**warning: long post coming up**

Those nice people at MADE set up a lunchtime meeting for us to showcase Rescue Geography to practitioners across the region. Just for the record, and because I will undoubtedly lose the piece of paper with people's names on, the people there were:

David Tittle	MADE
Ian Shepherd	D5 Architects
James Evans	Manchester University
Julia Ellis	MADE
Ken Harrison	Wyre Forest District Council
Ken Mossman	ISIS
Mark Kennedy	Turner & Townsend
Pamela Smith	Botanical Connections
Phil Jones	Birmingham University
Richard Trengrouse	Digbeth Business Association
Stephanie Basher	MADE
Vey Straker	Herefordshire Rural Media

We started off meeting people (or in the parlance of modern times, 'networking'), which was interesting as I started chatting to Ken Mossman who is project managing ISIS' involvement with the Warwick bar site.  As usual when you talk to people at the sharp end you get a different perspective on things, and he was very open and honest about their plans for the area.  Much thought had been put into how to move existing industry out of the area to free it up for development, and they appeared to have decided the overall types of uses that they want in the area.  The specifics seemed very much up for grabs at this stage, with plans for actual buildings and streetscapes out to tender with architects at the moment.

As well as reminding me what a complicated and multi-staged process development is, this also indicated that there are still many things in the redevelopment that are 'up for grabs' as it were.

Julia then gave a brief intro about MADE and their involvement in / hopes for the project, followed by me and phil doing our usual double act, accompanied by the obligatory powerpoint.  Lots of pictures, clear messages about what the project is, and a plea for help in determining what kinds of analysis we should do and how we should present it in order for it to be of any use to the development process.

The talk went down fairly well and I'll try and summarise most of the feedback here, in no particular order than that in which people spoke (I have collated all their comments into one paragraph)...

Joe: liked the way we focused on the experiential element of space, and stated the need to incorporate perceived meanings into the planning system, although he echoed our question about how to make it actually feed into the process...  'regeneration should reinforce rather than obliterate meaning'...nice...  He also noted that Michael Parkinson's report on Digbeth which included a range of people's views and memories didn't appear to be being used by Urban Initiatives in their Big Plan for Birmingham.  Could RG be brought into dialogue with the Big Plan or other methodologies?

Julia: can the technology make this a generally applicable methodology?  She also felt that the visual outputs might make more of an impact and last longer than a 'normal' public consultation, and that the lab in September could keep the work 'alive' in this sense.  Really interesting point - she thought that the walking interviews were empowering, as they allow the participant to take control (cf community mapping and local authorities).  The overall experiential focus also ties into ideas of 'cultural' sustainability' which is starting to become a priority, as even AWM begin to focus on regional identity.

Vey: the rural media company she works for have remit to empower community through different media, so even though it's rural there is a clear relevance...  She liked RG as a way to get buy-in from a community, but felt that it needed to look at the future as well as the past (which is a good point), and explore why people like certain spaces.  She told us a little about the Hereford regeneration of the Edgar St. grid, which is a massive area, and expressed some interest in pursuing RG as a possible part of their involvement in the scheme. She also felt that the next stage really needed to consider what exactly about the work is most important in terms of using it for real world applications.

Ken M: noted the problem of timing in terms of when it would feed into a development process - danger of being either too early or too late.  In terms of the bigger picture, he noted the link between identity and productivity within the quality of life agenda, and suggested that any way to evidence this would be attractive to local authorities putting together Local Development Frameworks and developers more generally.  His take-home message also related to how to use RG to inform design and help get planning permissions.  He also suggested a session with their architects and possibly AWM, which would be v. useful.

Ken H: liked the deeper approach, and noted that RG could be used in places that had been 'damaged' (by 60s architecture etc which seemed fairly well received despite Phil's protests), and that these places perhaps need rescuing.  Ken also told us about the current consultation occurring in Kidderminster, and we informally arranged to head over there for a walking tour to discuss possible ways in which RG might be used in this consultation process.

Ian: noted the need to capture uniqueness in order to understand what makes a place successful.  He also liked the idea of overlaying tracklogs to find where people tend to stop and use space.  RG as a way to build up a multi-layered appreciation of space that avoids flattening all meaning.  He sounded a note of caution, saying that it would be hard to measure the success of the method, which would be crucial to potential end users.

David: reflected on the actual process from a consultation point of view, and suggested that RG needed to incorporate more dialogue between different groups.  For example, he suggested lay and expert knowledges, inter-generational dialogue, male and female, car-user vs. pedestrian and so on.  This opens up a whole range of possibilities.  In terms of representivity he also suggested an online consultation stage to allow other interested parties to make their views heard.  He also made a point about the interpretation of distinctiveness being rather subjective, although it is widely recognised a central to the re-making of place.

So it was all very positive and as usual there are many leads to follow up, but I have run out of steam now as far as this blog is concerned, so will perhaps reflect a little more after our next meeting @ MADE.... which is..... tomorrow morning! 

Expect an update soon (ish).