On June 22, the second workshop on the Centocelle Park takes place, again as part of the CO-Roma project, this time at the headquarters of the “Centocelle Historical District Committee” at the Cecconi School. The participants were as before present as representatives of associations/ committees active on the territory or as free citizens, all moved by the civic interest of participation and collaboration and the goal of a Park that must be accessible again and become a meeting point for the neighborhood. LabGov was present with part of his staff, ready to help Paola Santoro and facilitate the process. Paola started by summarising the activities carried out in the previous meeting and reiterated the objectives of these laboratory days. We then moved on to the more practical part.
Step 1- Value Proposition co-design – Actions, Difficulties and Opportunities
The objective of this process is to identify the minimum action that the working group can activate in order to involve as much as possible the entire district and those who, in general, are interested in the fate of the Centocelle Park. The participants therefore began to research and list the actions that all carry out in the Park, the difficulties that are encountered in carrying them out and the opportunities that these actions open. From the many actions that have been included in the post-it came out customs and ways of interpreting the park very diverse: even some participants had never entered the park! And this too, in its own way, is an action; among these many expressed a need and a desire to be able to carry out activities in the park that are not feasible at the moment.
From the phase of “clustering” were highlighted some topics strongly felt by the community: inaccessibility for the disabled and the elderly, the lack of toilets, the risk of dog aggression, wild vegetation, lack of lighting. The problem of scrappers, which have been in the Centocelle archaeological park for years, has repeatedly emerged. From the actions the group went on to analyze the opportunities and benefits demanded by the Park’s user community. These were also listed and grouped together, and the need to identify elements of “experimental exploitation” has emerged. From here we have passed to a second phase: prioritization.
Step 2 – Negotiating priorities.
The work done so far should therefore be organised on the basis of the following criteria: ease of implementation for actions, negative impact for difficulties, urgency/need for opportunities. From this step of argument and negotiation it is gushed out the first true moment of common and shared decision of the nascent operating group. From this phase of comparison the various priorities have been identified.
Step 3 – Concept Creation – The HMW Framework.
The first action that the group could take on the Park was then discussed. Paola explained to those present the HMW method – How Might We’s frame, which consists in completing the following sentence: “how could we… through… so-called”. From the participants emerges a hypothesis that is immediately welcomed by all, namely the organization of a neighborhood party on the occasion of the 10 years since the reopening of the CAP.
This is therefore the first concrete action that will be planned by the group. For the sake of a good realization Paola suggested to everyone to get busy with on-field interviews, with the aim of understanding the moods of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and their desires. There is a great desire among those present to communicate outside projects in the short term but especially those in the long term.
