Towards Democratic Place-making: searching for Hullness

1. Towards Democratic Place-making: searching for Hullness David Atkinson Department of Geography, Environment & Earth Sciences, University of Hull.

2. Making research matter: a different kind of example • …of ‘making research matter’: • This was not applied or policy-oriented research – but a community project to foster debate and social cohesion. • …of ‘impact:’ • This isn’t the demonstrable impact on policy, practice or economic gain that, for example, the REF seeks • Rather, this is ‘outreach’ or ‘engagement’ (and cannot strictly claim any impact) • …of an academic driving applied, impactful research: • This project was driven by ARC: a public environment / architecture organisation in Hull. • I was asked to advise upon, and write about, their work...

3. I encountered a fascinating initiative: • Hullness project: exploring ‘a sense of place’ for Hull • An attempt to articulate the ‘place-identity’ for this distinctive city • And to then mobilise this as a community resource This stands in contrast to much ‘place-making’ which is local authority led • And sometimes in collaboration with consultants and developers (with less concern for the social good?) • This had happened in Hull (with its ‘image problems’) • ‘City branding’: a ‘Pioneering city’ • But some groups felt excluded: ‘unfashionable’ fishing heritage, declining heavy industries etc.

4. The Hullness initiative… • 2009,CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment) critique proposed city centre plan.. • What was distinctiveand locally-informed about the plan? Where’s the 'Hullness‘? • Arc: ‘Humber Centre for Excellence in the Built Environment’ - ‘working with people to make great places’ • City Council asked Arc to assess Hullness – the city’s ‘sense of place’. Their initiative explored Hullness from the bottom-up… • Asking Hullensians what their city meant to them… • A more democratic, community-centred process… ?

5. Exploring Hullness, 2009-2010 • Two public debates (with academic ‘experts’…) • Public outreach events • Media coverage • Website and blog • Postcards • Photography competition ARC: funded by Yorkshire Forward regional development agency…

7. Second round of activities, 2011-12 • Funded by £50k from the Heritage Lottery Fund • 15 ‘Hullness debates’(July 2011 – Feb 2012) • Heritage Centre members;residents’ associations; community-led organisations; artists’ collectives; youth centres; school children; University students; museum volunteers etc.

8. Hull’s place-identity recorded in words and images…

9. A friendly city with strong social ties: • “The people make Hull what it is. People are friendly – they say hello” (Respondent, Hull University Students, 2 December 2011). • “…people [are] different, more friendly [and compared to other cities] people in Hull speak to you” (Respondent, Hessle Road Network, 6 October 2011). • This same discussion noted there had been no rioting or racial tensions in summer 2011, as elsewhere in the UK. • The debates noted that Hull was also an increasingly multicultural city: • Students at a secondary School stated there “were forty different ‘cultures’ at our school” (Endeavour School, 7 December 2011).

10. The groups also defined Hull as strongly independent and self-contained • “…it is the people who say ‘This is Hull’. People care about the city. They are tenacious, resilient. Examples [include] Wilberforce, the Civil War, they do things regardless of what other people think. Oswald Moseley was stoned out of the city. Hullness equals pride in Hull” (Respondent, Museum volunteers, 11 January 2012). • A further contributor claimed that Hull was crafted an: • “independent, defiant society” (Respondent, ARTLink debate, 20 Oct 2011), • A school student echoed these sentiments, stating: • “…let’s be iconic and different, [the] odd one out” (Respondent, Endeavour School, 7 December 2011). • NB! Some different foci than ‘place professionals’ identify • “…let’s be iconic and different, [the] odd one out” (Respondent, Endeavour School, 7 December 2011). NB! Some different foci than ‘place professionals’ identify

11. And March-April 2012: Hullness Exhibition • At ARC, then touring the city • Media coverage

13. Like the idea of ‘place’ itself, Hullness is a slippery, fluid, shifting concept: • We can’t capture a comprehensive sense of Hullness • Instead, we need to think about, discuss and debate it… • But not in a closed discussion amongst ‘experts’ • Advantages of the Hullness initiative: • Not a ‘sense of place’ parachuted into Hull by external consultants / academics • No single image / icon / slogan (excluding some groups) • But an attempt to develop a sense of place by actively engagingHull’s communities. • An inclusive, democratic approach to place-identity that deserves attention…

14. But after 2012, it all fell apart: • Arc’s funding expired (with demise of Regional Development Agencies) and it closed • Ironically one of those ‘experts’ is the only one still in post • The end of Hullness…?

15. City of Culture 2017 bid… • Explicitly presented Hull as distinctive and unique: that ‘end-of-the-line’ sense of place… • Phil Redmond, chair of judges, talked about the bid capturing the city’s ‘Hullness’ • And that sense of place-identity is central to the ongoing development of the city of culture programme…

16. Making research matter… ? • Good public project – more inclusive than prior top-down place-promotion of the past. • It (probably) prompted debate and changed thinking… • How easily could we discuss and mobilise Hullness without this prior work? • Decent academic engagement (especially for colleagues in the humanities) • Slender quantifiable ‘impact’ - but very clear social-cultural (and economic) impact of Hull 2017 • We should not be afraid to make arguments for the intangible, ‘softer’ end of applied, engaged academic outreach