This is a CTP of initiative: Living Labs - Living Lab Eindhoven (Netherlands)
This critical turning point (CTP3) elaborates on the moment that a citizen’s initiative in Eckart Vaartbroek starts to grow: it becomes some kind of ‘project’ with resources and commitment, but it also starts to face challenges. This CTP has two important elements:
a) it is about the moment that a citizens initiative starts to grow into something that is so big and has so much commitment that it gets implemented (see among others co-production)
b) it is about the realization that in the various different phases of a project (start-up phase, phase of establishment and of becoming an ongoing concern) different competences are required. E.g. in start-up phase it is important to have people on board who know how to go beyond the institutionalized way of working and when a project starts to establish itself it is mainly important to have people on board who can connect. Typically, the initiators of projects have competences for the start-up phase, but often they are not the connectors that are needed to keep attention alive when the project becomes an ongoing concern; this implies that the roles and positions of people in the project change and that often involves some conflict (see among others the section on contestation for more detail).
It is a critical turning point that has a strong congruence with another critical turning point, which is CTP 5 since both CTPs deal with citizens initiatives that have matured, but that also faced a difficult and critical moment in their development. Both CTPs are relevant for the development of the Living Lab approach in Eindhoven that embraces working experimentally, bottom-up and facilitating citizen’s initiatives.
Citizens have developed a community centre that is managed by and for residents in the neighbourhood Eckart-Vaartbroek in Eindhoven. This is an example of a successful project, but the project also faced challenges related to the dynamics between the people involved. In order to overcome the challenges, the formal institutions that were initially only playing a minor role, mediated. This CTP shows that it is a natural process that (bottom-up) initiatives face challenges in their emergence and that this should not be a reason for formal institutions, such as a municipality, to stop facilitating such self-organized community initiatives. To the contrary, the civil servants need to learn how to deal with such situations as part of their facilitating role. Henri Koolen explained that: “in this process, the municipality is searching which role to take. Facilitating and accommodating is important, but you also have your formal role as a government: you are the guardian of the public interest and you execute laws and regulations. You will also be held accountable for that.”
Henri Koolen explained the context in which this CTP took place and he clarifies his perspective on the city, working as an area manager (he works at the level of the city district, he is the manager of area coordinators, who are working the level of the neighbourhood). He said that there are two important starting points in the contemporary policy context in Eindhoven which help to understand his field of work on area-based and spatial development issues. The first is that “everything that happens spatially is a manifestation of social needs. (..) Eventually sewage should also be understood as simply being one of the most successful health projects”. And secondly “we are reducing the role of the government, and change the relationship that it has with the residents.”
In this context a community initiative emerged in Vaartbroek: “A few years ago the municipality closed down many local neighbourhood facilities. There was a group of citizens in Vaartbroek that said: we do not want this. Woonbedrijf [social housing agency, owner of many buildings] then said: All right, you can make a plan for this location, that improves the living quality in the neighbourhood, and you can rent the building from us. That is not owning it, but renting it. And the residents (…) realised it was costly [to only run the centre] and they looked for complementary economically attractive functions: a lunchroom, a welfare organisation, etc. They set-up an association, supported by Woonbedrijf and they now run this facility very successfully.” Henri explains how this initiative developed: “What we saw in this case is very exemplary: there is an initiative from residents, a residents' group, and at some point in time, by an effect of ‘one-thing-sticks-to-another-and-again’, and the relations with civil servants or elected representatives, or both and, or supported by a social housing agency this initiative grows bigger. At some point there is a turning point: we will do this. And that moment is often triggered by a civil servant, elected representatives, or employee of a social housing agency who says: we are positive about this initiative. In practice, that is often a turning, or tipping point, but not always. (..) sometimes it then just fades away.”
In order to understand this critical tuning point it is relevant to understand the spatial characteristics of the neighbourhood in which this CTP happened. The neighbourhood is shaped by the different urban planning and (social) housing approaches that were typical for certain periods and that characterize various neighbourhoods in cities in the Netherlands.
The Northern district of Eindhoven, called ‘Woensel’, was developed in a period in which Eindhoven grew very fast: it started in the mid 60’s and its major development phase ended in the 70’s, 80’s. This district of the city is organised in various neighbourhoods in a raster-like structure. The city grew quickly because of the economic success of Philips and DAF among others. The neighbourhoods in this district were fully designed and planned around the idea of the ‘family with the breadwinner’. You typically find family houses in rows and some apartment buildings and there are small fields of grass and playing grounds in the vicinity of the houses as well as strips with shops, schools and a community (neighbourhood) centre and sometimes a small church. The idea behind the structure of this neighbourhood was that the breadwinner (often the father) of the family goes to work in another part of town (e.g. DAF or Philips). The partner (usually the mother) would then stay at home to take care of the children and the household and she finds everything she needs in her direct surroundings within the neighbourhood. The neighbourhoods have not changed in their physical design, so the houses and the infrastructure designed for the original functions and services of the mid-60’s, the 70’s and the 80’s have remained, but the population has changed. The population has become more heterogeneous in terms of lifestyle and phase, in terms of age, in terms of ethnicity, in terms of family size, in terms of variety in type of jobs etc. Henri explained: “And you see, the infrastructure still exists. There is generously designed public space, a complete structure for services, but the lifestyles have changed. This typical breadwinner family hardly exists today. (..) So you see that there is a functional mismatch at the level of housing, services and public space, mainly in the central part of Woensel. (..) we monitor the development of social, spatial, security and economy related issues in all neighbourhoods with a ‘neighbourhood thermometer’ and you see that this 60’s-70’s part of Woensel starts to turn red. Blue is good, red is bad.” Henri further explained that the technical conditions of the housing and the infrastructure is still good and there is no need and no budget to do large scale physical interventions in the neighbourhood (urban renewal). Rather, the municipality and social housing agencies jointly developed a working method that they call ‘development oriented maintenance’ [in Dutch: Ontwikkelend Beheer]. He added: “you should make changes in the neighbourhood using your regular budget for maintenance. (..) This concept [of development oriented maintenance’] has been co-produced by the Municipality of Eindhoven and by the biggest social housing agency of Eindhoven, Woonbedrijf.” Within this approach the professional actors (municipality, social housing agency) are interested to develop new and innovative methods in fields of using space, service provision, social and economic development, environmental sustainability and participation and others. The initiative discussed in this CTP fits within this concept of ‘development oriented maintenance’ and that was one of the reasons that it was embraced by the social housing agency Woonbedrijf.
As explained under content, the moment that the initiative started to grow and mature was when Woonbedrijf said that they wanted to support it. As Henri explained: “Actually it was a moment that was not triggered by an action of the municipality, but emerged within Woonbedrijf, since Woonbedrijf said: ‘We are providing this space, just make a plan’ and then, one or two steps later, we [Municipality and Woonbedrijf] said: Well, there is now a plan, but in terms economic feasibility it is not fully developed yet and we are going to support you guys to lift the plan to a higher level. Well, what do you see? It then often goes faster than in a situation in which the municipality develops it. Because normally we are bound by the entangled web of various rules, procedures and regulations. That is what happened here as well: the plan was realized in no time.”
This critical turning point cannot be described by just one moment, it is rather a process with a few critical moments in it. There was a moment that the initiative of the residents got support from the social housing agency and then it started to grow. But this is not the full story; the successful project also had a moment in which it faced challenges. Henri Koolen expressed (see co-production) that the plan was realized very quickly and then he continues: “That is what happened here as well: the plan was realized in no time. When it was realized it was opened by the Alderman, with ceremony and some drinks and everyone is very excited for some time. But at some point you get trouble.” Henri Koolen explained that this ‘trouble’ occurs at the moment that the project develops itself from ‘an initiative’ into an ‘ongoing concern’. There is still enthusiasm, but there are also some tensions. In the initiative/ project described in this CTP this ‘trouble’ occurred at a certain moment was, but it also was overcome and eventually the project matured.
Henri Koolen further stressed that it is natural that an initiative faces moments in which there is contestation. He said: “You see this in almost every initiative (..) You simply get trouble, it can last for half a year, it can last for one and a half year, but not longer than that.” It is further added that this is part of the life cycle of an initiative that turns into a project. It is common in formal and informal settings and in public and private sector. Henri has thought about why this happened and he formulated his own, as he expressed it, ‘subjective’ explanation for it: “The founders are the fighters, they are the people that break through walls, they know how to play the game with civil servants, with councillors, with social housing agency directors, they are not afraid of a conflict, even more they get excited by it. But then when the initiative is operational it are still the same people who are engaged, and those people get their adrenaline of excitement, that is also their strength. But once such an initiative is becoming operational you actually need connectors and those are another type of person.” Henri explained how the conflicting situation then manifests itself. “And that means that at some point in time, the founders must take a step back, or take a different role, and that is difficult. We all find that difficult, that is how we are made. These are often the times when there is a conflict.”
As mentioned, the type of conflict that arose in this specific initiative is not unique. Henri already identified 5 initiatives where such a conflict happened and he said that his colleagues could easily add it up to 30. He further explained how this internally oriented contestation (it focuses on tensions within the initiative) could be overcome. He observed that at such a moment the initiative is clearly reaching out to the formal and established institutions such as a municipality or a social housing agency. Henri illustrates: “Usually it is then dealt with by a representative of a formal institution, a senior client manager of a social housing agency, or an area coordinator of the municipality. And then, this person must be able to act beyond his or her formal role. On the one hand, you are approached in your formal role: you are the representative of that State or of the social housing agency and that [the formal institution] is something that is, as a matter of speaking, bigger than all of us. And at the same time the appeal that is done on this representative of the formal institution can only be answered to in a fruitful manner if he or she does not keep on reasoning, communicating, from his formal position as, for example, area coordinator. So basically you are asked to take the role of a kind of mediator and arbiter.”
Henri also added that this moment is also very critical in the development of the initiative, it somehow has to go through such a phase. He warns that the employees of formal institutions should not draw hasty conclusions following such conflicts. “Oh, this means that residents cannot do it. Or it means that we as a government should keep on doing the things. If you ask me that is the wrong conclusion.” He explains that residents can and should do much by themselves, but the government should also still play some role, they cannot simply turn their backs at the community: “The conclusion is that you should indeed take another role as a government and that you certainly have to reduce your interference in many neighbourhood issues at a certain time and that residents certainly can and are able to do deal with them. But as a government this means that (..) you are forced to develop into a different role. But there is a strong need also for residents in initiatives that the government is present.”
As mentioned under content, this CTP has two main elements: the moment that an initiative becomes a success and the moment that conflict and resistance starts to emerge when it is about to get settled. Not every initiative will be successful. As is explained under co-production, it is an important moment when the initiative gets support from a formal institution. In most cases an initiative that receives such support will manage to develop itself into a real project that gets implemented. Of course, the persons working in the formal institution deciding to give such a form of support anticipate that the initiative is viable. In this particular case the support was given by Woonbedrijf, the social housing agency and the anticipation did not come by Henri Koolen, the area manager of the Municipality. However, Henri explained that there are some checks and balances that are made in order to anticipate on the potentials of an initiative. The municipality assesses if the initiative relates to the (latent) needs in the neighbourhood and they also typically ask residents that have an initiative if they can show that there is enough commitment for it within the neighbourhood.
With respect to the conflict that might occur (the second element in this CTP), Henri Koolen explained that it is almost a matter of ‘waiting for conflicts to happen’ once a particular initiative is settled. This does not mean that initiative is not successful or not viable, it is a natural process. If you have some more distance from an initiative you might not see the exact moment when it is coming, but you know it will come. Henri explained that those moments of resistance are not unique or new in resident’s initiatives. They existed before as well, but then it did not come as a surprise and the civil servant knew their role and felt familiar with it. “Such conflicts are not new. Only then [when the government initiated neighbourhood projects with the community] the government, or the civil servant was the bad guy. And that situation was familiar to us as civil servants. So it somehow feels very familiar if people are angry at us. That is just how it is.” Now the conflicts emerge between the residents and that requires a new role for the civil servants, one that they might not feel comfortable with it and one that many civil servants are less prepared for.
You see that the situation also created new challenges for the residents. Henri explained that it is much easier to be the bad guy when you are in a professional role and also for residents it is easier to accept the bad guy if it is a professional. It is different whether it is your neighbour who starts to get irritated because you are not interested in his project or whether that is the civil servant who represents something that is beyond himself, that is ‘the municipality.’ But Henri also argues that we should not try to anticipate on such situations in a way that you try to avoid all the resistance and struggles, we also need to get used to those moments of conflicts, as they are part of change and it allowes an initiative to mature.. As he expressed it: “Who are we to grumble when it comes to procedures and bureaucracy and legal processes, etc., if you look at it with some distance, you can see it as rituals. They are just rituals.”
One of the main lessons that can be drawn from this CTP is that we need to accept that change comes with challenges. There will be resistance around urban development initiatives and all actors that have some role in this initiative will need to deal with the conflict.
Henri Koolen has explained that the municipality of Eindhoven promotes residents’ initiatives which fit in the living lab working method. Mostly those initiatives start off as social initiatives and many of those, including the particular initiative central to this CTP eventually get a spatial dimension (e.g. transformation of public space, new use of old building). In the process of materialization of residents' initiatives there is always a role for the municipality. The role might be legal or procedural and it is sometimes even symbolic. This new way of working with initiatives that come from residents and that are then supported by the municipality opposes the ‘old way’ in which the municipality developed initiatives and then looked for ways that would allow the residents to participate. In order to do make this approach successful the municipality needs to develop its new role and often this is a mediating role. An important lesson with respect to how the municipality should do this is that the municipality remains modest. There is a risk that the municipality likes initiatives so much that is starts to, as a matter of speaking, ‘hug’ the residents engaged so much, they make them too dependent and just kill the initiatives despite good intentions. In such a case, the municipality takes the initiative away from the residents. Additionally it is critical that the civil servants learn to play a game in which they accept that they represent a formal institution, but in which they are also flexible enough to step out of their formal role and take a mediating role in stead (see anticipation).
Another important lesson relates to the way we look at the world and how this is relevant if we try to understand the function of a government in the contemporary context in a city like Eindhoven. Henri introduced the notion of looking at the world form a ‘systems versus experience’ perspective [in Dutch: systeem versus leefwereld] or a ‘sectoral versus an area-based’ perspective. In short the government and mainly civil servants are often considered to represent the systems thinking which is about steps and procedures and the sector thinking that divides the world in separated thematic focus areas such as security, social well-being, environment and infrastructure. At a personal level most people would not see the world as such but they rather experience a reality where everything comes together and that happens in space (an area) where all the sectors meet and mix up all the time. The systems world might sometimes be portrayed as limiting and unrealistic but Henri explained it is also important: “Actually the systems thinking is represented in our licenses, our procedures, etc. and thank god that we have those (..) It is convenient that my neighbour cannot just paint his house orange. That there is rule for that. Or that he cannot simply start breeding goats in his backyard. Again it is convenient that there is somewhere a little rule that prohibits it.” But Henri also addresses that, despite the usefulness of the systems, they can also work against us. Sometimes there are very good initiatives and then some civil servants just stop the initiative by referring to rules that are sometimes not even useful in that case e.g. : “There need to be two parking spaces in this plan. While that's not necessary at all, but that's the law.” Henri explained that the civil servants who work at strategic position (like he does), who make visions, often do this form an experiential and/ or area-based perspective. They might have some conflicting interest and ideas among each other, but they will settle them. But, when they need to work together with the civil servants at more operational levels, the visionaries start to complain that the operational colleagues do not cooperate and are stuck in their systems perspective. “They [the ‘systems’ colleagues] do not want to cooperate, they do not want to renew and innovate. What we do not understand here, is that the operational procedural system is not empowered to be innovative. It is specifically designed to establish cyclical predictable processes. If you have a new initiative, then you should not expect that this established system will cooperate. You need someone who can bend the system and can influence. And perhaps redefine the cyclical process, but you should not expect it to happen by the operational staff that work in the system.” This reflection actually introduces the final conclusion that the ‘new way of working’ does not mean that the workload of the government will be reduced and it will lead to less expenditures. Henri concluded that this new way of working is a good change that fits in todays' society. But it requires that the government works differently rather than less, it requires more tailor-made solutions, and this will cost time and effort.
References
N.B. the title of and the link to this CTP have been changed on 28-08-2017
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
