07-01-2021 // FEEDBACK LYNN

We asked Lynn & Elke again if they could look at our blogs from the past month. In particular the 'challenge the challenge 2' and our reflection on November and part of December. Although we did ask Elke, only Lynn had time to look at our blogs. We really appreciate her taking the time to look at our blogs and provide feedback.

Feedback Lynn

-          08-12-20 challenge the challenge 2 blog: you two do a great job of explaining what is happening, why you have undertaken certain actions and why you have certain beliefs. You explain the various perspectives you have to deal with within this project, which makes it clear for me as an outsider. furthermore, I think you are great in formulating everything very specifically. I see a lot of growth regarding this, when I compare this blog with previous ones. The paragraph of what do you need to know? is very clear in the way of clear and direct questions, communication about your future focus points etc. Nice that you add the theories and models, and furthermore connect them to your project and your experiences. the last paragraph regarding your challenge is a great conclusion for this blog, again, very clear and communicates where you are in your process and what your next steps are!

-          10-12-20 Reflection blog: I see you take the feedback very serious and I appreciate it. I can also see it when I read your blogs, I see a lot of improvement regarding paragraphs, (sub)titles, conclusions, graphics etc. So keep up the good work! You are both very clear regarding your experiences, opinions and beliefs, this makes it nice to read your reflections! (even though it was quite long).

We try to take the feedback we receive seriously, we try to learn from it and to work on it in our process. We are happy to hear that this is also reflected in our blogs. The clearer we formulate our blogs, the clearer it will be to the reader. At the same time, we want to be able to look back on our process, we want to learn from the decisions we make and do not make. Again: we are happy to hear that this is also reflected in our blogs.

-          13-12-20 Flyer blog: I can't seem to open the link for the flyer so I just wanted you to know.  Perhaps it’s possible to add pictures of it? I like that you did a bit of scenario mapping, it can really benefit your process and I am wondering if it did? Will I find this in a future reflection? Furthermore, great blog. very direct and clear, I really enjoy reading about your process and I think you two are doing great. Nevertheless, I have read a lot of your blogs the past few months and one thing keeps returning, also during the labs. the fact that you two keep thinking/feeling you need to prove yourselves. I am wondering whether, now your new supervisor has 'accepted' you, as you mention, you feel relieved or have the idea you do or do not have to prove yourself anymore? I am looking forward to your response regarding this. 

We added pictures of the flyer, thanks to Lynn. We now have more clarity about the described scenarios. Scenario one, not many people will respond to the flyer (about 10 people), is the scenario that has become reality. Therefore we decided to continue with individual conversations. Later on, we will organize (a) stakeholder meeting(s) with all the stakeholders we have spoken to. Ultimately, we are satisfied with the responses we received; a varying group of people from different corners of the area have responded. In addition, we wanted to give everyone in the area the opportunity to get in touch with us, but in the end it is up to the people to what extent they are willing to talk with us and take ownership to think about the possibilities in the neighborhood. We will reflect in one of the following blogs why we currently have not or will not organize a stakeholder meeting in the short term.

In addition, we also have an update about the municipality and the feeling that we had to ‘prove ourselves'. Last Monday we had a conversation with our supervisor Maurice. He indicated that the stakeholders in the neighborhood should take ownership to improve the livability in the area. Although we agree and try to see in this research phase what the stakeholders can do themselves to improve the livability, we have stated once again that the unmaintained open space is the number one thing that frustrates the neighborhood the most at the moment. Many stakeholders are skeptical about the possibilities in the area, precisely because they feel not being heard and they have the feeling nothing is being done to maintain the open space in the neighborhood. The local residents blame the municipality for this. The municipality does not have any property in this area and blames the project developers for not maintaining the area. However, the project developers do not want to invest money in an area that is being renovated anyway. We conclude from this that the urgency of maintaining the open space is missing. It is a kind of ‘visual circle’, where everyone blames each other, but none of the problems are solved in the end. As soon as the poorly maintained open space is tackled, we have the idea that the residents and other stakeholders are more willing to look to the possibilities and opportunities in the area, take ownership and try to find ways to improve the livability.

Although we received many positive reactions to our presentation we gave to those involved from the municipality in December, we notice that Maurice is still holding back a bit when it comes to improving the livability in the open space. We believe this is largely due to his involvement in the negotiations with the project developers; he is one of the persons involved in the 'legal battle' between the municipality and the project developers. He believes that the project developers are responsible for the area, so it is their task to maintain the area. However, the municipality and the main project developer are now on such bad terms, that the project developer will do little about the area if the municipality would ask him. That is why we advised the municipality to invest in the ‘quick wins’ and put their pride aside for a while, even though it is not their property. Although our supervisor sees it as ‘lost money’ when the area will be maintained by the municipality, we certainly do not see it that way. We see it as an investment on a social level; by maintaining the area, you rebuild trust among the stakeholders, the stakeholders have the idea that they are being listened to and that something is actually being done about their frustrations.

Our supervisor indicated that he is stuck in a certain way of thinking and finds it difficult to step out of that way of thinking. So he asked how we think about this, what we think is the best thing to do. The great thing about our previous supervisor, Monique, was that she is focussing on Placemaking herself. She advocated responding to the needs of stakeholders and taking action where possible. Maurice is in a completely different position than Monique, where the focus is more on the business perspective and less on the social perspective.

Today we had a meeting with Rolf (communication advisor), Eric (area coordinator), Maurice (project manager & our supervisor), Jesper (project manager), and Sandra, all from the municipality. They were also wondering how we think about the situation and what we think are the right next steps to make. Although we are focusing in this research phase on the possibilities, the opportunities, the assets in the neighborhood, and a way to create ownership among the stakeholders, and not so much on the frustrations and pain points, we still believe that the municipality should be visibly active in the area to regain trust. In addition, we believe that if the main frustrations will be tackled, people will be more willing to think about the (near) future of the area with regard to livability.

Rolf agrees and believes that something really needs to be done. Eric also believes that the frustrations need to be tackled. After our presentation, they also indicated that something really needs to be done about the maintenance in the area, but we are more than a month further and nothing has changed. Nevertheless, this time a specific agreement has been made: Eric will schedule an appointment with the project developer who owns most of the open space in the area. The meeting is meant to let the project developer feel the urgency to make the open space in the area livable again. Maurice, our supervisor, will not participate in this conversation. A conscious choice: He is in close contact with the project developer on a business level. The appointment we will plan, the focus will be on the social level of the developments in this area. Rolf and Eric will participate from the municipality. We will participate as a connecting factor: we know what is going on at a social level in the area, and are the connecting factor at the moment between the stakeholders in the area and the municipality. We also believe it would be valuable to invite some of the stakeholders we spoke to for this conversation. In this way, our findings are more strongly substantiated and the stakeholders have the opportunity to share what they want to share. Hopefully, this stakeholder meeting will be organized in the short term. In any case, we will continue to remind Eric and Rolf to schedule the meeting with the project developer, if they don't do it in the coming days.

To come back to the question about 'proving ourselves' and whether we are ‘relieved’: we increasingly get the idea that the municipality is very happy with what we do. The municipality remains a complex organization where everything has to be checked 100 times by 100 people before something is approved. That has not so much to do with us, but with the way in which the municipality operates. Although we believe that some issues internally can be handled more efficiently, that is not something we are currently focusing on. We are there for the stakeholder in the Emmasingelkwadrant, and we want to discover WITH them how to improve the livability in the area. We feel that the municipality is definitely realizing how valuable our research is; we are in close contact with the stakeholders and understand more and more what is going on in this neighborhood, although that was before ‘intangible’ for the municipality. We see ourselves as a connecting factor between the various parties involved, like cement between the stones. We believe the municipality is starting to see that and appreciate it as well. We are glad, and actually relieved, that our project works out so well so far.

-          22-12-20 just wait and see blog: I reeeaally like that you gave the flyers such a personal touch and kept in touch with the stakeholders you talked to in the past. you are completely right by doing so. you mentioned earlier in your blog, that the stakeholders feel as if nobody does something with their feedback and you listened to this, heard it and acted upon it. That is amazing and a great example for the municipality or other involved parties! Lastly, sounds like a great opportunity to involve the gym! I am curious whether the owner will be taking initiative from now on or will wait for your help? is this something you made agreements upon?

We noticed that, in addition to the frustrations about the unmaintained open space, stakeholders also find it annoying that they never received any feedback on the input they had given. That's why we try to keep them updated and provide the stakeholders feedback on their given input. We therefore sent an update on our process to all stakeholders we had spoken to until the Christmas Holidays. The update was certainly appreciated; we have received several positive responses. On the other hand, some stakeholders saw both the flyer and the update as an opportunity to (again) mention their frustrations. Below an example of an email we received (Dutch) and the response we have given (Dutch). This response shows how we think currently about the process: we know there are various frustrations, but we are not in a position to do something about those frustrations immediately. We don't want that either; we want to see what IS possible, and not just stick to what is NOT possible.

TrainMore is willing to organize outdoor sports "events" for the neighborhood. However, we have not yet made any concrete agreements about this. The stakeholders we have spoken to so far would all like to contribute ideas about the possibilities and needs in the area. That is why we have decided to first bring these different stakeholders together by means of a stakeholder meeting before we start making concrete agreements. It is good to first find out who is willing to take ownership, where the corresponding needs lie, and what the possibilities are. From there, we can decide how to move on.