5.1

WHAT THEY OFFER

Fig 3. TechShop member working a CNC mill (Techshop, n.d.)

20

• Spacious workshop with numerous large worktables • Use of all tools and equipment • Free access to surplus materials and parts • Meeting rooms • Members collaborative events • Storage and private studio space • Retail store • Community events • Classes for various types tooling, software and modern technology

SECONDARY RESEARCH 5.1 5.1. Case studies Tech Shop Locations: Mid-Peninsula, San Francisco, San Jose, LA, California

Detroit, Michigan Pittsburgh, Pennsylvainia Austin-Round Rock, Texas DC-Arlington, Washington D.C

Slogan: Build your dreams here Organisation: A playground for creativity, TechShop Inc. is an open access, DIY workshop and fabrication studio, who are a community based space where entrepreneurs, artists, makers, teachers and students come together to learn and work together. ("Techshop", 2016) Website: techshop.ws

Fig 5. TechShop San Francisco (Tech shop, n.d.)

Fig 4. President Obama speaking on the economy at TechShop (Techshop, n.d.)

Fig 6. TechShop Detroit (Tech shop, n.d.)

21

5.1

WHAT THEY OFFER • Members access to mailing lists in the facility for collaboration • Social areas • Co-working spaces • Diversely minded, but tightly knit community • Access to wide variety of tools and equipment • Community events • Classes for various types making, tools, software and modern technology Fig 7. Artisans Asylum workshop (Artisans Asylum, n.d)

5.1. Case studies analysis In the USA, where the maker movement is in full flow, maker spaces across the country are widely available. The Obama administration recognised the opportunities these spaces provide and has publicised this giving it full support.

The Artisan asylum and Techshop contrast in their business models but interestingly they both portray the same values; Empowering people with knowledge through community collaboration and driving innovation and entrepreneurship forward by facilitating making and tinkering, then making it popular with the next generation.

22

SECONDARY RESEARCH 5.1 5.1. Case studies Artisans Asylum Location: Somerville, Massachusetts, USA Slogan: We make creativity a way of life.

Organisation: A non-profit community fabrication centre that empowers individuals to give form to their ideas through membership, education, and workspace. Their mission is to support and promote the teaching, learning and practice of fabrication. (“Artisans asylum - About Us�, n.d.)

Website: artisansasylum.com

Fig 9. Mixed materials in Artisans Asylum (Artisans Asylum, n.d)

Fig 8. Artisan Asylum tools (Porter, n.d)

Fig 10. Electronics in Artisans Asylum (Porter, n.d)

23

5.1

WHAT THEY OFFER

Fig 11. Blackhorse Workshop members (Primary Source, 2016)

24

• Woodworking workshop space and equipment • Metal workshop and tools • Materials library • Outdoor workspace • Educational spaces • Leasable cafe space • Member’s offices • Co-working studio • Community collaboration events • Evening courses in various making techniques

SECONDARY RESEARCH 5.1 5.1. Case studies Blackhorse Workshop Location: Walthamstow, London, England Slogan: A fully equip open access wood & metal workshop Organisation: Blackhorse Workshop was founded by the architecture and design practice Assemble. The project has received start up support from the Mayor of London’s Outer London Fund, the London Borough of Waltham Forest and match funding from Create, Legacy Trust UK and Arts Council England. (“About | Blackhorse Workshop”, n.d.) Established as a Community Interest Company, the workshop aims to be a “place for making, mending and learning, which would re-imagine the role of production as a public amenity” (Workshop East, 2015) Fig 13. Blackhorse Workshop Cafe (Primary Source, 2016)

Website: blackhorseworkshop.co.uk

Fig 12. Welcome Sign - Blackhorse workshop (Primary Source, 2016)

Fig 14. Woodworking Equipment at Blackhorse Workshop (Primary Source, 2016)

25

5.1 WHAT THEY OFFER • Desk or studio workspace • Access to digital and traditional machinery, tools, and making workshops • Learning programmes focused around making to teach core subjects to school children.

• a community of unrivalled creative and technical expertise

5.1. Case studies analysis UK based facilities like Blackhorse workshop are relatively new to the scene.

Design collective and 2016 Turner Prize winners Assemble, founded the workshop in London where the maker movement is gaining momentum through funding and backing from the Arts Council and the mayor of London. They have since worked on a similar London based project called Sugarhouse Studios.

Makerversity is another example of the accelerated emergence of the maker movement in London, where the founders acquired 3000 square meter of disused and derelict space in the lower floors of Somerset House on the banks of the river Thames. By early 2014 they transformed the space into a vibrant creative home for over 60 businesses. (“Makerversity – About”, 2014)

Fig 15. Makerversity assembly space (Makerversity, n.d.)

26

These spaces are impacting their local communities by providing the opportunity to create, make, come together and innovate. The commonality between all the makerspaces is the open approach to public engagement and access. The idea of members forming the faculty of the facility helps achieve the community feeling where all parties have a vested interest.

SECONDARY RESEARCH 5.1 5.1. Case studies Makerversity Location: Somerset House, London, England

Amsterdam, the Netherlands Slogan: Creating pioneering communities of creative businesses Organisation: Makerversity Ltd are kick starting the third industrial revolution in the UK by providing access to a range of studio, event and fabrication spaces and prototyping tools for their diverse member businesses. Members also constitute the faculty, each contributing time and skills to inspire the next generation of creative and practical minds.

They are committed to providing alternative and free routes to hands-on learning for young people, aiming to inspire the next generation of creative and practical minds through a range of activities. This includes developing hands-on lessons for teachers and learners everywhere.

Fig 17. Makerversity Workshop (Makerversity, n.d.)

Website: http://makerversity.org

Fig 16. Makerversity, the old map room (Makerversity, n.d.)

Fig 18. Makerversity Digital workshop (Makerversity, n.d.)

27

5.1 5.1. Case studies analysis Hamilton House’s organisation is community focused. A prime example of how the revalorisation of a derelict site is having a major impact on the surrounding community. The web article in Appendix E, discusses how working together helped everyone achieve their own personal aspirations and how the facility has developed the area to become a cultural destination for the arts.

This along with other key concepts established throughout the case studies, influences the philosophy of the Portsmouth makerspace. The maker movement is happening now, and it is important to implement the positive values gained internationally, in a local setting establishing positive chance in the community.

WHAT THEY OFFER • Studio space for creative businesses • Dance classes • Community Kitchen • In house shop • Wellbeing facilities • Various classes in creative making, health and wellbeing, dance and music.

Fig 19. Entrance and front of Hamilton House Project(Hamilton House Bristol, n.d.)

28

SECONDARY RESEARCH 5.1 5.1. Case studies Hamilton House by Coexist Location: Hamilton House, Bristol, England Slogan: We believe that the successful and much needed regeneration of our community is sustainable only if the growth is organic and from the bottom up!

Organisation: Coexist is a social enterprise, setup as a community interest company based on a philosophy of open hearted and active engagement. They empower members of the community in Stokes Croft to lead its development and have incubated new creative projects and social businesses from conception to sustainability.

Website: www.hamiltonhouse.org

Fig 21. Hotdesking (Hamilton House Bristol, n.d.)

Fig 20. Studio Space (Hamilton House Bristol, n.d.)

Fig 22. Coexist community kitchen in hamilton house (Lemberger, 2014)

29

5.2 PRIMARY RESEARCH

Fig.23. Eccleston George Infographic

30

PRIMARY RESEARCH 5.2 5.2. Interview with Eccleston George Eccleston George, are a collective of creative practitioners based on the Isle of Wight, running creative workshops and projects in the local community helping create social capital.

In 2011 they were looking for a space to set up their studio practice, and came up with a novel idea to acquire their site. At the time they were working on a project for the local zoo. Knowing that the council owned a site which housed various derelict buildings, they offered to complete work on the zoo project for free in exchange for a space on the unused site. This was the beginning of their journey in implementing a sharing economy.

In an email interview conducted between myself and founding member Nigel George, which can be found in Appendix B, I asked Nigel the question; how do you define a sharing economy? His answer was as unassuming and pure as the term sounds; A sharing economy is “simply swapping things for no money” this was Nigel’s own definition and understanding of the term, after five years of firsthand experience. He went on to explain “the sharing of assets and skills is a great way to get start ups underway. Of course you could borrow money to get the things you need to get your business up and running, or, you could simply borrow the things you need and give or lend something in return” Essentially by taking action first and not relying on traditional business models and financial restrictions, there are fewer barriers to starting.

Time and effort becomes the main commitment to the business. The same time and effort that would traditionally be spent on securing start up finances, can be spent taking action and making the idea happen.

Fig 24. Eccleston George Team (Eccleston George, n.d.)

When asked of the impact the sharing economy had on the local community, Nigel directed me to a diagram he put together (Figure 23) which documents their journey so far.

What is impressive is the number of new job opportunities and start up businesses created, along with the positive change to the failing council owned business and surrounding site, with no cost to the council. Those were the immediate quantifiable impacts on the community. What is interesting As Nigel says “ is the indirect ‘multipliers’ that we’re still counting four years after we started our sharing project” as illustrated in figure 23 This gives food for thought on what more can be achieved with derelict sites and buildings. Nigel as I feel that abandoned sites 31

5.2 PRIMARY RESEARCH

Fig 25. Corporate workshops (Eccleston George, n.d.)

32

Fig 26. Corporate work (Eccleston George, n.d.)

PRIMARY RESEARCH 5.2 can be used to benefit local areas by providing facilities to encourage entrepreneurship and help local small start-ups. Nigel said “I believe that local sharing has the power to not only regenerate land and buildings but also to boost local economies, incubate start-ups, positively impact the environment, engage with education and create stacks of social capital.”

Aside from the sharing economy model I wanted to find out more about Nigel’s experience and expertise in running participatory workshops.

He told me that he has worked with a diverse demographic over the years and the results are always consistent “people love to break with established ways of working, to collaborate and to make something physical that they can be proud of”. This compliments Hatches theory that there is an interest in how to make things yourself and a key factor to why the movement is happening now.

Nigel also believes that these workshops and the act of making is beneficial for boosting confidence and increasing communication between participants, which are also trends I have observed in the workshops I have engaged with this year.

Fig 27. Outdoor community art work (Eccleston George, n.d.)

Nigel’s words and passion for the subjects we discussed have given me encouragement that I am not alone in my way of thinking, he is a positive role model for leading with actions both in business and in the workshops he runs. The more ways this ethos can be applied the more impact it has on individuals and communities.

Fig 28. Outdoor classroom (Eccleston George, n.d.)

33

5.3 PRIMARY RESEARCH Lego serious play workshop • • • •

Single session with a group of 12 adults My role was a participant Using making with Lego as a form of communication Informative session and a potential working model in action based learning • Empowers the voiceless by creating an equal level of articulation through objects Fig 29. Lego Workshop (Primary Source, 2016)

St Michael’s Church - 3D printing workshop • • • •

Single day session, total of 13 children and 5 adults throughout the day Introducing 3D printing to children in a disadvantaged community My role was to run the 3D printing session throughout the day Teaching the design process and development through sketching, 3D modelling and 3D printing • Social event run for the local area, bringing them together through making Fig 30. 3D printing - St Michael’s Church (Primary Source, 2016)

Odd Triangle workshop

Fig 31. Making session - Odd Triangle project (Primary Source, 2016)

34

• Multiple sessions with group sizes between 4 & 12 in the local youth club • My role was a project team member engaging with the youths to establish a community design and build project.

• Developed sketching skills with the children • Used 3D models to create simple shapes and test their application • 3D printing workshop demonstrating the use of technology in the design process.

PRIMARY RESEARCH 5.3 5.3. Participatory Community Workshops During the course of this year, the value of collaboration and the impact of participatory workshops has been emphasised to me. I have discovered that sharing ideas in an open manner truly helps develop a concept through group evaluation and the need to rationalise and reflect on thoughts; this process develops a deeper understanding of how to achieve the idea whilst building in new notions obtained through the act of collaborating. It has reshaped my approach to project working and given me a new method of engaging with people.

To fully evaluate these methods, I have participated in three community workshops; The Odd Triangle Project, Lego serious play workshop and a 3D printing workshop in Paulsgrove st Michaels Church, I later reflected on each of these activities in reports that can be found in Appendix C, D and E. In each workshop I took on a different role for which I had different goals to achieve. The first, the Odd Triangle Project, I was a team member engaging with the local youth club establishing a design brief for our project. In the Lego workshop I was a participant learning how to deliver the workshop to others in the future, and finally the 3D printing workshop, I was leading the programme, sharing my knowledge with those in attendance.

Fundamentally, I gained insight in how best to communicate in group settings with several stakeholders of varying ages and backgrounds.

I connected with various people by engaging through demonstrating various making and other creative techniques, which lead to interesting lines of fully immersed communication that had not been achieved previously through discussion alone. The act of making aided the flow of conversations, and depth in thinking about a subject matter.

I also found that there is a lack of confidence in young people expressing themselves creatively. During both community workshops with young people, I had to initially encourage them to be expressive by reinforcing that there was no right or wrong way to participate. Once they began, and I helped build on what they had done, there enthusiasm grew along with their level of engagement.

The workshops also demonstrated that there is a strong interest among the community in new technology. Taking the 3D printer to one of the Odd triangle sessions proved pivotal in my connection with the teens.

This was also reflected in the Paulsgrove workshop. The sight of the 3D printer in action, and the endless potential the technology holds, is an effective way of captivating previously uninterested kids. It also acts as an excellent conversation starter with adults, who took interest in the technology and its capabilities.

Although the impressive sight of the 3D printer initially draws attention, it is the act of creating something from nothing that is most appealing to people. It acts as a trigger for imagination and accentuates the creativity that resides in us all.

In summary the key outcomes of these workshops show that, events in the local community help bring people together, connect and physically interact with each other. Having modern technology available a to people who don’t regularly have interaction with it, creates a focal point for discussion and draws focus and attention to the session as well as inspiring their creative thinking.

These sessions have emphasised the need for a place where access to tools, technology and a community of creative minds can be attained to inform, inspire and to promote free expression of ideas.

35

6.0 DESIGN PROJECT 6.0. Design Project

36

DESIGN PROJECT 6.1 6.1. Design Brief To create an open access makerspace in Portsmouth, housing a variety of traditional and modern tools and technology to facilitate creative innovation. Bringing together a wide range of designers and makers to collaborate and share knowledge. The workshop will be a space to learn, create, socialise and enjoy. The spirit of the makerspace is to involve and engage all members of the local community to create a lasting impact on people’s lives. This could be through providing a facilitating space for the “hobbyist maker” to take the next step in their career; by helping members of the community discover and interact with modern tooling and technology or by creating training opportunities for young adults to enhance their skill set. The makerspace is an inclusive sanctuary for nurturing inspiration into creation.

A core value at the heart of the space will be to reuse and re-purpose as many materials as possible when creatively making, whilst also applying these values to the creation of the space itself. To achieve this the proposal is based on the revalorisation of a derelict building, which will act as a symbol of change in an area which requires redevelopment, within a community that is perceived as being disconnected.

To achieve the desired outcome described the points in table 1 must be taken into consideration.

1. Space for social interaction and public interest. This can be in the form of a café space to create public interest.

2. Area for “dirty” making. This includes wood and metal working with appropriate safety zones around tools and workbenches.

3. Area for “clean” making. A separate space where electronics and digital fabrication can take place away from dust and mess generated by “dirty” making 4. Open co-working studio space. To allow open access to work positions for a mixture of laptop and PC users. Must be flexible space for collaborative workshops to be run.

5. Private studio space. For resident studio members.

6. Separate entrances for studio members and the public.

7. Visibility between making spaces, public space, and co-working space is key to the design to maximise the potential for collaboration and enable public interest in the activities within the makerspace. This includes visibility form external areas to gain interest form passers-by.

8. Storage space for materials and projects 9. Office space for technicians.

10. Materials and parts shop. To facilitate for any making requirements. Stock items to be kept on-site.

11. W/C allowance for public and private use.

Table 1 - Key factors to consider from the brief

37

38

Outcome of Production

Techniques

Tools

Inovation

Designing for Communitiy Connection

Fig 33. Makerspace definition key word mind map

6.2 DESIGN PROJECT

Mode of production

Common Value & Altruism

Learn Make & create Connect & share

Co-production Co-design Co-Working Co-Ownership Shared Economy Socail Economy

Collaboration Contextual Critical Thinking Interdiceplinary working Common Goal Building Revalorization Exchange of skills

DESIGN PROJECT 6.2 6.2. Manifesto

The key factor driving this project is my desire to accomplish something which has a lasting impact on the local community. My observation on society today is that many people are disconnected and selfish in their actions, only interacting with one another in an impersonal manner through screens. The Internet and evolution of technology are beneficial when it comes to collaborating and accelerating ideas, but this sad observation demonstrates a dark negative side to the way we interact and socialise in this day and age. It is time to start using our screens to bring us closer together rather than push us further apart.

Many actions have been monetised meaning there is a lack of desire and time to perform activities for the common good.

Gauntlett observes that as humans we are bad at predicting what makes us happy, and we typically set aside time for activities which seemingly lead to more happiness, like working harder to increase wealth, at the expense of social engagement, contradicting researchers findings that happiness is strongly linked to the social relationships and connections in our lives. (Gauntlett, 2011) The biggest change I feel I can make on the community is to create an environment where community sharing can thrive. My desire is to reignite the value of ‘the commons’ (shared local resources) in a time where capitalism has brought out the worst in people’s materialistic traits.

Figure 33 is a diagram briefly demonstrating this theory, where altruism and common values are the basis for all social innovation, developed through social relationships and revalorising the power of community through the modes of production, to create a more educated, connected and creative outcome on the community.

39

6.3 DESIGN PROJECT 6.3. Local area analysis Portsmouth, is a city which is continually evolving and looking to the future. It is unique in the case that it is the UK’s only island city. The links between the city and making extends back to the origin of the Royal Navy’s industrial revolution, evidence of which is still visible at the Block Mills in Portsmouth’s Historic dockyard.

Cities such as London, Manchester and Liverpool are well known for their creative industries along with Brighton and Bournemouth on the south coast and are listed by many sources in the top 10 in the UK. Portsmouth tends to be overlooked by outsiders as a creative hub, however the potential is evident to anyone who spends time in the city.

Strong Island, an independent collective who promote, showcase and inform people about Portsmouth and Southsea’s arts & cultural scene collaborated with the University of Portsmouth and Portsmouth City council and carried out a “creative census” of Portsmouth to gauge the creative temperature of the city. The census was open for 9 months, with an overall response from 238 businesses of which 87% were located in the PO1-PO6 postcode area (Ekinsmyth, 2016). Results indicated a thriving creative community in the city with a large variety of independent creative practices and iconic global brands such as Anglepoise.

At a talk on the Urban future of Portsmouth, Wayne Hemmingway OBE rated Portsmouth as one of the top three cities in the UK in terms of opportunity. Yet from an outside perspective Portsmouth is viewed mainly as a naval base with limited opportunity outside of its military heritage.

40

Figure 34, is an infographic compiled displaying statistics and comments extracted from the Creative Census Portsmouth report 2015 / 2016 The key area of data extracted from the report centred around the requirement for public space in the city, to create, make and collaborate.

This is summed up by reporting the data acquired from two questions posed to respondents in the creative census.

DESIGN PROJECT 6.3 When asked whether Portsmouth required any “additional resources” for business:

66% 40 %

OF RESPONDENTS ANSWERED YES

The most common requirement was ‘more affordable studio space’

Importantly, respondents wanted this space to be hireable on a flexible basis (they wanted space that they could use intermittently/on less than a fulltime basis), and they wanted inclusivity

30 %

mentioned the need for more ‘exhibition , retail, and performance space’.

In particular, better quality physical spaces from which to exhibit and sell their work

15 %

Desired ‘co-working / flexible office space’.

This was wanted to fulfil various needs such as company, social interaction, access to specialist equipment (screen-printing and 3D printing) and somewhere good to work.

Respondents were asked whether they had any further thoughts on Working in the creative industries in Portsmouth.

The response; connection to each other through a centralised, inclusive, nonelitist space, virtual or physical, so that grouping together is possible and a creative community is built. This grouping/connection, respondents see as serving various functions that include;

1.

22.

3.

4.

Development of a central register of local skills and Practitioners so that Creatives can collaborate, use each other’s services and network.

The forming of a collective ‘body’ that can campaign for; local services/facilities, greater recognition of the value of creativity and, recognition that Creatives need a fair price for their work/labour.

Development of a sense of group identity.

A number of respondents mentioned the prohibitive restrictions on the use of some current facilities, as well as the perceived elitism of facilities that excluded Creatives on the basis of sector, discipline or taste.

Fig 34. Creative Census Results Infographic (Ekinsmyth, 2016)

Raising the profile of Portsmouth as a creative city.

41

1:11500

116

06000m

1

06 000m

1

64

65

66

68000m

63000m

67

68000m

66

4

4

4

63000m

1

65

1:11500

116

4

6.4

64

67

06000m

05

05

05

04

04

04

06000m

1

05

04

Hillsea

Tipner 03

03

03

PO2

Copnor

North End

02

03

Stamshaw

Whale Island

PO3

02

Anchorage Park

02

02

Buckland Baffins

Landport 9

Kingstone

10 01

01

01

PO1

Portsea 25

10

23

9

15

00

14

Milton

21

00

00

11

8

Somerstown

PO4

12

16

1

Old Portsmouth

4 3

2 20

PO5

99

26

7

Fratton

22 00

01

99

6 5

12

17 18

19

Eastney

99

99

Southsea 24

98000m

98 000m Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2015. FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

98000m

0.3

Projection: British National Grid

0.8

0.9

1 km

Sam Asiri Portsmouth

64

65

66

67

Fig 36. Mapping Portsmouth’s empty property - (Primary Source, 2016) 0

0.1

0.2

Scale 1:11500 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

0.3

Projection: British National Grid

0.8

0.9

1 km

68000m

0.2

May 30, 2016 18:25

4

0.1

63000m

0

4

Scale 1:11500 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

67

68 000m

63 000m

66

4

4

65

Fig 35. Portsmouth Postcode Map - Online postcode Maps. (2016)

42

98000m Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2015. FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

64

May 30, 2016 18:25 Sam Asiri Portsmouth

DESIGN PROJECT 6.4 CONDENSED LIST OF EMPTY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY #

Property Address

1

1a, Albert Road, PO5 2SE

2

72, Albert Road, PO5 2SL

3

126a, Albert Road, PO4 0JS

4

249, Albert Road, PO4 0JR

5

The Life House,153, PO4 0JW

6

Craneswater Centre, Albert Road, PO4 0JU

7

Unit 3,15, PO4 8TB

8

127, Bath Road, PO4 0HX

9

Unit 7, Cumberland Gate, PO5 1AG

10

Unit 2-3, Cumberland Gate, PO5 1AG

11

Kitch N

12

110-112, Elm Grove, PO5 1LP

13

Bae Systems, Fraser Range, PO4 9RT

14

Unit 2, Venture Sidings, PO4 0BT

15

235 - 239, Goldsmith Avenue, PO4 0BS

16

Old Pump House,199, PO4 9JF

17

Ground Floor,103, PO4 9DD

18

One Stop 3, Festing Buildings, PO4 9BZ

19

2, Highland Road, PO4 9AH

20

6, Palmerston Road, PO5 3QH

21

The Brook Club, Sackville Street, PO5 4BU

22

149-151, Somers Road, PO5 4PT

23

153, Somers Road, PO5 4PT

24

Concession 115, South Parade, PO5 2FB

25

Somerstown Area Housing Office, Wilmcote House, PO5 4NU

26

1, Warren Avenue Industrial Estate, PO4 8PY

Dor,37, PO5 4BS

Table 2. Condensed List of Empty Commercial property

6.4. Site Identification The city has been methodically divided to focus the search for the ideal site based on: 1. Locating a site in the inner city areas on the Island to establish access to a variety of different audiences. The search is focuses on the PO4 and PO5 areas due to their central location 2. Accessibility to disadvantaged communities, which aims encourage full integration and collaboration between the varied demographic.

3. Focusing on the numerous abandoned and derelict buildings, which have the potential of being re-utilised for little or no money. Fitting the sharing economy model demonstrated by Ecclestone George.

4. In April 2016 under the freedom of information act Portsmouth City Council released a list of all the empty commercial properties within the council area where there are 344 empty commercial properties.

5. The (Workshop East, 2015) report on co-making spaces in London Most co-making spaces operate from B1c Light Industrial premises, often adapted from former heavier industrial or storage use (B2/B8).

Floor areas are typically 100-200m2 for core co-making activities, with additional space for other activities on site.

Table 3. Key analysis factors considered for site identification

Applying these parameters to the search gives a list of 26 suitable properties as seen in (Fig.36)

43

Social Housing

Commercial High Street

Victorian Terraced Housing

Low budget shops

Portsea

Football Stadium

3

3

Supermarkets

0.5

Mi

les

To Po r

Industrial retail park

Fratton

tsm ou t

ha

nd S

ou

th se at Tra in Deprived Area

2

Working class population

St ati on

tion in Sta a r T n atto s To Fr

1

le 0.4 Mi

Train Station

2

Regeneration 6

5 4

5

4

Social Housing

Inner City Neighbourhood

Indipendent Retailers

1

6

Furniture Shops

Somerstown

Southsea

Resturaunts

Student Population

Bars

Student Population

Creative Community

Theater

Fig 37. Site analysis map of identified property- (Primary Source, 2016)

Portsmouth, England

200 ft

400 ft

600 ft

800 ft

1000 ft

DESIGN PROJECT 6.5 6.5. Site Analysis Property number 22 listed in Table 2 was selected for this proposal due to its central location, which is visible from a main highway running through the city, it is within the area of Somerstown which is currently under redevelopment by the city council and according to the Somerstown and North Southsea Area Action Plan (AAP) published in 2012, redevelopment is planned to continue until the year 2029. Figure 44 demonstrates the proposed council planning boundaries. The building selected sits adjacent to the council lead redevelopment area and has been vacant for over five years.

Fig 38. View 1 - (Primary Source, 2016)

Fig 39. View 2 - (Primary Source, 2016)

Fig 40. View 3 - (Primary Source, 2016)

Fig 41. View 4 - (Primary Source, 2016)

Fig 42. View 5 - (Primary Source, 2016)

Fig 43. View 6 - (Primary Source, 2016)

Key 1 2 3 4 5

Proposed Site

Image view points

Fratton Train Station

Distance Radius Fratton Train Station

Portsmouth & Southsea Train Station

Distance Radius Portsmouth & Southsea Train Station

Somerstown Hub

University of Portsmouth Eldon building

Fratton Area Southsea Area Somerstown Area

6

A2030 - Winston Churchill Avenue

Portsea Area

45

6.5 DESIGN PROJECT

Fig 43. Somerstown Redevelopment area (Portsmouth City Council, 2012)

46

DESIGN PROJECT 6.5

Fig 44. AXON Somerstown Redevelopment area (Portsmouth City Council, 2012)

47

N

5 .5 m

2

3

W

E

4

Dual carriageway

1 Dual carriageway

Fig 50. Site analysis plan - (Primary Source, 2016)

S

6.6. Property Details

6.6

Location: 149-153 Somers Road, Somerstown, Portsmouth, PO5 4PT Building status: Former taxi dispatch office, three residential properties combined to one, has been empty for approximately 5 years, vandalised and requires repair.

Building period: Main building buildings are Victorian, with a 1930s Facade added to the South East (front) elevation.

Land registry Price Stated: ÂŁ130,000 (as of 30.09.2008) Registered Owners: Aqua Cars Limited - Ronnie and Barry Leng Fig 45. Current unused building in Somerstown (Primary Source, 2016)

Key Walk from Portsea

Image view points

Walk from Fratton

Demolition site

Walk from Southsea

Fire Station

Walk from Somerstown

Primary School

Main Front Entrance

Sunrise

Rear Entrance

Sunset

Fig 46. View 1 - (Primary Source, 2016)

Fig 47. View 2 - (Primary Source, 2016)

Fig 48. View 3 - (Primary Source, 2016)

Fig 49. View 4 - (Primary Source, 2016)

49

50 Fig 52. Existing First Floor Plan

Fig 51. Existing Ground Floor Plan

6.7

DESIGN PROJECT 6.7 6.7. Existing Building Plans After investigating Portsmouth City Councils Planning portal for details of the property, a rejected planning application made in 2011 was obtained. As part of the application documentation, existing plans for the site were available to download.

Figures 51 and 52 show the existing layouts for the ground and first floors of the property.

Fig 53. Existing Elevations

51

CONCEPT Sketches

6.8 DESIGN PROJECT

7

Activities that could take place in a maker space with collaboration at the heart of each action

4 52

Key spaces to implement in the maker space to achieve the envisaged activities

DESIGN PROJECT 6.8 6.8. Who will experience the space?

Case Study In The Maker Manifesto (Hatch, 2014) describes the story of a Techshop member Tim Jahnigen. He contrived an original idea using infrared heat rays to help post-surgery animals keep warm. The traditional method in veterinary practices was rather primitive. Involving the use of wet blankets which have the issue of accurate temperature control.

Tim, had disposable income and time and a passion for taking his idea further. He approached a design firm with the idea, but was deterred by $100,000 price tag to develop the idea. Instead he joined his local Techshop and moved the idea through the prototyping stage and into a small production run, with $3000 of his disposal income and time. The animal warming device succeeded and is now used by the National Institute of Health and internationally. His membership at the makerspace continued and his latest project, the One World Futbol (https://www.oneworldplayproject.com/benefits-of-play/power-ofplay-story/) tackles the issue of world peace.

Tim’s application of spare time and money evolved into life changing products, which were aided by the availability of an environment with access to tooling and a network of contacts. This nurtured his concept in an organic fashion without the need for outsourcing or large amounts funding. His hobbyist interest transitioned into a life changing profession.

53

6.8 DESIGN PROJECT

Case 1 – The Hobbyist maker Home Tinkering

Need for more space

Collaborate

Make

Collaborate

Community

Case 2 – The Professional Office Working

54

Multi-functioning space

DESIGN PROJECT 6.8 6.7.

Who will experience the space?

A narrative based on the type characters that may use the space has been developed; to give an understanding of the setting.

Someone who spends time building, making and fixing things at home. Perusing personal projects to fulfil a particular function or for the pure enjoyment of making. A person with disposable time and income, who then uses it to innovate. Occasionally the Hobbyist becomes a professional maker to realise an underlying ambition or desire to share their innovation.

An established maker who makes a living from creative design in some format.

What a makerspace offers • Access to a variety of tools & equipment which typically would be too costly, large, messy or dangerous to have at home.

• Adequate space to work effectively that is specifically tailored to making.

• Contact with specialists who have stronger technical ability, knowledge and experience than the “Hobbyist” aiding with accelerating concepts.

What a makerspace offers • Space to base their practice with access to shared resources and tools • Access to the professional network of creative practitioners based in the facility, to collaborate, evolve ideas and share with.

• Exposure to passers-by and casual users of the space, through available display spaces and personal interaction.

• Running participatory workshops and training sessions to connect with the community and a further revenue stream.

55

6.8 DESIGN PROJECT

Case 3 – The local youth Awareness

Observation

Inclusion

Participation

Loss of facilities

Where next

Collaborative community

Case 4– The graduate Graduation

University Workshop

56

DESIGN PROJECT 6.8

A teen who spends time roaming the streets looking for something to do. Generally perceived as a troublemaker in the local community.

With The Portsmouth Creative census indicating that 36% of the participants were graduates from the University of Portsmouth.

(Ekinsmyth, 2016) It is fair to assume that there will be good amount of students or graduates with a desire to use the facility to aid in making coursework projects or start-up business ideas.

University of Portsmouth students have access to making workshops

What a makerspace offers • An opportunity to use their time productively by observing, learning and making objects.

• Tailored workshops and events providing aims and inspiration to pursue enhancing skills acquired at the maker space and applying them to support in their education and future work opportunities.

• An environment where they can socialise and feel welcome like most youth clubs. However the maker space will have a mixture of characters from a variety of backgrounds and age ranges to encourage the “local Youth” to new ways of thinking.

What a makerspace offers • The opportunity to use a workshop outside of term times; when University facilities are too crowded; or when they graduate and loose access to the tools they are accustom to.

• The prospect of gaining new skills and understanding by collaborating with other like minded people.

within their departments, so this person will have background knowledge of this type of facility.

57

6.9. Proposed Building plans The building is made up of three domestic properties that have been opened out into one.

One major wall running the entire length of the property remains, acting as a divide between the “industrial” making spaces and the “domestic” side, which houses the café and garden space.

The core facilities such as the stairs, toilets, stores and kitchen are located centrally, serving both halves of the ground floor.

The 1st floor plan follows the same division as the ground floor, where offices are located in the “domestic” half, with the digital fabrication and clean making located on the “industrial” side. The Co-Lab studio sits centrally acting as a connecting meeting point.

A large void has been created on the 1st floor.

This came about through analysing the prototype model in Figure 55. The transparent walls and floors in the model created a sense of space inspiring the idea to make a connection between the levels vertically. This also gives the “dirty” making space a double height ceiling, opening up the space and allowing for more light and better extraction.

On each level there is a horizontal visual connection between all the spaces with the use of windows between divided areas and open floor plans where possible.

6 . 9 . Proposed Layouts

OFFICE 02 W/C

OFFICE 01

CO-LAB STUDIO

1S

OUTDOOR WORKSHOP

T

CAFE GARDEN

GN

D

SECURE STORE

FL OO

SPRAY BOOTH

R

PL

PL

VOID

AN

KITCHEN

CAFE

SHOP

AN

FL OO

DIS W/C W/C

MEMBERS ENTRANCE

OFFICE 04

FAB-LAB

R

MATERIALS STORE

OFFICE 03

MAIN ENTRANCE WORKSHOP

DOMESTIC CORE INDUSTRIAL

6.9 DESIGN PROJECT

Prototype Model

Fig 55. Prototype Model View 2 (Primary Source, 2016)

Fig 54. Prototype Model View 1 (Primary Source, 2016) Fig 56. Prototype Model View 3 (Primary Source, 2016)

60

Digital 3D Model

DESIGN PROJECT 6.9

Fig 57. South West 3D Scetion (Primary Source, 2016)

Fig 58. South East 3D Scetion (Primary Source, 2016)

61

62

Front Perspective Section View

63

Ground FLoor Layout

64

DESIGN PROJECT 6.9

65

6.9

66

DESIGN PROJECT 6.9

The WORKSHOP

03

03

02

09 01

04

08

07 05 10

06 05

05

10

1

Band-saw

2

Pillar Drill

3

Shelving

4

Materials Shop

5

Workbenches

6

Tools Pillar

7

Chop Saw

8

Fret Saw

9

Disc Sander

10

Storage

67

6.9

68

The Cafe

DESIGN PROJECT 6.9

1 3

2

4

6 5

1

Main Entrance

2

Serving area

3

Kitchen

4

Public Toilet

5

Display area

6

Garden space

69

6.9

70

Outdoor Space

DESIGN PROJECT 6.9

5 4

3

1

2

1

Cafe garden

2

Allotment

3

Outdoor workshop

4

Sheltered workshop

5

Secure Storage area

71

6.9

72

DESIGN PROJECT 6.9

Members Entrance

73

6.9

First FLoor Layout

74

DESIGN PROJECT 6.9

75

6.9

76

DESIGN PROJECT 6.9

5

7 6

VOID

4 3 1

The Co-LAb

8 9 9

9 2

1

Flexible table space

2

Projector wall

3

Hotdesking

4

3D Printing

5

Digital fabrication PCs

6

Material shelving

7

Laser cutter

8

2 person office

9

Individual office

77

7.0 Project Discussion 78

PROJECT DISCUSSION 7.0 7.0. Project Discussion The maker movement is an extremely important notion, which brings back the power to make, create and manufacture into the hands of the individual. The proposed maker space aims to create a place where the feeling of accomplishment through working hard as a team is encouraged. Actively interacting with the local community by hosting creative workshops, using the collective skills and machinery available in the space will engage and train community members and fully utilise the potential of a collaborative co-working environment.

A Key objective of the project is to embrace a culture of recycle, respect, and reuse. All furnishings will be created in the workshop to suit the requirements of the community. The proposed visuals indicate some ideas of how cost effective materials can be used to create flexible tables in the co-lab space, while recycled materials such as pallets and other materials found on-site can be used to furnish the cafĂŠ space, maintaining the self sustained ethos and flexible approach to populating the space.

It is important to keep flexibility and adaptability at the heart of the design to allow the space to mould and grow organically, reacting to the needs of the users and the community.

Figure 59 is a collage of images taken from a recent trip to Copenhagen.

Throughout the city there were examples of reused and recycled materials that created a cheap and effective way to decorate the interiors of various cafes, restaurants and creating functional adaptable furniture.

Fig 59. Collection of reused materials in Copenhagen (Primary Source, 2016)

79

8.0 Conclusion

80

CONCLUSION 8.0 8.0. Conclusion Today the world as we know it is changing. The rapid development of technology has made this change possible. The result is a more connected, informed and transparent society where every concept is challenged and every decision is scrutinised. This has seen the emergence of various movements that seek to revolutionise our way of thinking.

The maker movement is happening around us now, all over the world. The time to take action and join the next industrial revolution has come; we must take advantage of the opportunity to make an impact on our local community by implementing the notions of the movement. Concepts such as sharing economies, organisations like Eccleston George and facilities such as Hamilton House, exemplify the way change can happen through individual actions, without the need for money, which can impact on the wider community.

Portsmouth is a city full of creative individual designers and makers with huge potential due to the large university presence. In contrast, a large portion of the local community is underprivileged and constrained by their social status. The maker movement is not exclusive; it exists because we are driving it through sharing, caring and connecting using making as our tool of achievement.

The virtual world has informed and opened up the world to us. As humans we have a basic need to physically connect with each other and with the objects we interact with. Maker spaces are where connections can be made physically, virtually, materially, emotionally, creatively and socially through access to tools, technology and collaborators, bringing freedom to creativity and removing the barriers to creation. Techshop has proven this in America, while London as a whole is proving it in the UK. The time has come for us to take action in our own communities, to drive forward the maker movement locally, to facilitate the creativity that resides in all of us, to capitalise on what we already have, to create the opportunity for anyone to make their ideas a reality, and to do so materially together.

The design proposal in this project is my beginning to taking action. From here, this concept can grow to become the unifying facility I believe it can be, bringing together people from all walks of life to create a thriving community that shares and makes.

81

Bibliography

BIB Bibliography About | Blackhorse Workshop. Blackhorseworkshop.co.uk. Retrieved 21 June 2016, from http://www.blackhorseworkshop.co.uk/about/

Anderson, C. (2013). Makers The New Industrial Revolution (p. 17).

London: Random House Business Books.

Artisans asylum - About Us. Artisansasylum.com. Retrieved 21 June 2016, from https://artisansasylum.com/about/ Artisans Asylum,. Retrieved from https://artisansasylum.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/04/Artisans.jpg Cavalcanti, G. (2013). TechShop member working a CNC mill.

Retrieved from http://coloradomakerhub.org/wp-content/ uploads/2014/02/techshop_workingphoto.jpg CUSTOM SLR, LLC,. (2016). C Loop Clip. Retrieved from https://cdn. shopify.com/s/files/1/0083/1012/products/c-loop-hi_1024x1024. jpg?v=1456879036 DODOcase,. (2016). Retrieved from http://cdn.shopify.com/s/ files/1/0046/6182/products/Family_grande_60a9320d-ec41468d-9116-703326260f30_grande.jpeg?v=1463224673

Eccleston George,. Corporate work. Retrieved from http:// www.ecclestongeorge.co.uk/photos/Corporatework/6515764315_0d13d80475_z.jpg Eccleston George,. Corporate workshops. Retrieved from http://www. ecclestongeorge.co.uk/photos/Corporate-work/6515731277_ d4536a1fe4_z.jp Eccleston George,. Eccleston George Team. Retrieved from http://www. ecclestongeorge.co.uk/photos/undefined/eg%20team5.jpg Eccleston George,. Outdoor Classroom. Retrieved from http:// www.ecclestongeorge.co.uk/photos/undefined/Outdoor%20 Classroom%20St%20Francis%20(49).jpg Eccleston George,. Outdoor community art work. Retrieved from http:// www.ecclestongeorge.co.uk/photos/undefined/00%20(25).JPG Ekinsmyth, C. (2016). Creative Census Portsmouth (pp. 9,12,13,21).

Portsmouth. Retrieved from http://www.creativecensus.co.uk/

Gauntlett, D. (2011). Making is connecting. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Gibb, A. (2014). Building Open Source Hardware: Diy Manufacturing for Hackers and Makers. Addison Wesley

84

BIB Hackerspaces.org. (2016). Hackerspaces.org. Retrieved 6 June 2016, from http://hackerspaces.org/ Hamilton House Bristol. Retrieved from http://www.twisted-jazz.com/ wp-content/uploads/2015/04/IMG_0152.jpg Hamilton House Bristol,. Hotdesking. Retrieved from http://www. hamiltonhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/hotdesking400px.jpg Hamilton House Bristol,. Studios. Retrieved from http://www. hamiltonhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/artist-studios400px.jpg

Lemberger, E. (2014). FvF Explores: Bristol – A Diverse & Dynamic Creative City. Freunde von Freunden. Retrieved 2 September 2016, from http://www.freundevonfreunden.com/journal/fvf-exploresbristol/ Maietta, A. & Aliverti, P. (2015). The maker’s manual.

Makerversity – About. (2014). Makerversity.org. Retrieved 2 September 2016, from http://makerversity.org/about Makerversity,. Makerversity assembly space. Retrieved from http:// makerversity.org/images/assembly-space-01-1200x700.jpg Makerversity,. Makerversity Workshop. Retrieved from http:// makerversity.org/images/workshop-sensible-object-600x400.jpg

Hatch, M. (2014). The maker movement manifesto.

Ingold, T. (2013). Making (pp. 17,26). Routledge.

Jackson, N. (2011). 7 Successful Products to Emerge From San Francisco’s TechShop. The Atlantic. Retrieved 15 July 2016, from http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/07/7successful-products-to-emerge-from-san-franciscostechshop/241291/#slide6

Lambert, T. (2016). A History of Somerstown, Portsmouth.

Localhistories.org. Retrieved 1 September 2016, from http://www. localhistories.org/somerstown.html

Makerversity,. Makerversity, Digital workshop. Retrieved from http:// makerversity.org/images/digital-workshop-ultimaker-1200x800.jpg Makerversity,. Makerversity, Old map room. Retrieved from http:// makerversity.org/images/old-map-room-600x400.jpg Online postcode Maps. (2016). Retrieved from http://free-postcodemaps.co.uk/ Porter, T. (2016). Artisan Asylum tools. Retrieved from https:// bostonminimakerfaire.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/a2-derek-inclass.jpg?w=863 85

BIB

Porter, T. (2016). Member Charles Perrone working on a prototype in our Electronics & Robotics Lab. Retrieved from https:// bostonminimakerfaire.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/a2-charlesperrone-electronics.jpg?w=863

Portsmouth City Council,. (2012). Somerstown and North Southsea Area Action Plan (pp. 2, 14). Portsmouth. Retrieved from https:// www.portsmouth.gov.uk/ext/documents-external/pln-area-actionplan-somerstown-nsouthsea-jul12.pdf Square, Inc,. (2012). Retrieved from https://squareup.com/reader

Techshop. (2016). Techshop.ws. Retrieved 6 June 2016, from http:// www.techshop.ws/index.html Techshop, Retrieved from http://www.techshop.ws/images/TSSF_ laserSF.jpg Techshop,. President Obama speaking on the economy at TechShop Pittsburgh. Retrieved from http://www.techshop.ws/emblast/all/ MakerFaire2014/06/17/presidentobamaattechshop.jpg

What is a Fab Lab? (2013). Fab Foundation. Retrieved 6 June 2016, from http://www.fabfoundation.org/fab-labs/what-is-a-fab-lab/

86

What is a Makerspace? Is it a Hackerspace or a Makerspace?. (2015).

Makerspaces.com. Retrieved 6 June 2016, from https://www. makerspaces.com/what-is-a-makerspace/

Workshop East,. (2015). Co-Making: Research into London’s Open access Makerspaces and Shared Workshops. London. Retrieved from http://www.workshopeast.co.uk/site/assets/files/1284/we_ lldc_report_v06_jan_a3-web.pdf

Appendices

87

A

Appendix A

88

A Appendix A – Makerspace definitions & terminology Makerspace This is the most commonly used term throughout the industry, Capturing the essence of making, creating and producing in a space.

(“hackerspaces.org”, 2016) a website listing Hackerspaces around the world define them as “community-operated physical places, where people share their interest in tinkering with technology, meet and work on their projects, and learn from each other.”

As an introduction to an extensive piece of research on UK makerspaces (Sleigh, 2016) defines the term ‘makerspace’ as “an open Access space, free or paid, with facilities for different practices, where Anyone can come and make something.”

Fab Lab & Techshop These are the leading two brand names given to makerspaces.

Makerspace.com describes them as “a collaborative work space inside a school, library or separate public/private facility for making, learning, Exploring and sharing that uses high tech to no tech tools. These spaces are open to kids, adults, and entrepreneurs and have a variety of maker equipment including 3D printers, laser cutters, CNC machines, Soldering irons and even sewing machines.” They go on to simplify the definition by stating that it is the maker mindset of creating something out of nothing and exploring your own interests, which is at the core of a makerspace. (“What is a Makerspace? Is it a Hackerspace or a Makerspace?”, 2015) Hackspace Traditionally associated with computer Hacking, the term hackspace conjures up the impression of an ICT suite full of computer coders.

However the term “Hack” is now being applied as a way of describing methods to alter various products, furniture, computer hardware and software.

A Fab Lab is a technical prototyping platform for innovation and invention, providing stimulus for local entrepreneurship. A Fab Lab is also a platform for learning and innovation: a place to play, to create, to learn, to mentor and invent. (“What is a Fab Lab?”, 2013) • Techshop describe themselves as “A playground for creativity, TechShop is an open-access, DIY workshop and fabrication studio.

We are a community-based space where entrepreneurs, artists, makers,teachers and students come together to learn and work together.” (“Techshop”, 2016) • Laura Fleming – “A makerspace is a metaphor for a unique learning environment that encourages tinkering, play and open-ended exploration for all.”

• Diana Rendina – “A makerspace is a place where students can gather to create, invent, tinker, explore and discover using a variety of tools and materials.”

89

A

• John J Burke – “A makerspace is an area in a library where users can use tools and equipment to design, build, and create all sorts of different things. It may be a dedicated room or a multipurpose space in which a collection of raw materials and resources can be utilized as desired. Projects range from prototyping product designs with 3D printers, to programming robots, to creating art out of recycled items.”

• Colleen Graves – ” A makerspace is not only a place where you can make stuff but many times its a place where you make “meaning” which many times is more important than the stuff you make.”

• Ann Smart – “A space with materials for students to let their curiosity and imagination come to life. An informal, playful, atmosphere for learning to unfold. A space where making, rather than consuming is the focus. A space where trans-disciplinary learning, inquiry, risk-taking, thinking, crafting, tinkering, and wondering can blossom.”

• i3Detroit.com – A Makerspace is “a collision of art, technology, learning, and collaboration” • Mad-Learn.com – “A makerspace is a place that provides creative time and space for people of all ages to build prototypes, explore questions, fail and retry, bounce ideas off one another and build something together. These spaces don’t always include technology, since some prototypes and designs can be built out of anything or may include various stages of design that move from analog to digital and back again, but many do include technology. Now, with 3D printing and design, makerspaces are really taking off. Kids gather in a common area to design and ideate on 3D printing projects. The makerspace becomes a safe area where creativity and risk-taking becomes common practice.”

• Techtarget.com – “A makerspace is a community centre that provides technology, manufacturing equipment and educational opportunities to the public. Makerspaces allow community members to design, prototype and manufacture items using tools that would otherwise be inaccessible or affordable such as 3-D printers, digital • TheRSA.org – “Makerspaces are open access workshops hosting a fabrication machines and computer-aided design (CAD) software. variety of new and old tools – from 3D printers and laser cutters to Makerspaces are typically funded by membership fees or through sewing machines and soldering irons. Makerspaces are more than affiliations with external organizations, such as universities, for-profit just sites to craft objects. They are also places to experiment with companies, non-profit organizations and libraries. The free exchange a different way of living – one that responds to the challenges and of ideas and resources is a central tenet of makerspaces. Often, opportunities of a world in which technology is ubiquitous.” members of different makerspaces will collaborate on projects and share knowledge at gatherings known as build nights or open-house days.”

90

A • Bozeman Makerspace – “A Makerspace / Hackerspace allows maker spaces are classified as a type of library service offered by groups of people to pool resources and create a community of people librarians to patrons.” with varied interests. These interests may include but are definitely not limited to: circuitry, robotics, soldering, woodworking, fabricating, • Libraries & Maker Culture – “Makerspaces which are sometimes programming, networking, hacking, bending, etc.” called hackerspaces–can be any area where people gather to make and create. These spaces often include 3D printers, but do not • Room 6KGH.com – “A makerspace is simply a place where people necessarily have to. In makerspaces, people share supplies, skills, gather and make. They come all shape and size. A makerspace is a and ideas, and often work together on projects. Makerspaces grew student centred learning environment with limitless possibilities.” out of maker culture–a group of people dedicated to craftsmanship and creation. Makerism focuses on DIY projects, and makers value • Educause.edu – “Makerspaces are zones of self-directed learning. creation by individuals or small groups rather than bulk production.

Their hands-on character, coupled with the tools and raw materials In general, makerism is also a culture of creation over consumption.” that support invention, provide the ultimate workshop for the tinkerer and the perfect educational space for individuals who learn best by • Library as Incubator – “Makerspaces are collaborative learning doing…they promote multidisciplinary thinking and learning, enriching environments where people come together to share materials the projects that are built there and the value of the makerspace as an and learn new skills. Makerspaces are not necessarily born out educational venue.” of a specific set of materials or spaces, but rather a mindset of community partnership, collaboration, and creation. ” • Wikipedia defines a makerspace “as a community-operated workspace where people with common interests, often in computers, • OEDB.org – Makerspaces, sometimes also referred to as machining, technology, science, digital art or electronic art, can meet, hackerspaces, hackspaces, and fablabs are creative, DIY spaces socialize and collaborate. Additionally, Wikipedia has a secondary where people can gather to create, invent, and learn. In libraries they listing for Library Maker Space which they define as “an area often have 3D printers, software, electronics, craft and hardware traditionally found in public libraries that offers patrons an opportunity supplies and tools, and more. to create content through various resources such as computers, 3-D printers, audio and visual devices, and traditional arts and crafts materials, including ecologic material. In the field of library science,

91

B

Appendix B

92

B Appendix B - Email Interview with Nigel George from Eccleston George Date 15.08.2016 Q1. How do you define a sharing economy?

Simply swapping things for no money. I know that's not the established definition of what the sharing economy is since the likes of Uber and Air B&B.....but what they do doesn't really interest me as a SE concept. For me the SE looks more like the sharing of idle assets in return for time/skills etc. You might ask what has that sort of sharing has got to do with the economy? Well in my experience, albeit a limited one, the sharing of assets and skills is a great way to get start ups underway. Of course you could borrow money to get the things you need to get your business up and running, or, you could simply borrow the things you need and give or lend something in return. In short from a moneyless transaction it's possible to positively impact the normal economy quite dramatically.

Q2. What impact has setting up your studio space using a sharing economy had on the local community?

It still amazes me how much has been accomplished through our own sharing arrangement with our landlord. There are the direct benefits to my team and the ones to our landlord that have come out of the exchange of skills for a studio space, and then there are the indirect ones. It's the indirect 'multipliers' that we're still counting four years after we started our sharing project (see info graphic) and are really fascinating to follow and understand.

Q3. How do you use making as a tool to engage?

For us making is a bit like a language that we use to make a point or to introduce a concept. 'Process' is the key to engagement with people of all ages and from any background. Having a creative endeavour to share with others that results in the making of something real which even non-participants can appreciate and enjoy has been our chosen method of engagement. We've delivered this with everyone from children to corporate management staff and the results are always the same.....people love to break with established ways of working, to collaborate and to make something physical that they can be proud of.

93

B Q4. How do young people react to the making workshops you run?

We often find, especially in the school setting, that young people lack confidence at the beginning of our workshops. After a short while you can watch their confidence grow as they unleash their creativity through making. Our projects have a habit of levelling the playing field, to the point where it's impossible to tell who is a so called 'underachiever' and who is so called 'gifted and talented'. Another thing I've noticed is increased communication between participants. As ideas flow throughout a workshop delivery the atmosphere often changes quite dramatically, it becomes busy and buzzy as creative confidence grows and concepts are expressed and tried out. All this starts with the simple act of making.

Q5. What is the best way to deal with abandoned derelict buildings?

Many people would say knock them down and build affordable homes. In some cases that's probably true, and if the result was indeed more 'affordable' homes then maybe that would be worthwhile. Sadly though all too often we see those affordable homes become not so affordable by the time they're built and therefore not all that useful to communities in which they sit. I would argue that some derelict or abandoned buildings might be more beneficial to communities if they are put to use in some way. Maybe they could provide spaces for clubs or workshops, perhaps studio, office spaces or hot desks.

Q6. From your experience, where are sharing economies being implemented in the most effective way? Who are the market leaders in this discipline?

I guess the answer to that really depends on what you think of my answer I gave to your first question! Uber, Task Rabbit and the like are huge companies with ginormous turnovers. But for me they're represent a wave of database web platforms who basically put people in touch with other people for money. It's brilliant I'm sure but I doubt much social capital is coming out of that world. However, Uber, the world's biggest taxi firm owns no cars. Facebook, the world's biggest media owner creates no content.........You've heard all this before I'm sure and the list of giant companies who don't own or do anything goes on and on, but something is changing in the world of business for sure and it's pretty interesting. All that aside, for me the likes of Coexist in Bristol are interesting and worth a look at. I'm willing to bet there are a plethora of brilliant 'bottom up' sharing economy projects going on around the world, probably known only to those who are actively taking part in them. I've heard Greece has some interesting stuff happening but I've not had a chance 94

B to find out about them as yet! I think what interests me most about public sharing is when it's initiated as a strategy for regeneration. It's this ability to regenerate that most starkly highlights the difference between the word of Uber style SE and the kind of Sharing Economy I'm interested in. I believe that local sharing has the power to not only regenerate land and buildings but also to boost local economies, incubate start-ups, positively impact the environment, engage with education and create stacks of social capital.

Q7. From your experience, where are participatory making workshops implemented in the most effective way? Who are the market leaders in this discipline?

Crumbs these two are really tricky questions! I guess the Arts Council of England would tell you they are the UK market leaders in facilitating participatory workshops. Certainly through their myriad of funded schemes and projects they have an enormous public outreach spanning the entire country. The best participatory project I've actually been involved with was a thing called Creative Partnerships. Facilitated by the ACE From 2006 - 2011, it was a superb project, I'm still flabbergasted that it ended. Find out more here http://www.creativitycultureeducation.org/creative-partnerships  

95

C

Appendix C

96

C Appendix C – Lego Serious Play Workshop 30.06.2016 @ Aspex gallery Portsmouth The LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® methodology is an innovative process designed to enhance innovation and business performance. Based on research which shows that this kind of hands-on, minds-on learning produces a deeper, more meaningful understanding of the world and its possibilities, the LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® methodology deepens the reflection process and supports an effective dialogue.

The workshop was facilitated by Rebecka Cada , a recent graduate from Kaospilot, a hybrid business and design school based in Denmark which has a focus on a multi-sided education in leadership and entrepreneurship.

The event was held as a informative session and a potential working model in action based learning for the Diocese of Portsmouth in collaboration with The Council for Social Responsibility (CSR) which is an independent charity working across the country, to support social change and community engagement at the local level.

The topic of the session was the local community. In particular the way The Diocese can change its image to become more appealing in the community and increase the impact they have on the community.

The format of the workshop gave freedom of expression for all participants, held together by a framework provided by the facilitator to maximize the output of content and communication between the group. This was achieved in the form of a number of exercises

designed to introduce the concept of thinking through making in an easy way, which lead to more complex tasks and more sensitive topics of conversation.

The first task involved selecting a single piece of Lego which participants felt best represented them. Then as a form of introduction while standing in a circle each person placed his or her piece on a table in the middle of the circle and shared with the group their reasoning for selecting it.

This task showed how Lego can easily become very personal when giving a meaning to an inanimate object.

Task two set out to get everyone in the room comfortable with the process of making with Lego. A simple object in the shape of a tiger was presented to the group, then individually we needed to replicate the piece as seen in figure 1.

Following this the group was asked to adapt the tiger into an object that represented how they felt as they arrived at the workshop. The result was an expression of personality, metaphorically and physically for all to see. Initially this task was difficult when giving too much thought to the question. Aimlessly delving into the large box of Lego and combining a mixture of random pieces together began to elevate the pressure of thinking about an answer. The bricks were dictating the next move and ultimately the final piece (Figure 2) evolved around 97

C

Fig1.

Fig2.

Fig3.

98

C this progressive and freeing process. What this task achieved, was unlocking the mind block that exists when asked to express a personal emotion to a group of strangers and built a trust within the group as participants began to open up to each other. It gave and insight and context to groups motives.

Next the session began to shift towards the main topic of discussion. Each group member was asked to “build your nightmare community” without discussing the object with each other before presenting it to the group at the end of the task. The ways in which each person represented their thoughts were individual and unique, but when explained in discussion, subtle similarities began to appear, highlighting the common mentality between over half of the group. Particularly interesting was how everyone’s opinion and voice was heard through this form of presenting ideas of an otherwise potentially difficult topic to discuss, particularly within a group setting of strangers. The models gave a focal point to the conversation without projecting negativity on an individual. The bricks were the undesired objects.

Following this a further personality task was set, where the group was asked to independently “build the conditions that are required to have fun” the resulting models were all very abstract and conceptual but gave further insight into the groups way of thinking. Once this was complete, each person was designated a name of a person in the group to build a gift for based on their conditions of fun. This instilled a feel good factor within the group as it emphasized the fact that they had been understood when expressing themselves to the group.

A further individual task to model your ideal community was set.

By this stage a feeling of comfort to build, express and discuss in an abstract form had fully taken hold of the group and the making came easily. The discussion became more in depth and the feeling of connection between participants could be felt. This lead onto evaluating each persons model, then agreeing the best concepts to implement in a group build of the same community. As the feeling of working as a team was at its peak, levels of communication flowed and the task was very straightforward to perform as a group. The situation could have become possessive and dividing, but the process of continually sharing thoughts and emotions through abstract making turned it into an enjoyable proud moment for all of us.

The overall outcome of the day proved that the method of making as a way of expressing and thinking helps facilitate the following; A safe environment to provide feedback on creations aiding progression of ideas, frees creativity by focusing on the concept rather than the look of creations, empowers the voiceless by creating an equal level of articulation through objects, eases tensions over dividing ideas and encourages the use of metaphors through physical making.

99

D

Appendix D

100

D Appendix D - Proud to be Paulsgrove – Summer day camp 18.08.2016 @ St Michael’s Church, Paulsgrove, Portsmouth The Proud to be Paulsgrove summer day camp was an event organised by The Council for Social Responsibility (CSR) in collaboration with the Diocese of Portsmouth. It was aimed at children aged between 11 and 16 in Paulsgrove, a renowned difficult area and community in the north of Portsmouth.

The event consisted of 5 different making activities for the attending children to participate in; Personalising bunting, Lego design, healthy smoothie making, Didgeridoo building and 3D printing.

The aim of the day was to provide the children of Paulsgrove with a safe environment to be in for the day during their summer holiday with activities to participate in, when they would otherwise be left with little else to do with their day. In total the attendees for the day reached 13 children, with a few adults coming in to look around also.

My involvement in the event was to run the 3D printing session throughout the day between 10am and 4pm.

The main difficulty in trying to arrange a plan for the day arose due to not having prior knowledge of how many children would attend, and where their interests would lie. All the activities were open through the

entire day with children attending at various times of the day, and staying for intermittent periods. It was important not to create a rigid timetable for the event, as this would be off putting to potential attendees, due to it feeling like an educational session, rather than free willing fun activities to participate in. Throughout the day I found out that at least 4 of the children were either on the verge of exclusion or had either been expelled from school the previous academic year. So an academic structured environment was not appealing With this in mind, I approached the day with an open mind and a minimal plan, to see how the day played out, and I improvised to suit.

I set up my stand with my laptop, some example 3D prints, and the 3D printer on a table next to it. I was positioned next to the entrance.

I used Google Sketchup as my primary design software. This was due to it being free accessible software that is easy to use and show anyone how to design for the 3D printer.

I prepared some designs based on the church and the “Proud to be Portsmouth” branding. These were incorporated into key ring designs, which I started printing prior to the children arriving. This gave an immediate focal point to the people attending. The benefit of making branded key rings is that they are small enough to print quickly, and cheap enough to distribute as free gifts.

101

D

102

D The Key rings also acted as triggers for the children’s imagination. The concept of being able to create anything is difficult to comprehend, and can also act as a barrier to progressing a conversation as the minds begin to wonder. So my method was to start with a simple tangible design and building on ideas from there.

Once people started to arrive, I began explaining the mechanics of the 3D printer, and showed examples of how the software was used to develop the key rings that were in production on the printer at the time.

Generally there were a maximum of 4 people at a time to talk to, as other children were exploring the other activities, but by the end of the day everyone in attendance had engaged with me.

One key question I asked to begin with was if they had prior knowledge of 3D printers, and any experience of using one before. Everyone knew of the technology, as they had encountered in on the news or the Internet, but only a few had actually seen a 3D printer in the flesh.

There were 3 to 4 children who had seen 3D printers on tours of the University of Portsmouth, and 1 child had encountered it at their school. This was encouraging news to me as my assumption of the day was that none of the children would have had contact with a 3D printer before.

Another question I asked was if anyone had used Google Sketchup as

a 3D modelling tool before. The response again was positive, as most children who attended secondary school had used it to work on design projects. Primary school leavers had not encountered it before, but were encouraged by the fact that the software was free and accessible from home. They were however disappointed that they wouldn’t have access to the printer for longer than the day, and were discourage by the fact they wouldn’t be able to print any future designs they made.

Once I had explained the function of the 3D printer and demonstrated the software, I moved onto encouraging the children to participate in designing a custom object for themselves. I posed the question; “if you could make anything at all what would you make?” this question seemed to puzzle most people, even though I had examples of a range of printed objects on display. I then quickly rephrased the question and used the simple key ring design to inspire some feedback. I asked “what would you put on the key ring if you could take it away?”

Instantly this gave more focus, as the knowledge that there would be something to take away from the activity that would be personalised was very appealing. All the children instantly wanted their names added to the key ring. When I tried to push the idea further, some wanted to add friends, siblings and pets names to the design. But the concept was limited to adding names to the predesigned keyring.

Later on, one child came up with a challenging idea. He asked if I could create a custom phone case for him. The phone in question wasn’t catered for in the phone case market so he couldn’t buy one. I took 103

D

104

D him up on his challenge, but made him aware that he process would take longer than the key rings. This did not faze him, and he was totally engaged with the design process, adding ideas to the design as he watched it develop before him. While the design was printing, he asked if he could try using Sketchup himself. This was an extremely positive response to the engagement, and I gladly obliged.

With the final group of children I engaged with, I used drawing as a way to push the idea of the key ring. Instead of sticking with the pre designed model, I encouraged them to change the shape of it and sketch out ideas of what they would do with it. The shape changed to a heart shape, with their names embossed in the centre. I then developed this idea on the laptop, explaining each step of the process to them. When printing this design, I began to encounter issue with the

The session was not solely enjoyed by the children. The printer triggered conversations between the vicars in attendance and myself, who could see the benefits of using the printer to create architectural models for their future plans with the church. The Didgeridoo maker was interested in how he could use 3D printed parts to make collapsible travel Didgeridoos. And a chef from London was interested in making a stencil on the printer for his branding.

This activity highlights the importance of engaging with all communities regardless of age and background, as the ability and desire to create and customise is imbedded in people’s lives.

Creative thinking and making, transcends educational ability and community circumstance, and acts as a way of bringing together, engaging and raising spirits and aspirations.

printer, due to the size of the text used on the design. The results were negative and the prints failed. As we were nearing the end of the day I promised I would finalise the design later that evening, print the key rings for them and bring them back to the church for them to pick up.

I felt strongly about insuring the process was complete and the children didn’t feel let down by the failing of the design, I wanted to maintain the positive progress made with the design process and give them an end result to encourage the action of continuing to prevail in the face of adversity.

105

E

Appendix E

106

E Appendix E – The Odd Triangle, community engagement sessions 19.01.2016, 02.02.2016, 18.02.2016, 21.03.2016 and 28.03.2016 @ The Book Club, Somerstown Community Hub, Portsmouth The Odd Triangle project, was a design and build competition arranged

by The University of Portsmouth’s School of Architecture. It aimed to create a temporary structure in the public realm on an unused plot of land in the city centre. The goal was to engage with children at The Brook Club, a local youth club in Somerstown, Portsmouth, to create a design which was informed by the desires of the local community, to encourage interaction and engagement in the design process and build of the structure.

I entered the competition and formed a team with a group of three MA Architecture students. We approached the process with an open mind to the outcome of the engagement sessions. I was eager to be involved in the engagement at the youth club, as I had ambitions of connecting with that community for some time. I watched as the new facility was built and was intrigued to its impact on the area, so when the opportunity to work within the facility came, I jumped at the chance.

I entered the first session with an air of anxiety due to the unknown.

I went prepared with a variety of drawing equipment as I felt the best form of communication was through drawing and participation. My initial feeling of unease was justified when entering the facility for the first time and encountering the children who were boisterous and mainly focused on playing with the computer console or pool table and heading outside.

Getting their attention was difficult and it took a concerted effort to gather a few of the older teens (15-17 years old) to discuss why I was there, and what we were going to do together. When trying to explain the ideas the response was limited, and attention was fading quickly. So I decided to bring out the tracing paper and coloured pens to begin discussing ideas through drawing. This was met with initial trepidation, and comments of “I can’t draw so there is no point”, I persisted with my approach and reassured them that my hand sketching was not the best and that we could just try.

What followed was a series of rough sketches by the participants, which I used to extend the conversation and build a narrative for the project. The idea of having somewhere to be together and “chill” was represented with basic shapes like circles and squares. Another interesting shape that came from this was a hexagonal bench (Figure 1) This formed the basis of our eventual design proposal.

When engaging with a group of slightly younger girls (11-12 years old) they had no interest in taking part, only asking if they could have some of my coloured pens. I saw this as an opportunity, and told them they could but only if they drew something for me. The results were some very descriptive and detailed thoughts on what they felt the project should be (Figure 2).

What I learnt from that, was the need for these children to physically get something out of the session, in this instance it was a pen. I used this as a basis for my way of engaging with the children in the next 107

E

Fig1. Concept Sketches

Fig 2. Concept Sketches Fig 3. Shape making 108

E session, where I came armed with a host of different craft making materials. This time, the interest was far more forthcoming and engaging where making interesting structures from the blue-tack and Popsicle sticks became the focus of the discussion (figure3). The forms created were also integrated into our final design proposal.

In the final session I attended at the club, I took my 3D printer along with me, to explain what it was and how it was used in the design process for this project. This was by far the most popular and engaging session for me. It was a culmination of all that went well in the previous sessions, where drawing and shape making became digitised, and the making became automated by the printer. This session captured lots of the children’s imaginations, with multiple requests for different objects being made. When being asked “can you make this” and “can that actually do this?” I knew that this had given them a new way of looking at how ideas can easily become a reality.

The only issue they had was the feeling that being able to use a 3D printer was unattainable.

making objects structured the conversations and developed the ideas and concepts into its final output.

More sessions like this are needed, with more places that can facilitate for varied types of making activities, and generating interest in what impact future technology has on the next generation of designers & thinkers.

The sessions highlighted to me that my methods of engagement were sounds and worked well. This was reflected in the fact I was asked by the leaders of the project to continue engaging with the children even after I had missed out on winning the competition. I was asked to participate in follow up sessions with the winning team and the children, which untimely lead to my involvement in building the I Heart Pompey structure on the Guild Hall Walk.

What this highlighted to me was the success in true community engagement and interaction, through tangible outputs. Physically 109

F

Appendix F

110

F Appendix F – Hamilton House article Web Article: FvF Explores: Bristol – A Diverse & Dynamic Creative City 05.06.14 – Photography, Interview & Text: Evi Lemberger http://www.freundevonfreunden.com/journal/fvf-explores-bristol/ An Arts Organization with a Community Vision A former derelict building in the heart of Stokes Croft has been transformed into a creative work space, community kitchen, gallery, bar and restaurant. The idea behind the initiative Coexist – a social enterprise set up as a community interest company – at Hamilton House is to offer affordable space for creative people with innovative ideas. Brendan Tate is the director and manager of the events department of Hamilton House.

The ideological aspect seems very important.

There is a strong sense of community here. By working together, we become better able to achieve our own aspirations. Every Thursday we hold a lunch for the whole building, which is an opportunity to come together and eat a healthy meal for £2.50. Hamilton House also offers a rich public program of events and workshops.

Stokes Croft has changed a lot in recent years.

The area has undergone significant change in the last five to ten years. It has become a cultural destination known for public artwork and counterculture. Art studios, cafes, restaurants, galleries and pop up shops have animated the area and made it a great place to visit and explore. The area is a melting pot for people from all different backgrounds.

Hamilton House was immediately successful. Can you explain why?

Coexist secured the building in 2008. Previously it had been empty for over a decade. The idea for Coexist was for communities to make use of empty spaces and coexist in harmony positively. The project is five years old and has grown organically, adapting to meet the changing needs of the surrounding community. Now all the studio spaces are full and there is a waiting list. Canteen – the bar and restaurant space – was full from the moment it opened, offering affordable, quality food and a full music program. There is a great energy in the building.

111