Empty Unity [sic]:

Precarious proposals and the exchange of “community”

 For artists and arts and cultural organisations in the UK, particularly smaller and grassroots organisations, there is an expectation to function on a certain level of precarity. That is: minimal, if any funding, and the expectation capacity to simply ‘make do’, pulling things together and operating with little guidance, training or experience, in order to meet these big expectations - and to survive. 

How did we get here? This environment has been fostered by several conditions, including: 

• Cuts to arts funding: The hot topic. Over the past decade - and primarily Conservative rule - over £860 million has been cut from the annual spending of local councils on arts and culture. This is enabled by a prevalent and marked belief that the arts are of expendable value. In 2022, the government cut 50% of funding to arts subjects at universities, pointing to such subjects as not supporting “the skills this country needs to build back better.” In 2023, Nottingham City Council proposed a 100% cut to their arts and culture budget, after announcing a £50 million deficit. In 2024, Suffolk Council also proposed a 100% cut to their own arts and culture budget from 2025, in order to “make more public money for adult and children’s social care” - affecting their museums, galleries and wider creative communities.

• An expectation to provide social benefit (1): Cuts to public services, such as the NHS, social care and youth centres, has left these agencies unable to fully meet social need, leading to socioeconomic decline. The onus of care has been relocated onto the arts. We see this with the creation of the social prescription sector, which designates things like creative enterprises and workshops as wellbeing provision. For all the arguable therapeutic benefits that come from engaging in creative activities, arguably the majority of these enterprises (including the people working within them) are ill-equipped to support a person in a mental health crisis. Nonetheless, there is an implied reliance on, essentially, arts and crafts workshops to provide for the most vulnerable. 

• An expectation to provide social benefit (2): In regeneration schemes utilised by local and national government, creative and cultural enterprise is sought to rejuvenate areas of socioeconomic decline, bring footfall and raise capital. This practice is long in the tooth, rooted in an ideology formed under Margaret Thatcher’s government. Thatcher redirected models of culture towards entrepreneurial approaches and away from a potential space of dissent: “bums on seats” as opposed to “ideas in the head.” The role of creativity in capital generation continued to be fostered by New Labour - fuelling neoliberal ideals under the guise of accessibility, participation and opportunity. Such schemes are commonplace in areas of commercial and socioeconomic decline - frequently involving third-parties in a desired transformation through decorating the outdoor space, appealing to new businesses, and of course, “transforming” empty units into inherently commercial, but proposed as “creative”, “cultural” and “community”, enterprises. While there is a focus on creative and cultural enterprise, there is a homogeneous aesthetic to these schemes; proposal documents are illustrated with photos of people enjoying frothy coffees, dance troupes, and working on laptops, all within repurposed units. “Community” must look a certain way. These neoliberal ideologies are manifest in public arts funding applications, with a pressure to quantify the “social benefit” of one’s practice through numbers and reporting. Under this influence, the landscape of community arts practices has changed, the dynamic between artist and community moving away from empowerment, to an exchange of participation. This reframing of the arts, in what Claire Bishop calls an “orientation towards social context” (“Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship” (2012) Verso) clearly underlines so many regeneration schemes. As Cher Krause Knight puts it, this manifests as the view that “everyone wants art” and that the arts are of inherent social good (“Public Art: Theory, Practice and Populism” (2008) Blackwell).

In summary: the arts have become an inappropriate net to hold the disadvantaged, a social welfare provision, while also boosting the economic disparities caused by the lack of social welfare, and change the face of the “community”.

And yet, when governments face a deficit, arts and culture are frequently among the first things to go - despite the reliance on the sector to meet socioeconomic lack and provide capital in regeneration schemes.

As mentioned before, there is the pervasive view that the arts can be expected to survive on little, which perpetuates this practice. I can only attribute the roots of this view to the commonly-held belief that, as Chardine Taylor-Stone writes, creatives are “middle-class layabouts who don’t contribute anything useful to society.” As someone who has been an artist, went to art school and worked in art galleries for several years, I came across these attitudes first-hand. Even as a 17 year old art student: I have a distinct memory of being on a train, carrying bags of art materials (clearly branded with the Cass Art logo), when a nearby passenger stared and loudly announced (for my benefit) that “Art students are a waste of skin.”

The belief that artists are simply “mucking about” belies a misconception that the sector as a whole is self-sustaining, essentially austerity-proof. It also ignores the realities that people who practice or enjoy the arts are from a range of backgrounds. As Claire Bishop writes, “The middle class always finds a way for their children to take part in the arts, but children from poorer households require the assistance of state subsidies, which are precisely what is being cut.”

Artists and creatives are continually required to justify themselves against this ideology - while also being expected to pick up the socioeconomic bill. This is particularly within conversations around funding, and the mother argument of these conflicts: the supposed social benefit of art.

So, with these precarious and hostile conditions in mind, for some there is no choice but to function in this way. Particularly for artists and creatives from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, sometimes these are the only available and accessible opportunities - even if there’s no payment but exposure. Some, whatever position they’re in, choose to “muck in,” give their labour for free, highlight the notion of “doing it for a good cause.”

But it is important to emphasise the role of those agencies who create and perpetuate these conditions. And those arts and cultural organisations who do function under these conditions can find themselves in ever-difficult positions - particularly when it comes to programming and commissioning artists and creatives. Do they have the funding and the scope to deliver what they aim to deliver? And if not, can they expect to rely on free labour?

What happens when an organisation fully embraces these conditions - aiming to provide socioeconomic benefit and all - and how does this impact on the surrounding community?

Who is responsible, ultimately, when this project is unsustainable?

----------------------------------------------------

THE IRONWORKS

In May 2021, Southend City Council released a tendering opportunity to take on an empty unit in the city’s high street. Funded by the South East Local Enterprise Partnership as part of a local “growth hub scheme”, the opportunity sought a “can-do delivery partner” to “kick-start empty unit regeneration in the heart of Southend Town Centre”, by turning the unit into “a thriving artistic hub of activity.”

This opportunity was listed as a key activity within the Southend Town Centre Innovation Project, which the council state aims to increase footfall and dwell time in the high street. In a Find Out More document (the title misspelled as “Empty Unity”), the council states, “...the role of the High Street is changing - creative leadership is necessary for the physical aspects of our town centres to adapt to the massive changes in shopping habits, global trends and what attracts people to town centres.” 

The basis of this tendering opportunity, then, was in urban regeneration, i.e. driving up footfall and bringing in capital. 

The Empty Unity tender was successfully applied for by the founders of Kiwi Productions CIC, a local events company who, in 2022 and 2023, had also been contracted by Southend Council to deliver Luminocity, a “Festival of Light” which involved renting a set of pre-made large-scale installations to fill the high street. The founders created another not-for-profit, Kiwi Community Events CIC (I’ll refer to them as Kiwi generally) in order to manage the empty unit. The space was then rechristened as The Ironworks, based on the building’s historical site as an ironmongers.

Kiwi have described winning the contract as “answering the call” (to paraphrase a recent Facebook communication). Their wording here is of note, particularly when we consider the unsustainable conditions of the tender.

These specifications include:

• A tender amount of £0.

A tender’s value states how much the winning applicant will receive by the contracting body. £0 means the applicant will be paid nothing. 

Going by other opportunities listed by Southend Council (and local authorities generally) £0 tenders are highly uncommon. This is because these kind of tenders suggest a level of risk. Looking at it the other way, if a local authority received an application from a contractor or company, proposing a tender of £0 or any very low amount, commercial law guidance suggests that they should scrutinise this, and “...consider the tenderer’s explanation for the zero value in assessing whether the tender is reliable or whether contract performance would be impaired as a consequence of the lack of economic consideration.” Frequently, such tenders are rejected. 

• No business plan.

There was no requirement for a business plan in the application process - meaning there was no need for Kiwi to demonstrate how they would pull this (arguably gigantic project, as we’ll see) off - from funding to operations.

• Lease for 2 years & rent and business rates covered.

Having your rent and business rates covered for 2 years would, arguably, give the applicant a chance to reduce their anticipated costs, while also seeking additional funding in preparation for when this allowance ends - e.g. additional funding, investment, income streams.

However - and this is pertinent to the 2 year lease - this empty unit needed work. An old, five storey building sat empty and unused for years is bound to have issues. The scale of the works was alluded to in photos released to publicise the launch of The Ironworks. There’s damp, crumbling walls, and unsecured fittings, at the very least.

 In the Empty Unity document, the council state that all business-related costs, including fit-out (“you know best what you need”), utilities and licence fees would be the responsibility of the winning applicant. 

So, if the winning applicants have the money and means to perform these works: great. If they don’t? It’s time to look at funding. And, for the majority of creatives who most likely don’t have access to rich friends or other funding streams, they would apply to Arts Council England. 

And yet: to receive Arts Council capital funding (for buildings work and asset development), applicants must have ownership or leasehold of a building for a minimum of 10 years. Funders generally are more favourable towards a longer and therefore more secure lease, as it minimises the risk of investing money only for the property to be returned to developers, or out of the hands of the organisation they aimed to fund. So, the 2 year lease on The Ironworks left it ineligible for this funding. 

It’s important to highlight, again, the role of Southend City Council in this scenario, and their role in fostering and enabling this precarious environment. Seeking “a thriving artistic hub of activity” that can function and sustain in these conditions? It’s clear this would only be achievable for a select few.

Still, when The Ironworks’ founders said they had “answered the call,” maybe this wording belies that they understood the scale and complexity of what they were taking on. Maybe they even had the funds.

Returning to the aforementioned expectation of social benefit, however: the council’s tender for this opportunity outlines only the requirement to deliver “commercial” and “cultural” activity. Prior to The Ironworks, Kiwi Productions had delivered workshops and events for groups such as children, the elderly and people with special educational needs and disabilities. In The Ironworks’ space, they proposed to continue delivering this work. So - a significant point to remember - we can assume they took on this onus of social benefit themselves. 

Although, considering the funny twist of expectations placed upon art in the public sphere (and despite the disparity between these outcomes), could it be said that supposed social benefit becomes muddled with the picture of socioeconomic growth? Meaning: one is almost an assumption of the other?

But, anyway - Kiwi saw The Ironworks as a chance to continue their workshop programmes, alongside delivering cultural events such as gigs and religious festivals.

Again - maybe they had the funding and means to pull the building together, make it clean and safe, and therefore the means to deliver this arguably important work?

----------------------------------------------------

“PAINTING PARTIES”

When Kiwi began reaching out via social media to local residents and creatives for support, it became clear that they did not have the means nor funding for the renovation works needed. Decoration works were procured through invitations on Facebook for creatives and local residents to join a “painting party.” Requests for creative and technical expertise and labour were advertised - reportedly for little to no remuneration.

As I’ve touched upon, the term “community” is a vague and arbitrary term overused in regeneration schemes. It denotes ideas of social cohesion and cultural identity, that commercial catalysation will supposedly create. This is less proposed as benefitting any existing “community,” than to improve the social inequality statistics of a given region - an important distinction. Indeed, Southend has huge socioeconomic disparity, with nine areas of the city falling in the top 10% most deprived in England. We know that urban regeneration plans frequently seek to paint over the socially disadvantaged, and bring in people who create the image of “community” as seen in marketing and proposal documents instead - the people with laptops, coffees, etc. We paint over what was here before, and you complete the image.

Specifically with The Ironworks, this dynamic of exchange was already playing a role - fostered by their direct and indirect use of the terms and notions around “community”. Their use of wartime imagery, for example, denotes an idea of everyone “clubbing together.” Already there was a clear expectation here that others will provide for free what an apparent lack of means will not. And the suggestion of it being “for a good cause.”

A notion that was employed only further, following one incident which, inadvertenty, highlighted the discrepancies of this supposed “community.”

----------------------------------------------------

THE THEFT

Fast forward to May 2023, and The Ironworks is reportedly “going from strength to strength.” It is a large scale project - self-described as “a community centre,” it’s a multi-floored space in a busy area of the high street, delivering multiple functions including a cafe, workshops for adults with SEND, cultural and religious events, and gigs. Not all of its 5 storeys are in use, but some are used as exhibition spaces and art studios, provided on a timeshare basis.

We can assume that the cafe, and paid entry to the other ventures such as gigs, provided several income streams.

Fast forward again, just 5 months later, and the local Echo newspaper reports that a pot of money used to fundraise for The Ironworks had been stolen. It was alleged that someone had entered The Ironworks, telling staff that they were thirsty and hungry. After being given food and drink for free by staff, the person allegedly stole the fundraising pot from its place by the front till. In the article, it is also reported that this is the second time The Ironwork’s fundraising pot has been stolen.

Published a day after the incident, the article quotes one of Kiwi’s directors as saying: “We are really trying our very best to be the best we can be as a community safe space - but this has broken all of our faith. We can’t even afford our electricity bill this month - let alone the rent and rates for the next year - and people do this to you.”

I will return to the emotive nature of this statement. But, to highlight: at this point, it is clear that they had already been struggling financially.

Three days later, The Ironworks launched a GoFundMe page for said costs, with a total target of £120,000 (though this was later reduced). Describing The Ironworks as “... a vital community hub that has had a transformative impact on our local community…”, the co-directors state that the government funding provided to establish The Ironworks (i.e. the discounted rent and business rates) would end in February 2024. Without this, they stated, they would have no means to pay for rent, business rates and core operating costs, and therefore will be “forced to give notice” to their landlord. 

Their funding campaign amped up on social media, making frequent appeals around the importance of their survival. “What will become of this regeneration if we go?” “… this really is the heart of our community- we need your help to SAVE IT… It’s pay weekend, if you have any spare… PLEASE DONATE AND SHARE.” “Please donate to keep this vibrant community space, for OUR community.”

The Echo newspaper pumped out regular articles with headlines of urgency, such as “Ironworks launch petition as last ditch bid to save it”, “Ironworks to only survive three months if cannot get backing”.

Concurrently, the Echo also reported that an arrest and charges had been made regarding the theft of the fundraising pot.

While there is no arguing the sheer difficulty in running a venture of any size, particularly this size: how did The Ironworks find itself in such an apparently sudden and acute position of desperation? Having within the same year been “going from strength to strength”? 

Surely they were not dependent on a counter-top funding pot for survival of such a vital community space?

----------------------------------------------------

“FOR OUR COMMUNITY”

Within these appeals and articles, it is difficult to find any precise details on how they had found themselves in such a difficult financial situation. They were established under precarious conditions, yes, but they had a period of two years in which their outgoing costs would be significantly reduced. Two years in which further funding or investment could have been sought. Additionally, there were the additional possible income streams from the coffee shop, ticketed events, etc. Of course there are huge challenges across the catering, service and events industries, particularly in current times. So I’m not in a position to outline what happened here (Kiwi Productions were approached for comment).

Though, on Companies House, the losses and gains for Kiwi Community Events CIC are unpublished. While an organisation of this size is not necessarily required to publish this information, it does raise questions around how they were surviving. Even if, in early 2023, they were going “from strength to strength” - clearly in the 5 months that passed since then, they had found themselves in difficulty.

Reading between the lines, The Ironworks’ survival was not down to an (easily stealable) funding pot.

What’s significant about how this fundraising appeal was launched, then, is how the theft was utilised to establish this dynamic between themselves and the “community.” In the article reporting the incident, the co-founders use emotive language: “Our hearts have been broken,” “...people do this to you.” 

This functions as a decree of their act of charity being spurned.

Sure, they report having given food to someone in need. But an act of charity does not a charity make. Additionally, is this act as charitable, when it concerns an individual in their own position of desperation, who is then posited as an evil-doer? And the act is then utilised as a springboard for funding?

This leads us back to the use of the “community” term here. Who makes up this “community” that The Ironworks describe? 

Their affective approach was threaded throughout their appeals for funding. In their social media posts, they frequently shared photos of their workshops and cultural events. Adults with SEND making the image, framing their appeals to save their space. This, again, was alongside the regular and consistent use of the term “community,” and more specifically, “our community,” i.e. Please donate to keep this vibrant community space, for OUR community, “We are working SO HARD behind the scenes trying to survive for our community. WE NEED The IronWorks Southend.”

The extension of the term, to “our community”, denotes a sense of ownership. It also, by its nature, denotes that there are some who do not belong to this community.

The implication is that “doing it for the community” means such acts are of tangible benefit to those who oblige. However, the reality of this dynamic is that the types of support they are asking for is, essentially, for The Ironworks, and moreover Kiwi, an organisation who chose to enter a precarious situation and, apparently unable to manage this, place their survival on the goodwill on the primarily disadvantaged.

I do not deny that The Ironworks had a high footfall, and that people found it a useful and safe space. But choosing to enter a precarious situation, providing a lifeline for the vulnerable and disadvantaged - and then, being unable to manage this, placing the onus for their survival on this same community, with the expectation that all will rise to the same “goodwill”?

Going back to the exclusionary nature of their reference to “our community,” we can assume that the person who stole the funding pot is certainly among those who does not “belong” - instead, they are made an example. A person in their own desperation, not having benefited from the “transformative effects” The Ironworks proclaim to have achieved. Effects which, really, it was impossible for them to achieve anyway.

Really, this use of “our community” underlines their expectations around funding, assigning themselves as existing and functioning “for the community,” ultimately a continued stressing that The Ironworks was of tangible benefit to everyone. Again, this is impossible to achieve.

----------------------------------------------------

CLOSURE

Nonetheless: people did donate and people did fundraise, having their chests waxed for the cause. Some local organisations and politicians contributed, boosting appeals for support. And when, in a last-minute announcement days before they were due to close, The Ironworks announced a monthly membership scheme, people did sign up, people did pay.

And when, in February 2024, an advertising agency proposed to donate income revenue from a newly-installed LED advertising screen, they celebrated, announcing that this funding stream would allow them to stay open.

Nonetheless: in July of the same year, and with far less fanfare, The Ironworks announced their closure for the final time.

In the accompanying Echo article, one of the co-founders stated: “With rent, business rates and all the utilities we have to find an incredible amount of money each month and that’s even before we pay staff invoices, stock and supplies… We love 90 High Street however, we didn’t choose the location, it was chosen for us by Southend Council and it is probably one of the most expensive units in the whole city centre.”

Despite their assumed understanding of the precarious conditions they were entering when taking on this tender (including the location they would be applying for), of course it is a real shame that The Ironworks did not survive. Clearly they were of benefit to many, and provided a space which was not otherwise available for some in Southend. 

But with no business plan, and no more sustaining models for survival, it is also a shame that many of those same people gave their money away, only for The Ironworks to close less than half a year later, there having been no business plan for where this money would go.

Returning to my earlier point, that The Ironwork’s founders chose to deliver for disadvantaged and vulnerable groups: who bears the responsibility to this choice? When we think about this responsibility, this entails a need for cohesive and effective care, and consistency. And with this responsibility, ensuring the sustainability (i.e. secure funding) of such a venture is vital. A regular workshop could be a lifeline for someone vulnerable. When that workshop is taken away, or even threatened, the impact on that individual could be significant - particularly on their sense of isolation and mental health.

It is easy to buy into a sense of community - it is a cosy notion. But it is extractive to rely on this this notion that a “community” is inherently good and giving. An obliging social contract in which only one party holds up their end of the exchange. “Community” as co-producer, now also a funder. 

• Kiwi Productions CIC were approached for comment.