Playing your cards right

Enough of weekend exhibitions in cold, musty village halls and confrontational evening meetings with residents lined up on one side of the room and local authority and developers on the other. There are better ways of consulting the community.

The use of game-playing as a way of engaging local residents in the regeneration process was pioneered by Urban Initiatives some years ago with the Section 106 interactive board game it devised for use in the Thames Gateway area. The game’s title is hardly as memorable as Monopoly, but the approach caught on with a number of organisations using the game.

This month RIBA launched its own addition to regeneration’s games cupboard with Building Futures, an exercise in scenario planning. Say scenario planning to a local resident and they are likely to yawn, but show them the games’ cards scoring buildings and amenities on such factors as wow factor and cost, and they’ll immediately spot the resemblance to Top Trumps.

Here’s how the game works. All stakeholders participate, working together in small teams.

“It is aimed at three groups – policymakers, including local authorities, regional development agencies and consortium developers; service providers such as local planning officers, head teachers and senior police; and the community,” says Tamsie Thomson, head of Building Futures at RIBA.

Taking a city centre or fairly large area as their territory, the teams first use a set of statement cards to set out their aspirations and concerns for the future. They then work through their Top Trumps-style cards to produce their proposals. “Because we start with statements, this is less confrontational and sets up a consensus position. Once you say something is a problem, you can’t just say no, you have to work through to a solution,” says Thomson. “Real” budgets can be set, and there are additional cards to present “real” obstacles, although the game’s lengthy gestation means that it does not have an obstacle card for today’s credit crunch.

RIBA and partners in the venture Cabe and consultant AOC put three years’ work into developing the game to ensure it is robust. The game itself can be played out in just three and a half hours. “Hopefully organisations that would find consultation costly will be encouraged to do this in the early stages,” says Thomson.

At £45 Building Futures could be a bargain. start. The test games have already been remarkable for their lack of conflict. “There have been no fisticuffs yet,” says Thomson.

How the cards played out in Swindon

Swindon’s population has doubled in the past 50 years and growth continues with the designation of Swindon as a “growth point” by the government. Development in central Swindon, however, has failed to match the economic success of the rest of town and it fails to provide a real focus. Central Swindon’s poor image and limited facilities threaten future development. The council, in partnership with urban regeneration company, the New Swindon Company, has been developing a strategy to overcome these downsides.

Game players: local authority regeneration and forward planning officers, representatives of the New Swindon Company, the regional Economic Partnership, the Neighbourhood Renewal Board, CPRE and a local housing association, the town centre manager, members of residents and community groups, consultants involved in town centre regeneration, the police.

Aim of the game: to look at key issues relating to the regeneration of central Swindon to inform the approach on consultation for the central area action plan.

The game

Baseline stage – drawing out concerns and aspirations for the future

• There was little convergence between players about likely futures for the town, but all shared some aspirations. These were largely based around developing the retail offer and improving transport infrastructure.
• All groups felt car use would continue to rise.
• Two groups felt there would be a wider range of cafes, restaurants and food outlets. But there were concerns about an alcohol culture.
• All were keen to see a greener town centre.

Aspirations for the next 10 years

Group 1: Group 1 was slightly more “official” in make-up than others. They focused on developing a sustainable community with a stable, diverse population, job opportunities, good environmental standards and excellent public spaces. A key concern was reducing car-dominance and ensuring chain stores did not swamp smaller businesses. Early wins such as street furniture, a new park and support for independent shops were followed by major investment in a new cycle and pedestrian bridge to cross the railway, the heart of the project. This linked new parts of town with the centre, and allowed development of housing and business accommodation in later years in newly desirable areas.

Group 2: Group 2 was a mix of residents, officers and consultants. They aimed to get the streets full of people, ensure good public transport and encourage independent businesses. They were concerned about possible dominance of cars and chain stores, but their main driver was retaining and encouraging the involvement of residents in town centre issues. They wanted to build potential for local and community enterprise. Their strategy involved making a big move early on – a new iconic structure in a revolving restaurant near the railway station.

Group 3: This group of mainly older community members focused on community stability, offering good housing, jobs and ensuring that traditions and heritage are maintained. They were concerned that an increasingly busy centre might become less pleasant for residents. Their strategy involved investment in new affordable housing and a tram service as dynamic markers of change. Later years focused on improving the commercial offer and the environment.

Conclusions

• All were keen to ensure future plans do not disadvantage or destroy the existing community. For two groups, new affordable housing was key.
• While wishing to build the retail offer, all groups were keen to avoid creating a clone town.
• All groups saw the importance of some kind of bridge or linking mechanism to make connections across the railway.
• Improving transport possibilities – tram, walking and cycling – was part of the scenario for all.
• Stimulating local enterprise was a theme.

Further discussion

• People talked about strategies to create the perfect mix of independent and chain retail. Previous attempts to set up markets failed because of the decentralised nature of the town. Larger chains were perhaps a necessity.
• The idea of a landmark was appealing. The proposers stressed they were didn’t want an icon for an icon’s sake; they wanted something that had a use that benefited the town.
• The approaches sparked debate about whether to make a big statement upfront, or concentrate on putting a framework in place. The answer was probably somewhere in the middle, they agreed.