Community Reclamation: the Hybrid Building

Reclamation of a city involves reusing abandoned buildings in conjunction with new construction. These negative spaces of disuse generated by a changing infrastructure are often overlooked or destroyed. If they are instead viewed as positive spaces for reuse, a city’s infrastructure and its residents can adapt and grow. Recognizing these newly positive spaces produces a chance to examine what social needs of the community are not being met. Pushing the modern concept of the hybrid building creates a unique opportunity; flexibility of use derived from flexibility of space. A community building can best serve the social needs of its residents by having the ability to adapt to changes in those needs

Building a Community Around the Writing Center

Recruitment and retention are important issues on every campus but especially so on small campuses like that of Casper College. My predecessor, Bob Mittan, believed as I do that the Writing Center should serve as a community as well as a campus resource. His reasons focused on how the community could be involved with the writing center while my reasons focus on how the writing center can be involved with the community. In becoming a community resource, our center serves to demystify academe both for those in the community who feel they are too old or incapable to succeed in college and for young writers in high school who may not have decided to attend college yet. As a result, we are acquiring something of a reputation for helping students and community members with résumé cover letters and creative writing projects as well as scholarship letters and essays.University Writing Cente

Building on the value of Victoria’s community sector

Building on the value of Victoria’s community sector goes beyond the sector’s economic contribution. It discusses the value of all Victoria’s community sector organisations, including those operating with registered charitable status and those operating without. The paper also outlines broader aspects of the community sector’s value than just the economic. These include the sector’s unique ability to amplify the voice of people facing disadvantage and build relationships with those who most need support, its diversity, its innovative and collaborative nature, its focus on prevention and early intervention, and its ability to build community cohesion and wellbeing. While outlining these, Building on the value of Victoria’s community sector also outlines ways in which this value can be further built on, to generate even more benefit for people and communities facing disadvantage, and Victoria as a whole

Building Age-Friendly Community: Notes from the Field

Building age-friendly communities is a global as well as a national concern. The purpose of this paper is to explore fundamental tensions underlying the formulation of age-friendly goals and their implementation, based on a review of age-friendly projects and reflections on the journey towards age friendliness in one state (Rhode Island). The authors conducted a comprehensive investigation of the relevant literature on previous age-friendly initiatives, which included case studies of individual projects, meta-analyses of age-friendly work, and educational toolkits for promoting age-friendly community. They also collected original data from ten focus groups with older adults, interviews with key informant service providers, surveys of older adults and observational environmental audits. Through this multi-faceted approach, they identified recurrent questions often not overtly addressed in building livable communities, despite their being central to decisions made in age-friendly projects. This paper focuses on six questions: Age friendliness for whom? Older adults viewed as a burden or a benefit? Age friendliness by or for older adults? Is age friendliness affordable? Should the target be the aged overall or the needy aged in particular? Should interventions aim to change people or places? The Aging in Community Report, (prepared by the authors and submitted to Rhode Island’s General Assembly), reflected decisions made—albeit sometimes inadvertently—in response to these questions. It showed that priority was given to age friendliness over livability, assistance to vulnerable, older adults was given precedence over helping the entire older population, and top-down interventions were emphasized more than grass-roots endeavors. Its recommendations were geared to leveraging or modestly increasing existing resources to better serve older adults and enhancing opportunities for older adults to contribute to their community. Following the release of the report, the focus shifted from modifications of the environment to facilitating changes in individual behavior to optimize person-environment fit

Resident Participation: A Community-Building Strategy in Low-Income Neighborhoods

Resident participation has been an area of community development aimed at increasing involvement of tenants in housing development, management and community-building. The precise roles and mechanisms of resident participation are not well understood, however. This paper explores the role of resident participation and its interaction with other factors that drive community revitalization. By understanding the necessary conditions, factors and other variables that strengthen resident participation, public policies can help low-income populations manifest their power and make a difference in their communities. The research presented here (1) describes the challenges and benefits of resident participation; (2) identifies examples of residents successfully contributing to the development and management of their homes; (3) details the conditions necessary for success; and (4) addresses the issue of assessing effectiveness. For those seeking to encourage resident participation, the are three major challenges include time and money; limited options due to economics; and limited community capacity. Examples of successful resident participation are presented, such as the Demonstration Disposition in Boston -- one of the most notable examples of resident participation in development in the past 10 years. Building management has also been an arena for various levels and types of resident participation, and many community development corporations have developed creative ways of involving residents in community-building efforts. The interplay of external and internal factors together creates conditions for resident participation. This paper identifies four major factors: impetus, politics, resources and values, describing the internal and external resources affected by each. To connect these external and internal resources, bridging resources of trust, community organizing, strategic partnerships and organizational capacity are necessary. Community planning and education make up a noteworthy bridging resource that allows for the necessary learning process to take place. Community education and planning happen in three phases: building a foundation, teaching skills, and following through. While there is general support for resident participation in housing development, management and community-building, measuring its effectiveness has received limited research attention. This paper describes the effectiveness of resident participation looking at the individual, building and community levels. These testimonials will be strengthened if hard measures of resident participation are developed and used to study its effects

A Survey of Selected National Organizations Providing Support to the Community Building Field

In recent years, community building has emerged as a powerful, comprehensive approach to neighborhood improvement. Increasing numbers of national and local organizations use community building to describe the ways in which they work to improve outcomes for children and families in low-wealth neighborhoods. As a local and national technical assistance provider and resource to the field, the Urban Strategies Council (the Council) set out to conduct a limited scan of the national organizations providing programs and services to support community building practitioners.In early 1999, the Council surveyed a dozen national organizations involved in community building support to identify the core strategies they employ to support practitioners and the development of the field. We also asked about the target populations for their supports and services. The twelve organizations were not selected through scientific sampling methods and are certainly not a representative sample; rather, they include organizations known to us and engaged in work that they identify as community building.This report presents the findings of the scan. The report begins with a brief review of community building definitions. It then presents a summary of the methodology used to conduct the scan. It continues with a review of our findings about strategies used by the responding organizations and the target populations that are the focus of their work. The report concludes with implications we draw from this limited scan and a discussion of possible next steps for the field along this line of inquiry

Working Report #2: Client and Community Relations (Service Provider Perspectives)

This report addresses two important questions: how much emphasis is placed on building positive relationships with families and communities across agency based, integrated service, and community and school based models of service delivery? And, how successful is each model at building relationships, minimizing stigma for families, and improving the image of child welfare in the community? Educating clients and the community about child welfare services was identified as an important role for workers in some sites and not in others. While families’ fears of child protection services were a concern, some workers also expressed a fear of their clients and feared for their own personal safety in their work. Service providers within each model seemed to be oriented to different aspects of relationship building and also had different advantages and disadvantages. For example, community based and school based models provided unique forums for engaging with clients and other service providers. Heightened awareness and concern about stigma in many agency based settings was noted; while, in community based and school based settings workers saw themselves on the front-line of improving the agency’s image and building relationships with the community

The Frontera Asset Building Network: Building Strong Partnerships for Community Change Along the Southwest Border

Describes a learning community of local coalitions that create and promote asset-building vehicles, including individual development accounts, microenterprise opportunities, and homeownership programs. Discusses approaches, partnerships, and impact

Volunteering to Make a Difference

Building homes and building minds were just two of the community service projects that students on the McMinnville and Portland Campuses were involved in this year

Montpelier Community Nursery

Montpelier Community Nursery is a small building in Kentish Town, London designed for Camden Community Nurseries. The project has wide reach as a model for participatory design processes in dense urban neighbourhoods. It responds to a number of research questions: How can the design of a small public building serve as an instrument of community building and urban regeneration? What responsible environmental strategies can be incorporated into the design of a nursery? How can natural play be promoted in the design of a nursery? How can the sustainability of a nursery be assured? How can the autobiography of the building be recorded? Boulanger was involved in all stages of the project, generating community awareness, bringing together different parties to participate in its design, fundraising, designing, supervising the building’s construction and recording and disseminating the process. The new building was designed around a flexible space opening onto a wooded outdoor area. Daylight is brought into the building through strip windows located within the roof with a north-south orientation, spanning the floor plan diagonally. Deep overhangs allow passive solar heat gain during times of the year as needed, but block out high summer sun. The superstructure is made of a pre-fabricated solid timber panel system, which facilitated an efficient building sequence. The project was recorded and disseminated through film, photographic documentation and exhibition, a children-focused workshop and a collaborative project of site visits with local primary school children. The building has been widely lauded, receiving a 2013 RIBA London Regional Award, a 2013 RIBA National Award and the 2013 Steven Lawrence Prize, which rewards the best example of a project with a construction budget of less than £1 million. This output will also be returned by Yeoryia Manolopoulou for University College London