The need for more questions

Following the festival in-depth interviews were held with the principal organisers, the artistic director and two co producers. The organisational structure of the festival had not been as successful as anticipated and the employment of seventy four artists and art workers required further clarity. Seeking clarification of people’s roles, lines of accountability and decision-making processes it was important to speak with the primary organisers.

Having experienced the festival and observed a number of events as researcher and participant there were unresolved issues I needed to understand such as a lack of focus, promotion and coordination of events, partnership expectations, programming and the low attendance numbers. My observation were corroborated by a consultants

evaluation report on the festival recommending the theme of the festival be redefined to ensure the focus of the event is clear to all including clear direction and guidance about expectations for partnerships, artistic programming and promotion of the event (Roach, 2003, p.20).

In my interview with the artistic director, he confirmed his role was to “match creative projects to the greater aims of the event” and to support artists, “as well as sourcing artists finding partners and participants…working with groups [developing] processes that are effective” (Pidd, 2003). In contrast to the 2000 festival where theatre was the central idea the 2003 festival attempted to create a diversity of projects, art forms and events. He suggested community art is sometimes seen as a put-down phrase meaning ‘diluted art’ but this festival allowed artists to develop processes resulting in empowering of the artist through their involvement in the process and implementation; this effectively created an artistic process that was not paternalistic.

Pidd (2003) explained that many artists developed processes without guiding infrastructure and the reporting processes were poorly developed making lines of communication difficult or non existent. The artistic director further stated that the problem with the festival was that there was no infrastructure, and for the festival to survive and be successful a permanent part time artistic director to coordinate future projects would be necessary. The festival was a major source of employment for many struggling artists in southern Tasmania and the process of engaging artists working in the community during the time preceding the festival helped towards facilitating an arts culture in Glenorchy.

Channels of communication to the Advisory Committee and Council were blurred or non-existent and the role of that committee failed to support the festival and its organisation. On paper it looked as though Council’s investment was being carefully monitored but in reality this was far from the truth.

Festival co-producer Richardson (2003) stated in interview that “we relied on volunteers … there were not enough … not enough staff, secretary support or administrative support”. This observation is supported by Roach (2003) in the

festival evaluation report also criticised the management structure and process. She observed that for festivals to be successful it was critical to have a well organised structure and process in the future and recommended this area be reviewed and strengthened for future festivals.

For Council to continue to host a biennial festival continuity in planning and focus to maximise the momentum created by the two previous festivals was required. Substantial funding and a dedicated staff with distinct roles and responsibilities were vital for future festivals. Council was the appropriate body to assume ongoing responsibility for and management of the festival primarily because Council understood the necessary protocols required for planning, programming and implementing community events but perhaps greater use in future of Council’s Arts and Cultural Development officers. The failure to fully utilise the skills and networks already established by the MAC seemed to be an obvious recommendation that was not suggested in Roach’s evaluation report.

The 2003 Works Festival provided a challenge for all those who were associated with organising the event, for those responsible for developing partnerships and for those who experienced and participated in the many diverse art projects.

Did the festival contribute to place-making in Glenorchy?

According to Quinn (2005) festivals have the potential to transform depressed, problem-ridden, post-industrial cities into attractive culturally interesting places if they are well-managed and well-supported. Festivals can make a kind of contribution to place-making that is qualitatively different from on-ground improvements derived from urban design interventions. They are more ephemeral and, because of that (and a sense that they are therefore extra-ordinary) have the potential to capture the hearts and minds of a community, building community confidence and skills.

Was the festival an expression of Glenorchy’s diverse cultural identity?

My observations and interviews suggest involvement of diverse and culturally ethnic groups were involved but at a very shallow level. Participation was seen as having fulfilled this obligation, and it was not taken any further. This was poorly executed

evidenced by the low participation numbers at some of the culturally diverse events. Was Glenorchy’s image or profile raised in the context of festivals?

The low attendance numbers at many of the events and in particular on the final day would suggest that the future of the Works Festival as a premier event may not continue in the same form and with the same funding allocation. Value for money was not an outcome that Council could promote as it did not capture community expectations as shown by low attendances.

Genuine art festivals are artistically responsible to respond to the artistic needs of the community by initiating projects and activities that express local identity, celebrate communal values and strengthen bonds. If used by governments as image makers or economic quick fixes to encourage consumption, festivals will not fulfil the outcomes or expected goals and reduce those who attend to being customers rather than participants.

Did the festival reveal less visible mechanisms of power?

The 2003 Works Festival was well funded and supported by what appeared to be a well structured advisory committee with a Council appointed staff member as artistic co producer. Yet Council failed to recognise hidden power mechanisms and tensions that developed due to a lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities, individual power struggles and artistic egos (Gorringe, 2006). There were also hidden tensions and power struggles within Council staff concerning various appointments to coordinating positions resulting in several appointments that failed to deliver (Richardson, 2003).

According to Gorringe (2006) the 2003 Works Festival exposed some existing power relations within the Hobart art world. The festival enabled a wide distribution of employment opportunities for struggling artists and exposed a broad range of people to artistic experiences. However management of the process by Council was inadequate according to Gorringe (2006) with internal staff tensions exposed that were based on power and knowledge. Experienced Council arts workers were overlooked in providing more strategic roles.

The next chapter explores a number of place-making projects initiated and undertaken by the author. These projects support my belief that local governments have a particular responsibility to assist their community in managing change and provide evidence to suggest that place-making can be successful in building community confidence and provide a useful tool to address systemic inequities. It is through partnerships, defining community image and identity and working collaboratively with local community groups’ professionals and local governments can best improve, protect and manage place.

Chapter 5

Community Conversation 3

If they are well used, public spaces wear out, and that is good. Anything that people use and love eventually needs to be replaced or repaired. Demands on a place change and being open to the needs for change, having the management flexibility to enact that change, is what builds great public spaces (Madden, 2000, p.77).

5.1 Introduction

It is my belief that design awareness is not only for the elite or professional design specialists but should be integrated into an everyday appreciation of the world. Design processes involve discussions between a designer and client or user. Therefore urban design should involve many discussions with multiple users and other professional disciplines occupied with making places. Collaborative design and planning processes with local communities, organisations and stakeholders can assist in the creation of a shared understanding and awareness of local issues. This understanding then informs the design process and is more likely to achieve widespread community support for the resulting changes or design outcomes.

Local community participation during formative design stages can assist a design process by sharing local knowledge and information. Urban design, planners and allied professionals can be introduced to people’s diverse experiences of the built and natural environment in settlements, exploring their emotional attachments, diverse perspectives and understandings of place. Within local government’s organisational structure planners and other professionals so engaged could have the opportunity to share their knowledge and experience with other professionals from community development, engineering and environmental health. They could develop multi- disciplinary teams and generate chances for the cross-fertilisation of ideas and problem-solving approaches in the public realm. Unfortunately many local government organisations do not maintain this model but are aligned through professional barriers and managerial interests into independent department structures – silos.

This is where place-making facilitated by urban design professionals might influence change. Urban design processes can bring together multi-disciplinary teams to work

on projects in the public realm and support a wider appreciation and experience of the natural and built urban environment. The urban designer’s task is shaping settlements’ physical features at scales larger than a single building or a single plot of land and to support basic human needs, for convivial, supportive, diverse, inspiring, sustainable and safe communities in which to live.

Using auto-ethnographic approaches this chapter documents and reflects upon my position as urban designer, for the City of Glenorchy, a place formed by history and market forces with some planning; a place socially disadvantaged, visually incoherent and physically fragmented. My reflections are elaborated in one in-depth case study of the Springfield Gardens Community Recreation project, its management, development and completion. Further and briefer reference is then made to other collaborative place-making projects, namely the Montrose Foreshore Community Reserve, Gould’s Lagoon and Hestercombe Reserve, selected because they also exemplify the ways in which place-making is part of a rationality of power that need not also be antagonistic and that can build social capital for sustainability outcomes among marginalised communities.

This chapter has three aims to (1) evaluate the role of the urban designer in a collaborative place-making project, (2) explore how municipal governments can positively influence local partnerships, and (3) trace certain effects of the shifting operations of power in relation to community, Council and State government partnerships and interested stakeholders.

Springfield Gardens Community Recreation Project was a unique project that captured the energy of a local school community, neighbours, local business and State government department staff who, with leadership provided by a small group of dedicated place-makers, enabled substantial funds to be invested in quality of life projects at a disadvantaged school and neighbourhood. What evolved over a six year period was an outstanding community recreational facility, protection of a significant urban woodland and increase in community confidence for the Glenorchy residential suburb of West Moonah.