11-01-2021 // SECOND ROUND OF CONVERSATIONS

• Michele, resident of the Ventoseflat

• Sas, studio owner of the Lichttoren

• Laurens, resident of De Hertog

• Caspar, resident of De Vorst

• Peter, resident of De Vorst

• Olaf & Harry, residents of De Hertog

*No time to read the whole blog? scroll down to striking information and the conclusion*

As mentioned in the previous blog, we have a broader understanding of the neighborhood and want to discover the possibilities together with the stakeholders. We will make a start already by trying to see if an ABCD approach can change the form of conversation from discussion to constructive dialogue. collecting and gathering insights about the willingness of stakeholders to contribute and the internal possibilities is where we now want to focus on. Several inhabitants reacted to our flyer. We planned six conversations the first week after the Christmas Holidays. Meeting offline and online were both possible. If responders wanted to meet offline, they had to provide an offline location themselves.

MICHELE

Michele was the first one who reacted to our flyer. Michele lives in the Ventoseflat. She is the first one we have spoken to from this apartment complex. We met her on the fifth of January, online. The main reason she responded to our flyer is that she is also currently trying to get this neighborhood more connected with each other. She is a theatre maker and is working on a project in collaboration with De Huiskamer, called VOGELVRIJ. This theatre project arose from the need for more interconnection between visitors of the De Huiskamer and their neighbors.

Because we and Michele have somewhat the same goal but are involved from a different angle, it was a very interesting conversation. Thanks to Michele's curiosity, she came into contact with De Huiskamer; she wanted to know who the people were who visit De Huiskamer and decided to volunteer. She noticed that there is a great need from the visitors of De Huiskamer to come into contact with local residents. At the moment, the residents of the neighborhood have a negative image of the residents of De Huiskamer rather than a positive one. Michele and we believe that this is largely because the neighborhood does not know who the residents of De Huiskamer actually are. That is why Michele came up with the idea of ​​creating a theatre performance in which the residents of De Huiskamer play the leading role. Their stories are featured in this theatre performance.

Michele is someone who looks at the possibilities and does not focus on the impossibilities. She tries to connect the neighborhood by involving everyone in this performance. The Emmasingelkwadrant has a lot of potentials; an area where different groups of people live. According to Michele, you often hear the "screamers", people who always have something to say about the neighborhood, often negative. But those people do not represent the neighborhood; Michele believes there are still many people in this neighborhood who actually want to make this neighborhood lively, without ‘screaming’ about the negative. Michele also wants to get in touch with these people, in order to eventually create a lively neighborhood together. The area has a lot of potentials, but that potential must be seen and utilized.

SAS

The second conversation we had was with Sas. Sas invited us to her studio in the Lichttoren. Sas works with troubled youth. Her husband is specialized in applying biomimicry (innovation inspired by nature) in high-tech and design. They have already lived in several countries, including Australia and America. Around the central park in Sydney, there was always something going on; there were small events, sing-and-song-writers, etc. It was always lively. The Central Park in New York is another example, according to Sas. In the evening the gates are closed so that it does not attract people who should not be there.

Sometimes they hesitate to move back to America; most of the neighborhoods in America focus much more on (creating a) community feeling. This is not the case in the Emmasingelkwadrant, according to Sas; there is no connection between the different inhabitants. People often complain, and do not look to the opportunities and possible connections in the neighborhood. Sas indicated that people in the Lichttoren regularly complain about the nuisance at the edge of the Emmasingelkwadrant. Sas is not afraid of the ‘drug-dealing boys’ who cause nuisance. She works with troubled youths, so she just asks them to leave when she sees these boys. She does not experience it as annoying or unsafe, but others do. She has sometimes attended meetings organized by and for the people who live in the Lichttoren. She soon noticed that during these meetings people saw the opportunity to complain, and that is not the reason she attended those meetings. The reason Sas responded to our flyer is because she wants to think about the opportunities and possibilities in this neighborhood. She hopes that the Emmasingelkwadrant can become a connected and lively neighborhood. She wants to contribute to achieving this. 

LAURENS

After the conversation with Sas, we went straight to the Saint Catherine’s Church. Laurens lives in the apartment complex De Hertog (Regentekwartier) but manages the Saint Catherine’s Church. Because Laurens preferred to meet offline, he invited us to the Church. Laurens has lived in Eindhoven all his life. He has worked for Phillips for many years and follows the developments in the area from the beginning. The main reason he responded to our flyer was due to the few options for children in the neighborhood. Several young families and grandparents with grandchildren live in the Emmasingelkwadrant, but there are few options for children. There is no playground in the center of Eindhoven where parents or grandparents can go with their children and grandchildren. He would like to see it differently. We have indicated that we can certainly provide feedback to the municipality, but are not in a position to decide whether there will eventually be a playground in the future park. We did talk with Laurens about the short-term options, including organizing (small) events for children. Laurens has a large network in Eindhoven, is willing to think about the possibilities in the neighborhood, and how to improve the livability (for children, in the short term).

CASPAR

The third meeting of this day was planned with Caspar. We met Caspar in the evening, online. Caspar is a member of the Association of Owners of the Regentekwartier and lives in the apartment complex De Vorst. Caspar had no specific expectations from this conversation but was curious about the approach of our project. As with the other conversations, we explained that we are looking at the possibilities of the neighborhood and not at the impossibilities. We know what is going on in the neighborhood, we know that there are several frustrations about both the maintenance of the neighborhood and the way the municipality deals with (the people in) the neighborhood. During the conversation, we had the feeling Caspar may be expected to talk about these frustrations. We immediately tackled this by explaining we are aware of these frustrations, that we have had several conversations already, and are now looking at what local residents would like to contribute (in the short term) to improving the livability in the Emmasingelkwadrant, to what extent people are open to discover the possibilities, and want to establish connections with other local residents.

Caspar had many questions for us, about our project, how we are going to make the connection between the different groups of people, and what valuable opportunities he could think of. Although the conversation with Caspar somewhat resembled a conversation from the first round, his expectations of the conversation changed after we immediately explained that we want to talk about the opportunities, and not about the impossibilities. After the conversation, Caspar was curious about the continuation of our project and wanted to participate in a meeting when it would be organized.

PETER

Friday, January 8, we planned a meeting with Peter. Peter lives in the Regentekwartier, in the building De Vorst. He is also a member of the Owners Association. Peter brought different booklets to our conversation, with information about the area. Most of the conversation Peter was speaking; it was difficult for us to get through. Peter is a smart man, has worked with and for different municipalities, and knows a lot about different legislations. In fact, it was sometimes difficult for us to understand what he was talking about.

He wanted to explain what is going on in this area and how he experiences it, but he also understood the approach of our project. Although he does not know whether people are willing to connect with each other, he thinks it is important to also focus on the positive aspects of this neighborhood. At this moment people are stuck in a ‘negative spiral’, it therefore could be valuable if something meaningful arises in the neighborhood that eventually can improve the livability.

OLAF & HARRY

After the conversation with Peter, we had our last meeting of this week scheduled with Olaf & Harry. They also live in the Regentekwartier, in the apartment complex De Hertog. They invited us to their home. Olaf has his own IT company and Harry is a manager in a High Tech company. Olaf & Harry find it interesting and important to be aware of what is happening in the area. The flyer appealed to them, which is why they decided to send us a message. They were very curious about the approach of our project. Although they believe that the municipality has failed when it comes to the provision of information, they also want to look to the future. They long for the park because they are waiting for such a long time already. We also explained to Olaf & Harry that we are aware of what is going on in the neighborhood, that we are looking at the possibilities with the municipality, but that we are also investigating what the neighborhood can contribute itself. Especially a more connected, lively neighborhood is something that Olaf & Harry are hoping for. Olaf indicated that he was treasurer for the Owners' Association; a task that can also be valuable for a future (neighborhood) community and can perhaps be seen as an asset.

CONCLUSION

Together with the municipality, we have deliberately chosen to formulate the text on the flyer as accessible as possible, to make it easy to respond. In addition, we wanted to create a text that would appeal to stakeholders who want to actively contribute to improving the livability of the neighborhood. However, the municipality preferred an open invitation to reach more people. As a result, we did not only receive positive reactions to the flyer but also messages with frustrations (see blog "Feedback Lynn"). Although we really wanted to focus on the possibilities and the positive aspects in the area, the municipality wanted us to get in touch with as many people as possible. This is also important to us, which is why we chose to create the flyer in such a way that stakeholders themselves could partially interpret the purpose of this flyer. Most of them interpreted the flyer in the way we created it: looking at the possibilities, the positives. If people didn't interpret it that way, we tried to steer the conversation in such a way that we explained in advance that we are aware of the frustrations in the neighborhood, but that we want to discover the positive, the possibilities, and the willingness of residents to contribute to improving the livability.

We can write much more about the conversations we've had, but it's more interesting to reflect on these conversations. We had ten responses to our flyer, we eventually talked with six of them. The other four have not yet responded to the option to schedule a meeting. While we have not had many responses to the flyer, we have currently spoken to a diverse group of people who are all open to participating in a future gathering and exploring the possibilities together. So we are actually happy with the people we have spoken to so far and are excited to move on. A message will also be posted on the website to give people the opportunity to still get in contact with us. 

The conversations we had last week were very varied: you can see a clear difference between the group of people with frustrations and the group of people who want to look ahead and explore the possibilities. We immediately noticed that Michele and Sas want to actively contribute to a more connected and liveable neighborhood. Olaf, Harry, and Laurens experience the maintenance of the area as frustrating, but do not want to get stuck in a ‘negative spiral and want to look to the future opportunities. Caspar, but mostly Peter, got stuck in this ‘negative spiral’. However, they also have the feeling that the approach of our project could be valuable. They have all indicated they want to participate in a possible gathering and are willing to discover the (positive) future together.

Although everyone had their own thoughts and expectations of the conversation, our goal was to draw away attention from the negative aspects and problems in this neighborhood and discover already some qualities, skills, and resources of inhabitants of the area by which more power and effectiveness is obtained by the people of the neighborhood. Trying to use an ABCD approach to change the form of conversation from discussion to constructive dialogue. We used this conversation to gather already some information about the contenders in order to open up their eyes and minds to the broad range of opportunities they have, and at the same time to discover how we can shape the future gathering(s).

The conversations with the municipality, the first round of conversations with the stakeholders from the area, and the six conversations we had this week have helped us to create a better understanding of our role as Community Designer. As a Community Designer, you are not responsible for carrying out a specific assignment from a client. Our responsibility is to get the best out of the group of people who want to participate and be involved. Through the various conversations, we have had, we have tried to understand all perspectives and to build a kind of "bond" with the different parties. That way we are better able to empower people, facilitate a meaningful process, involve people, and eventually find ways to improve the livability together.