My first FLIPIM: the grassroots regeneration conference
On Thursday I went to FLIPIM, the grassroots regeneration conference, handily hosted in Birkenhead. I didn't really know what to expect, but I felt like my interests were kind of regeneration-adjacent, so it seemed like a good way to find out what's going on locally. Well, it was excellent, and I left with a full brain and feeling much more connected. I met people working on things I'd vaguely heard about or admired from afar (Kitty's Launderette! Metal Culture!) and finally figured out what some things I'd heard about but not really understood were (Kindred). It was a glorious sunny day for wandering between event sites up around Argyle Street, and including Joy which has only just opened.
I didn't move back to Liverpool City Region because of the lively social economy, entirely through ignorance. I now feel even more lucky to be here, amidst so much energy and activity (Kindred track more than 1,500 socially-trading organisations).
As the event site says, grassroots matter:
Community-led businesses and assets currently boast a 94% long-term survival rate, providing the stability our high streets desperately need. Research confirms that resident-led regeneration doubles local business growth in disadvantaged areas compared to top-down models. Research by Power to Change shows that community owned assets contribute £220 million to the UK economy, with 56p of every £1 they spend staying in the local economy
Two things struck me about the event. Firstly, if there was any online chat during it, it wasn't on Bluesky or Mastodon or X. There were a couple of posts on Instagram, and a couple on LinkedIn. Secondly, all the conversations felt very much in the present. Perhaps that's normal for regeneration? It was particularly noticeable in the group discussions around visions for civic high streets 20 years in the future; nothing felt like it wouldn't be a good high street now. I was surprised that my suggestion of being a home for community resilience in the face of climate or other shocks was seen as eye opening. It's always good to be reminded of the variety of perspectives, approaches and language even in seemingly-adjacent spheres.
Here's some of my session notes:
Phin Harper's keynote started by helpfully explaining that FLIPIM exists as a counter to MIPIM, which it turns out is a very expensive event, with a huge focus on growth, and a surprisingly high proportion of UK attendees. The main thread of his talk was around a question to do with living together: does our built landscape promote mutual care and interdependence?
Material is part of this. The Broken Windows theory developed a cult-like following, and lead to blocks of low maintenance concrete such as the Camden bench which would not break and could be neglected. Even after the theory was debunked and key promoters such as Gladwell recanted, it still seems to be followed. Earth has been a popular construction material and still is in some places, but seems less used now despite low carbon footprint. Phin shared some cool examples of earth buildings with features that work as ladders, enabling easier repair. Thatch is also great but does need regular repair. Steel for buildings contributes 8% of global CO2, and cement (for concrete) 7%.
From there to repair, visible mending, and so on - many Festival of Maintenance topics. Repairs and retrofits can enrich and improve the built environment, but that's depressingly rare. "Demolition is like a national pastime." We worry about e-waste but it has nothing on the architectural waste we generate.
I didn't know about the UK police initiative Secured By Design, which covers everything from lock compliance, to urban design guidance on how to discourage loitering and gathering (!) for instance by not having footpaths through areas of housing, removing trees for better CCTV coverage, etc. It all seems very counter to active travel, tackling loneliness, and having more access to nature. "Security is control. Safety is support."
Sharing things - spaces, facilities, such as laundry (we've gone from shared laundry spaces to in-home washing machines that are often hidden behind cupboard doors, god forbid any visitor sees your washing), brings people together, reduces loneliness.
Phin closed with a note that GDP-style growth goes against sharing things, and forces the value of a place to be expressed in financial terms. Unlike recent previous PMs with "growth growth growth" priorities, at least Burnham has specified good growth as the aim.
The community-led highstreets panel discussed examples of making the highstreet more civic focussed, rather than community just being seen as a temporary gap filler (in 'meanwhile' spaces - a term that I don't think we knew when Makespace took on a meanwhile space that lasted 14 years). Meanwhile spaces can be great for experimentation and having fun, or they can be a step on a "pop-up to permanent" journey. Sometimes just having a whatsapp group of local businesses can help identify opportunities to collaborate, support each other, and take advantage of opportunities when they come up. Stewards are often needed to help communities when growth and development is happening. It's not just funding, other scaffolding is often needed too. Communities deinvested for generations may not have the admin or legal skills. Keeping earlier identities can help when spaces are redeveloped - for instance Sparks took over an old M&S store, kept a store element (for indie makers and creatives) and also echoed the earlier brand. Heritage buildings are a mixed blessing though; older buildings can absorb huge amounts of money. Some kinds of heritage building are overlooked, because they aren't big and seen as prestigious - Homebaked in Anfield is in a 100 year old working class bakery. It's important that communities can present as a legitimate group who can deliver just as well as private investors can. Private developers might appear risk-free to councils, but actually often they are just landbanking. Community orgs can also get pigeon-holed as delivery agencies, and may not be able to connect at a systemic level so easily. Anyone who can run a business in a tough area for a few years must be a great businessperson.
 |
Vidhya Alakeson spoke about her experience at Power To Change and in government. She ran Power to Change from the start in 2015, with an exciting brief to spend £15m in 10 years. There was a lot of freedom because it was a new organisation with no heritage. They learned the importance of changing. For instance, the rapid model shift from a funding focus, to peer support etc being just as important. Granby Four Streets initially got turned down for funding from Power To Change when it was new, because the board of financial services folks couldn't get their heads around the idea of doing stuff in a street. But PtC increased their risk appetite, and reviewed it again, visited to get more of a sense of it, and then funded.
Looking back, she sees the people making change in places around the country are still there, ten years on, on the same journey. But people at every layer of government, from Whitehall down to regions (perhaps less so at local authority level), change all the time. For example: already no political advisor who started Pride in Place is still there.
She identified three challenges now. Firstly, the relationships between government, funders and 'civil society writ large' feel antagonistic, now. Communities are under pressure, but there's a lot of process which lacks urgency. Government is good at scaling change, but is not itself innovative. Secondly, the place agenda has been fragmented into many micro agendas. She's not sure we are collectively helping ourselves, with these different small agendas competing for money and not talking coherently to government. Finally, with the recent pattern of government teams lasting only 2 years, the civil service is gaining more power, because they don't keep changing! So government isn't quite what it was or what she had expected. There needs to be some rewiring of the system. Processes all too often remain secret - "no one does excel alone in a room any more" except in government. Also, government is the last bastion where systems thinking has no place.
Vidhya noted that if you communicate with numbers, they are always contested. But people believe what they see, so you need to make sure there's visible change. And people need to have hope.
The Q&A section continued these themes.
We all want the same things: lively high streets with community-led businesses, independent businesses and so on. But everyone's incentives are not really aligned. She fought for money and created Pride in Place, which necessarily involved some process, for demonstrable fairness and accountability. But the perception of Pride in Place by the projects who want to access it is one of inflexibility, too many forms. The devolution (to local authorities, which are the accountable bodies for the scheme) should help, but the reality is that councils are not equipped to do their part, or staffed to deliver the vision; or they are in a spending freeze and cannot spend money even where the budget exists. These are tough times for local government, with loss of staff and capabilities and demands to do more.
Connecting projects with government is important. It can be frustrating when there's a good relationship and then someone gets promoted out of that role. Maybe a forum to connect government and projects could help, because community groups don't have time to connect to all levels of government, and forums like today can miss the private sector. It is easy to overlook civil servants in this space too, as they are less visible than politicians who sit on panels etc, and it can be hard to know who they are if you are not in the bowels of a program. But people will know who they are, and they are a key part of making change (even if they move around). There were some civil servants in the room as it turned out, but it was noted that "Whitehall travels internationally more than it does to the regions" of the UK.
 |
| The Museum of Broken Dreams is an exhibition of ideas and initiatives that once promised to tackle some of the most pressing issues facing communities across the UK. |
On to the Trusting Communities panel. Sadly Andrew Salim from Central Waste Liverpool wasn't able to join; his team's efforts to clean community areas and remove racist graffiti reminded me of the Guerilla Groundsman, who spoke at the Festival of Maintenance in 2018:
Central Waste believe that communicating about this sort of grassroots action is important too - not just doing the cleaning, but showing others that people care about the area, and that improvement is possible.
This panel was about community power, and how government could give community businesses and projects the same consideration as larger developers and businesses. Jennifer-Anne Smith from Salford Loaves and Fishes noted that they say communities - they are multiple, diverse, and sometimes segregated. Sometimes communities are also rivals. How do you construct a community of communities? You have to ask the people in them.
Digital inclusion is a big issue, and the gap is only getting wider.
Consultation is important, however you do it. There was an example where there were a range of potential activities, but it turned out that people really wanted to learn about cooking, which wasn't even on the list.
Laura Beveridge found herself as chair of the campaign against the CCS pipeline proposed in Liverpool Bay. The project is very much breaking trust with the local community, and frustratingly central government will make the final decision. The campaign isn't just about being against a thing; it's about the story of how a just transition requires disrupting the business as usual of the fossil fuel industry. It's a grassroots campaign, but so far all the material put out is educational, not taking a strong advocacy position. They take care to cross reference factual material, and to ensure the campaign people are aware of this and take an educational approach. At the start when the potential pipeline was first announced, political groups were sharing incorrect facts about this contentious issue. So Action Against CCS is trying to be different. They have supporters doing fact checking on BBC and other press coverage.
Despite all of this, Laura has concluded that nationally significant infrastructure projects are not for the benefit of UK people; following the money is scary. The work of Action Against CCS is creating trust, but also creating distrust, because others are saying things that don't ring true. For instance, messages from central government around community being at the heart of decisions. The campaign is trying to show both sides of the story, and let people draw their own conclusions. This gives people a sense that the campaign has credibility, and also builds trust.
There was a bit of discussion about whether community leaders who take on multiple roles on boards etc become themselves removed from their communities. "One of the usual suspects." It can be valuable to invite others in; but can also look like conspiracy. There can be a powerful role in translation and openness to help work with the community. For instance, tenants will support rent rises if you help them understand the retrofit, placemaking and financial situation (what will happen if rent doesn't keep up with inflation).
Naomi Rubbra from Footwork and Platform Places noted that you cannot just claim trust, or force it.
In the discussion, someone noted that inclusive governance practices seem to be more significant in the world of international development (for example UK support in Rwanda), than in our own local contexts, which seemed an interesting point. Inclusive governance is great for trust building. Participatory budgeting doesn't need a super fancy structure - you can just hold a vote at a community meeting, it's enough. There was also a note of caution around parish councils, which can say they are the community voice, but are not always representative.
|
The final panel was building the future economy. It started with some history, as panel members had been involved in One Day, back in 2019. This was a response to the LCR Combined Authority which structurally excluded women.
In October 2019 20 diverse women from different sectors, geographies and communities spent ‘One Day’ together in Liverpool and rewrote the Liverpool City Region (LCR) Industrial strategy from our perspective and a gendered lens. It was not a response for women, it was a response by women.One Day was new to me. Some recommendations from the follow-up 2022 report:
Define growth in themes, not sectors. It is how we do business, rather than
what business we do, that will deliver an inclusive and prosperous region.... We accept financial measurements such as GDP, GVA and
profit are useful in some cases, but we should measure what makes life worthwhile.
Conventional economic measures often exclude areas of the economy that are
given, but not sold, like unpaid care. They can also be focused on the extraction of
wealth, and have a negative impact on our communities. We also recognise that
continuing to follow a conventional industrial plan – with its focus on construction,
manufacturing, automotive etc. – will have a negative impact on climate change,
and challenge the city region’s zero carbon goal of 2040.Invest in industries proven to drive economic growth and deliver wellbeing at the same time such as social care, hospitality, and culture.
Simon Borkin saw disconnection between tiers in local development, and moved to the co-op sector. Society law is very different to companies law in the UK. He led the Community Shares Unit at Co-operatives UK, developing equity investment models - which has been incredibly useful. A more aligned model for community enterprise, raising money from beneficiaries and sharing control, ownership and involvement is very powerful.
The cooperativism movement (not quite the same as co-op legal structures, which are not always appropriate) is normal, internationally, but not so common here. In the UK, if things don't go well in your local project it's often because of something a long way away - but it can be tempting to point the finger at things you can see locally. Co-op mindset changes that, you get more local solidarity and team spirit.
The conversation moved on to care, and Simon name dropped Equal Care Coop, a great example of a different way care can be delivered. New ways of organising care, focussed on the foundational role of carers, and more cooperative models, should be the future. (It was good to hear Alison McGovern saying this - as well as being MP for Birkenhead, she is Minister of State for health and social care, and contributed many wise thoughts on the panel.)
Social care and care generally being overlooked as part of the economy is a root cause of many problems. There was some positive news in 2023 - the OBR recognised spending on childcare had a positive benefit to the economy, in enabling people to work. But it's a small step, and a lot of care work remains unpaid. That, plus perhaps the traumatic experiences people have with care work, may be some of the reason we don't talk about care much. Many young people are not in education, employment or training, and there's an assumption that people don't want to do care work; but maybe there's an opportunity for these young folks. Care work needs incredible emotional intelligence.
What might help make change here? More progressive procurement practices, a light touch regime, could help change the economics and raise the power of women in care. The problem with scale-up companies is that they sell out to private equity; employee buy outs as an alternative should be a bigger thing. Joining up different kinds of money will unlock impact - public sector, philanthropy, etc; and not forgetting infrastructure and ecosystem building and social capital. Co-ops get blocked in some sectors because of the regulatory environment. For instance, in care: the regulatory context doesn't understand distributed governance well; the same happens in housing and energy co-ops. We need to ensure regulators of sectors are at least aware, and ideally friendly, with an idea of how the co-op model works. Social investment tax relief was a missed opportunity - it came and went too fast. A focus on asset-locked investments, similar to EIS, could attract aligned capital.
Money, eh? The financialisation of the care sector (and other sectors) is undoubtedly a problem, but another problem is the financialisation of money. You can make more money by [my notes here seem to say, you can make more money by moneying money than by doing anything else. Read into that what you will.]. So, getting towards a reinvention of money would be good: social trading, cashflow support, regional money... (This reminded me of Mutual Credit Services, and their local project Local Loop Merseyside; folks I expect to catch up with next week at the Festival of Commoning.)
Erika Rushton from Kindred mentioned that giving out 0% money seemed incredibly audacious when they started doing this. But the private sector do it all the time and it's not audacious at all.
The evening was a party at the Social Economy Club hosted by Make CIC. More networks, more people, more inspiring work and ideas.
Overall, an excellent event. Hope to make it next year, and to connect with more of the network in between.
