We began our project with a literature review that encompassed as much writing as we could find from the 1980s to date that might be relevant to our work. We also ran surveys in the UK and Germany and undertook a series of case studies with social housing organisations in Australia, the UK and Ireland. You can find more information about our project and the case studies online at https://communityhousing.org.au/placemaking-improving-services-engagement-and-satisfaction-in-estate-communities/ The project is ongoing so do check back for updates.

The project pays particular attention to stock transfer estates. The transfer of social housing stock to non-state entities through large scale voluntary transfer (LSVT) has been a pivotal strategy in reshaping social housing landscapes, particularly in the UK and Australia. Whilst stock transfers in social housing have provided avenues for improvement and regeneration, they necessitate a comprehensive, well-structured approach that addresses financial, organisational and socio-economic challenges.

Major redevelopment or refurbishment has proven to be successful – but equally, in some cases it failed because the fundamentals of placemaking weren’t created or sustained alongside the physical works and in some cases ongoing maintenance was lacking. In one case an award-winning, recently built scheme had begun to suffer problems, demonstrating that the physical infrastructure isn’t the only prerequisite for strong communities. In fact, where plans for or actual regeneration had failed, as in one case study, this could cause further damage to relationships and trust with residents. These issues chime strongly with the work of housing researcher Anne Power who more than 40 years ago pointed to the emphasis on physical infrastructure to the detriment of placemaking.

That’s not to say that stock condition doesn’t matter. On the contrary, residents very often wanted the most basic things, like repairs and rubbish collection, attended to first. Getting these basic housing management tasks right was often a marker for residents to begin rebuilding trust in their landlord.

Our analysis of all this material has identified a number of key themes or action points for organisations to pay heed to in successful placemaking. They include:

• Organisations need to work closely with residents to build and strengthen communities
• To do that, they need to establish a culture of trust and respect
• Cultural sensitivity and knowing the history of a place are crucial
• Build partnerships with other organisations to deliver better services
• Put into place the right infrastructure for long-term success
• Enable the community to lead the way wherever possible.

Addressing social housing challenges in priority estates requires a nuanced approach to community building and engagement. Resident participation is often overlooked, yet it’s fundamental for the success of community development initiatives. Social landlords can facilitate a more inclusive and collaborative environment by fostering a sense of ownership and belonging among residents.

Through this work we distilled out a set of values to drive successful placemaking. These, we believe, are common to those organisations that go the extra mile in working with the communities they serve.

Emerging placemaking values

• Community empowerment and inclusion: focuses on intensifying resident participation in decision-making processes
• Safety and wellbeing: aims to uplift physical and social safety to improve quality of life
• Sustainable and quality housing: ensures sustainable, high-quality living conditions
• Social cohesion and sense of belonging: encourages a strong communal bond and integration across diverse cultural backgrounds
• Resilience and adaptability: supports community resilience against socio-economic and environmental challenges
• Cultural sensitivity: recognises and integrates the diverse cultural heritage within communities, especially focusing on indigenous groups.

Our case studies, with organisations at a variety of different stages in their work with local communities, informed our current work towards a toolkit for organisations to undertake successful placemaking. We found that organisations would need to implement their efforts across short-, medium- and long-term phases with goals attached to each, creating a clear roadmap for immediate actions and future strategies.

With that in mind, we offered a series of practical actions that organisations can take, in partnership with residents, from small beginnings to long-term strategies.

The beginnings

• Engage at an individual, granular level with household/individuals
• Learn about and draw on the culture and history of the residents and the place
• Listen to residents and act on what they say
• It takes time – address the basics and build trust through ‘slow work’.

There may or may not be funding available for physical regeneration. Whatever the situation, dialogue with residents is essential. Our case study participants stressed the need to begin that dialogue at a very basic human level. They had put in the time and resources for ‘slow work’ – officers going on to the estate to talk with each resident and household individually. Many found that communicating via leaflets, emails and other written materials, or calling people to a meeting, didn’t succeed in fostering the engagement that’s vital to placemaking. Residents stress three key words: trust, respect, communication.

Resident engagement

• Residents are only likely to engage when they feel they’re respected
• Listen, innovate and adapt
• Tailor approaches for diverse communities
• Ensure there are safe spaces where residents can meet
• Encourage residents to take on responsibilities and lead initiatives.

This project, as with our previous work on resident engagement in Wales, has concluded that trust is the basis for all successful community building and placemaking. In some cases residents have lost trust in their landlord because repairs haven’t been completed, because they see their neighbourhood deteriorating, or because previous attempts at regeneration have failed. Residents may feel that their landlord doesn’t respect them.

In these circumstances, landlords must take special care to be trustworthy. Dialogue with residents has begun, and now the landlord must act on what they’ve been told. Frequent complaints from residents will be about issues that make life a misery for them, such as drugs, rubbish and poor housing maintenance. The landlord must take firm action to show that things are changing. It must especially ensure the basic housing service is working well. Where an item isn’t within its control, it must be open and honest about the limits on what it can do – whilst still seeking ways to resolve the problem. Once again, communication is key.

Resident engagement took a variety of forms. In Australia, working closely with Aboriginal elders was considered crucial. Elders play a vital role in leadership of the community and representing its interests and wishes. Here and elsewhere, organisations were supporting and encouraging residents to create their own vision for their neighbourhood.

Partnership working

• Consider the neighbourhood as a ‘place to live’
• Multi-agency partnerships are essential – health, policing, local authorities, third sector
• Embed partnership working for the longer term via neighbourhood plans or frameworks
• Establish longer-term programmes for, eg, education, training and employment, health, wellbeing, intergenerational work
• How can your organisation further devolve power to residents – can they participate in partnership working?
• Evaluate and learn – placemaking is very much a work in progress.

Even the largest organisations cannot hope to cover all of the work needed to support communities and sustain interventions. In fact, there’s considerable debate about the degree to which housing organisations should be working at specialist levels beyond traditional housing management – for example, in dealing with mental health problems or delivering employment training.

We found no single model for what works best in delivering either services or resident engagement. But there were pointers on good practice and warnings on what doesn’t work. Some organisations had adopted a holistic approach to neighbourhood management, with patch sizes kept small so that housing officers could really get to know residents and residents would know their officers. Some organisations were based in tight geographical locations so housing offices were easily reached; others had officers visiting the estate frequently. There could be a single point of contact for residents to use; or some organisations favoured developing specialist staff for particular needs. One had established intensive one-to-one support for families with complex needs, particularly where a member of the household was unemployed.

Our case studies, some of which are outlined here, offer practical examples of these ideas being put into practice. Some, such as Pioneer Group in Birmingham’s Castle Vale, have been running for decades; other organisations only fairly recently took over the estates where they’re working. All have valuable lessons to share from their experience in the complex world of placemaking.

Recording a baseline set of metrics and then measuring progress is a vital tool in working with communities and partner organisations. It can be difficult to drill down to the levels needed and some data may be difficult to acquire. Next in this special issue, we look at potential metrics for placemaking.