In 2018 when I came back to London my colleague Jim from City Mined was developing ideas around a new form of cooperative. A platform for people to learn together and generate income at a local level. Working in challenging economical context means “culture” , as a way to inspire and bring people together is not necessarily the most effective approach. Coming from an art/activist perspective the real economy is a bit scary, working within its framework also goes against a preconception we sometimes share as a team, the idea that the creation of “common” is a non capitalist project, which renders any form of mercantile activity suspicious.
When the project Elephant Path started in 2016 Jim interviewed academics and economists to reflect on the role of learning and skill sharing. Part of the research highlighted the trend for “New forms of employment” a transformation of the relationship between employer and employee emerging in the aftermath of the global recession. Two models have emerged that we recognise today, the collaborative economy and the uberisation, the two concepts are, in many ways, totally opposite. Uberisation is a profit-oriented type of business with the one and only goal of high margin generation. The collaborative economy, on the other hand, is more sustainable, and oriented towards purpose and use rather than possession. The goal of collaborative economies is to protect resources and share them rather than extracting their individual benefits.
I started to work with Jim testing a few ideas in Kings Cross, most notably the Elephant Lunch break club was a concept where people would cook, learn new recipes and share a meal. The point was to create a cooking community where residents could come together and explore a shared interest. We envisioned that this convivial lunch could evolve into a supper club, a format outside of traditional restaurants setting, usually run in private homes or alternative places, that could generate incomes for local cooks. Part of the business model was relying on attracting young professionals from the nearby business quarter. However beyond a series of events it was difficult to push forward in that direction. The challenge of creating an amateur cooking group from scratch and turning it into a semi professional cooperative was overwhelming. In addition to creating a group the needs for a proper legal framework, professional kitchen and other key elements was beyond our reach at the time.
Generating a learning community and supporting new collaborative businesses are a two of the objectives of Participatory City. A few months back Ines and I visited the project in east London. This initiative grew out of ten years of research in the field of social engagement by CEO Tessy Britton. It had been tested at a small scale in 2014-2015 and now was being developed at a large scale in Barking and Dagenham. The basic concept of the project is to create a network of small initiatives, mostly delivering free workshop activities, all connected throughout the city. From cooking classes, growing food or learning carpentry, the project relies on residents to come forward with ideas and sharing them as part of a weekly program. Half of the time the team of Participatory City works with residents to produce contents and reflects on what they have done. The mentoring of residents means that people with no experience can slowly develop an idea. It is also a dialogue where the outcome is always open to discussion rather than casually imposed to people like it is often the case in other participatory projects. Part of the project focuses on turning ideas into viable collaborative businesses, helping participants to come together and test an idea. It is a really fast track process whereby having a frit product on the market as soon as possible is really encouraged. However the incubator is still at an early stage and only a few businesses have come out of it. Communication is a big part of Participatory City, first and foremost, the 4 shops they have on the high street is a first point of contact. they also have printed journal distributed to thousands of people in the borough to inform residents about the upcoming activities.
The illustrated participatory city guide book that serves as a sort of manifesto for the project explains how in most cases, traditional participatory projects fail to have a large impact. It is said that 3% of the population take part in “engagement” projects, a much lower percentage than sports clubs or other religious groups. Small scale projects also have less chance of surviving with a lot of them lasting less than two years. The idea of a Participatory City of mutualising risks and sharing resources is a way to create cooperation and maybe divert from the more competitive models. It is also a chance for people with less experience to come forward with ideas, giving them a platform rather than relying on a few well experienced individuals to develop projects.
As part of the tour we took with Ines we first discovered the warehouse, a gigantic space, 3300m2, including carpentry workshops, professional kitchen, kindergarten and coworking spaces. My first impression was that it was the kind of google of participation, there was so much space and workshop facilities, I was blown away. It was only in the second part of our tour and after a meeting that we went back to the center of town to see some of the shops. They are the main point of contact with the residents and where most of the activities are taking place. The shops are like small versions of the warehouse disseminated across town. Similarly to El Warcha in Tunis they rely on having a presence on the street and being open everyday for people to use. The shop we visited was a cosy environment with a nicely decorated entrance, a fully fitted kitchen and a series of rooms for diverse activities.
What is impressive about Participatory City is the scale and the tools developed to manage the project. The 400 pages annual report is a good insight into the project and it also highlights the methodology and evaluation process. From a practical point of view the fact that all the activities are run and delivered by the residents themselves is exemplary. However the down side of this model is the lack of financial support or income generating activities for participants. Even Though the incubator supports the creation of businesses it is marginal in comparison to the rest of the project. In a context where only the production team and mentors are on the payroll my concerns would be that after a little while people lose interest and question not having any financial compensation.
El Warcha in Tunis is collaborative design practice and carpentry workshop, since 2018 most of our team is being paid, this means that at times we have up to 10 people on the payroll, including young people, design students to young professionals with managerial roles. Transition from a traditional community art project to an income generating activity is a long and difficult process. Our work mainly revolves around product design and carpentry with projects ranging from self initiated community activities to client based product design. Being a learning community with no professional experience for most of the team can be a real challenge. The time we spend together includes a wide range of interactions outside of working hours that blurs the line between what is work and what is social interaction or personal growth. In this context where labour and being together overlaps it is hard to rationalise the retribution system. The most obvious would be to pay people on the outcome of their work, when applied to product design it is straightforward, but it is much harder when it comes to transversal activities.
The transition from a community of practice to an income generating collaborative practice has put a lot of strain on our relationships and has highlighted the difficulty for equal pay and equal responsibility. We have turned this around many times, we have based the payroll framework on the time people spend at the workshop, based on the task they deliver or on their level of experience. None of our models have been fully conclusive. Our approach reveals that to be functional and horizontal our frameworks requires a lot of autonomy from each member of the team. Our experience also shows that participants find it much easier and inspiring to learn and take part in practical activities. Other topics; like the administration, communication or strategy of the project have been much harder to address collectively. Traditional work forms of communication like emails or meetings have also been challenging at times, pushing us towards less formal means of communication. So far like many other projects of that sort we still rely on a few individuals who have more experience than the others to run the project and deliver some of the crucial tasks for the project to run.
Our long term vision remains to create a framework for a community of people to experiment new ways of working together, learn from each other and have a strong connection to our environment. In the next few months we will be looking at alternative ways to develop our practice, this is a discussion to be continued.