====== Topic Name ======

Heart and Soul Isn't Heritage


====== Participants ======

  * Phil Stafford
  * Vicki Smith
  * David Baron
  * Alex Weinhagen
  * Eric Young






====== Big Idea ======
**The Organizing questions:**

  * Is Heart and Soul equivalent to heritage?
  * Is Heart and Soul to be discovered, found?  
  * Or is heart and soul created in the process?
  * What about multiple versions of heart and soul – how are they resolved or should they be?

Very stimulating discussion ensued, often raising more questions than answers. 

People who live in a community have a right to claim heart and soul. 

But does this exclude newcomers who have different versions of heart and soul? Rather, how can newcomers add to the heart and soul of a community? 
Who gets to author heart and soul?  Who decides what it is? Some suggested the democratic process itself resolves this question. In effect, we vote on heart and soul.

Is heart and soul only the physical?  Some consensus that, no, it is not defined completely by describing the physical, but be describing the relationships that have been or are embedded in physical places – relationships among people and groups, relationships of people to the built environment, relationships of people to the natural environment. 

Heart and soul as a phrase is subject to appropriation by political interests. It also risks being labeled as “liberal speak” or a simple “what the hell is that?” response. 

Can we know when claiming heart and soul becomes part of a xenophobic response to others – those people, those undesirables that we don’t want here in our community. 

How do we create a community conversation that reduces this risk?  

By digging deeper into the meaning of difference – eg. Yes, this is an Italian neighborhood and you want to keep it Italian – but what is it about this Italian neighborhood that you value?  Asking “why” five times is a method that can be used to dig towards the essence and help achieve common ground.

Doing archaeology of place helps us reveal all the sediments in a place, helps reveal the dark as well as light aspects of the history of a place, and situates the place in time. Framing the community as something that evolves helps create a context for change that respects the spirit of a place and helps address resistance. One useful exercise suggested that would contribute to this approach is to ask to “write the next chapter” of this community, perhaps evoking the ideal as well as the wisdom of the crowd. 

The concept of “thick places” emerged in comparing single purpose developments such as Levittown (a thin place) to a thick place like Northampton, which has sustained the place during its multiple “occupations” by a variety of groups. 

Thick description, a phrase coined by Clifford Geertz, describes a method by which all perspectives on a situation are incorporated into one description (as in Rashomon). We need thick description in our planning conversations so that multiple histories, memories, experiences of place can be acknowledged before moving forward to distill the underlying essence within multiple realities. 

And in that spirit….

Great discussion folks!  Please add your own interpretation of what happened!

Respectfully submitted, Phil Stafford 

Following are Jocelyn Hittle's notes:

**Started note taking late--participants add more here please!**

Heart and soul can be reimagining old industry as a new industry.

Politically, "heart and soul" is seen as "liberal" speak, and will shut some people down; example is of renaming biking as "safe routes to school".  People have an emotional response to words.  It's not only about words, it can also be about broadening the issue (e.g., from biking to safe routes), and so you get more buy-in.  

Eric Young calls there work "Character Based Planning".  Word "character" came from the community.  Character appeals to both the right and left.  

Think about planning as writing the community's story, you are writing the next chapter.






====== Next Actions ======