Me, way back when

Emma Harvey, Trinity CEO, shares her opinions on the underrepresentation of people from working class backgrounds in the arts

The cultural sector in the UK falls short on various measures of diversity and, starkly, fewer than one in 10 arts workers come from working-class backgrounds.

Being one of those one in 10, I can testify that people who sound and behave like me, or who share my cultural references are a rare species, particularly in leadership roles. One key reason for this is that success in the arts is often determined by access to established networks and the ability to leverage those connections to progress ideas, secure paid work and obtain funding.

One of my first funding applications for Trinity way back when was met with a rapturous response from the funder, who said they were excited to include us in their portfolio, but they wouldn’t be giving us any actual money. It was my first lesson in a long series of lessons: for Trinity – and me – to succeed, I would have to think differently about the game I was playing.

Over my time at Trinity, we’ve had to build trust with funders, proving that we are a ‘safe pair of hands’. This isn’t easy when you’re an uncompromising Essex bird who didn’t go to finishing school and (as my friend’s daughter once remarked), "looks like a teenager and talks like a young adult." While I took this as a compliment, it’s challenging when people expect leaders to look, sound and behave in a certain way. Like some wheeler-dealer Del Boy of the Bristol arts scene, it may sound sus to some when I say it's all cushty.

One way to build that credibility is by ensuring match funding is already on the table. It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation: many funders only want to join the party once it’s in full swing – few want to be the first to risk bringing the vibes. Match funding from independent funders is critical to securing larger investment, particularly capital. The journey to raise all the funds needed to deliver community arts programmes or ambitious capital plans often feels like a convoluted, muddled process that relies as much on luck, sheer hard work and stubborn persistence as it does on strategy – it’s like a form of alchemy with plenty of nos along the way.

Uncredibles have to build our reputation and networks over a considerable number of years, seeing through many political cycles where officers and leaders change, meaning you have to start the conversation all over again. This at least is slightly more straight-forward in “Bristol village”, where the arts sector is relatively static. So, if like me you have the staying power then, over time, you can build trust and a track record. To this end, we’ve been hugely helped by independent funders who have placed their faith in our grand designs. Local funders like Nisbet Trust, a family charity that has been instrumental in advancing our programmes for children and young people, as well as our bold if not daunting work to save Jacobs Wells Baths. Also national funders like Historic England, who have also supported us with repairs on both of our publicly owned buildings, helping us build the match funds needed to unlock larger grant support from Lottery and other public bodies.

Despite the wins for the city, the narrative is so often negative. Instead of celebrating that Jacobs Wells Baths as a publicly owned building has been saved from commercial disposal it’s, "How did they get given that building?". Instead of joy in the building a cultural alliance that brings arts into three primary schools, the question is, “Why are they getting that funding?" And me? Well, I’m often described to my face as “a force of nature”, “someone who gets things done” and “a blunt tool”. It makes one wonder what people say when I’m not in the room. Maybe that’s why, even after all this time, I still find myself as the gatecrasher at one culture sector network event or the other.

This stuff only reinforces the purpose of Trinity’s work to democratise the arts and level our cultural worth. When we ask questions or make statements like these, what we’re really saying that the efforts of working-class people don’t matter because – whether by intent, complacency, or design – ultimately, we’re playing a game that we were never supposed to be on the board for, let alone have a chance of winning at.

That’s why people need to sit at the heart of cultural decision-making. Decisions about who gets what and where shouldn’t be made through closed-door deals by politicians, officers, cultural leaders and CEOs. Groups of people who may not live or work in the area, who don’t have real skin in the game or who like me (shock horror) will never ever ever be a real Bristolian.

Power like this should be placed with citizens.

Because when we talk about culture, what we’re really talking about who gets to express themselves freely, whose voices get heard and whose stories get told. That’s why I do what I do at Trinity. I want more voices, more diversity and more perspectives to bubble to the surface. And that means not just a room full of people who look different and all nod in agreement. I want people who challenge one other, who hold diametrically opposing views, from different faiths and conflicting political leanings. A bunch of folk who can come together and find common ground through shared values, like freedom of expression, respect and that culture, when done right, can be good for all of us – for our health, socially and economically. If we’re able to that, then we might just find a way to build a collective UK cultural identity that speaks of all of us.

So, that’s my story. Tell it, or tell someone else's. It’s up to you, not me after all.

This is an opinon piece by Emma Harvey, CEO

At Trinity, families from across our surrounding neighbourhoods come together. Children create paintings reflecting their diverse heritages. They sing nursery rhymes in different languages. The UK I see each day is not the divided one that manifested this weekend. It’s a place where people connect and foster relationships, bridging our diverse pasts within our shared present.

To suggest multiculturalism is something we tried and can simply undo is a particular form of dishonesty. Whether you like it or not, our towns and cities will only become more diverse so we must find ways to rub up against each other in less painful ways.

Multiculturalism isn’t a problem, but it’s also not a Benetton ad. Trinity’s charitable purpose is to promote racial harmony by encouraging equality of opportunity and good relations between people of different racial and cultural identities, and by facilitating multicultural activities. This isn’t just because it’s great fun, but because cohesion isn’t incidental. It requires work, spaces and resources, which are in short supply as counties, councils and communities go broke.

As the world changes around us in quicker and bolder ways, demographic profiles will continue to shift. Connecting online or in spaces with those who only nod in agreement makes seeing the world through a different lens all the harder.

Anchor hubs, community halls, neighbourhood pubs, historical sites and cultural institutions can offer an antidote; providing a familiar backdrop for existing communities while welcoming new ones. But rapid redevelopment, rising costs and pressures on sustaining statutory services are placing pressures on councils – often the legacy owners of a portfolio of our civic, cultural and heritage assets – to sell off the spaces that underpin our social fabric. Meanwhile, the decline of high streets has slowed growth and depleted local offerings that were once the foundation of an area’s cultural identity. If we no longer have places to drink tea and eat biscuits together, this creates a feeling of loss and defensiveness of 'us' that compounds fears of 'them'.

The sleight of hand being played is, while attention is diverted to small boats, the real threat – unregulated speculative land investment and inadequate community land control – continues to rob us of what’s ours. The response is a growing movement of local and national networks battling to save our spaces. While there are success stories, many of these campaigns struggle due to a lack of resources, experience and long-term support. Cash talks meaning it can be difficult to compete against the pressure on local authorities to dispose of assets at a commercial rate to balance budgets. Unlocking decisions and funding to protect these assets often hinges on political cycles, party policies and slogans that feel beyond our influence. This means, for every success story, we’re still losing more than we’re saving.

If we want to make things better for everyone, we must find a way to value societal well-being and sustainable development as much as, if not more than, the economic value of the ground under our feet. We can call in the army, increase police resources and regulate online spaces. But, if we want to see less of what happened this weekend, we must engage in the national conversation about the systemic issues behind such events and address how we provide vital civic infrastructure for a population that will only continue to grow in density and diversity.

The decisions we make now shape the story we tell about ourselves to future generations. At Trinity, we push the boundaries of a building constructed by people who could never have imagined the ways we use the space today. This space, built without us in mind, requires us to find ways to resource it for the future while accepting that we can’t predict what tomorrow holds or control who gets to be part of that.

Communities, times and places change. Once disparate cultural threads intertwine, shaping the ancestors we become. The fringe becomes the ordinary, the dinosaur, the dust. In a world of polarisation, fear, and uncertainty, these are the spaces (as our Edson says) that allow us to curate a different way of being, resonating with our shared past and shaping a more resilient and culturally vibrant future.

Right now, these spaces are more vital than ever.

#RadicalInclusion

This is an opinion piece by Emma Harvey

1985 Oct 25 International Time Off for Women Day, credit Evening Post, collected as part of Art of Resistance

Trinity is committed to creating ways in which citizens can take an active role in shaping arts and culture. In 2025 Our Citizens Assembly for Culture, created, in partnership with St Pauls Carnival and Citizens in Power will take place, offering people living in the West of England Combined Authority region the opportunity to actively shape the arts and cultural experiences that matter most to them and their communities.

As part of this commitment we are connecting with leading voices in the cultural sector to ask them to share their thoughts on the different civic and democratic tools that we as citizens can access. In the first in our series of opinion pieces exploring civic participation Dr Edson Burton, Curator at Trinity, reflects on the role of voting in democratic decision making.

"The Bristol Bus Boycott, the Gay Rights Movement, the Disability Rights Movements of the 1960s-1990s. These campaigns or movements have led to legislative changes that have, in turn, transformed our social attitudes"

Opinion: Voting Matters, Dr Edson Burton

‘Politics time again, are you gonna vote now?’ lamented the reformed Buju Banton, alluding to the lethal elections of his native Jamaica. But the question could equally be applied to the forthcoming British election. During the last General Election (2019), 67% of the population voted, up from the all-time low of just over 59% in 2001.

While that figure is on the rise, it still means that over 30% of the population has no say in how they are governed. According to a recent YouGov poll, the reasons given for not voting include a lack of access to polling stations, ineligibility, and no forms of ID. However, the most prominent reasons are a lack of trust in politicians and a feeling that voting will make little difference.

One might argue that cynicism is rife in politics, with pledges that are misleading if not downright dishonest. It has ever been thus, but in a crowded information world, voters may become so confused as to become indifferent.

Perhaps the dance of truth owes as much to us as to our politicians. Few would jump for joy at the thought of higher taxes, but without increased taxation, how can we fund our troubled public services, invest in green technology, or ensure education offers opportunities for all?

Responding to concerns over national identity, political parties offer a raft of immigration control measures that, if implemented, would lead to a national staffing crisis. Yet, to extol the virtues of immigration is to risk electoral suicide.

The convergence between the main political parties may also fuel voter apathy. "There's no difference between them" is the often-heard lament. Despite the barbs and bites, there appears, at times, to be more that unites than divides the main parties. They vie to expose the actual commitment to an agreed-upon agenda rather than the agenda itself.

But it is worth remembering that this consensus is the result of political participation. The impetus to secure or woo working-class votes in this election is a result of the extension of the franchise beyond a small property-owning class. Once enfranchised, all parties have had to take seriously the interests of a wider range of citizens with divergent interests and lives. Further franchise expansion was not some benign gift of a ruling class but the result of blood and guts campaigns by working-class men and women. Think Chartists, Unions, the Suffragettes.

What is the point of voting if you cannot meaningfully participate in society? If your race meant you could be legally denied access to jobs or employment? If your gender meant you were denied promotion, let alone equal pay? If your sexuality or sexual identity could lead to your imprisonment?

Such was the case prior to major civil rights campaigns: the Bristol Bus Boycott, the Gay Rights Movement, the Disability Rights Movements of the 1960s-1990s. These campaigns or movements have led to legislative changes that have, in turn, transformed our social attitudes.

Broadly speaking, all our political parties have arrived at baseline of inclusivity consensus. In recognition of new voting demographics and the reputational damage of appearing to be illiberal parties may wish to appear to be race, gender, and disability friendly

But how safe is this consensus? Is it a pragmatic concession to the present while some hanker for an illiberal past? The USA has recently demonstrated the danger of complacency as civil rights advances have been eroded by reactionary forces. Could the same thing happen in England? Perhaps if it is electorally beneficial, but certainly not if it is electorally damaging. It could only be so if we vote or hint that our vote is for the preservation of our rights.

Beyond preserving our rights, further changes that we want to see in society will inevitably involve legislation, which in turn will involve exerting pressure upon politicians. The time scale of change may not suit the urgency of our demands, but rather than lose heart, we must continue to exert political pressure through campaigning and ultimately through the ballot.

Not voting is a verdict on politics, but it cannot lead to change; rather, it will maintain the status quo. In the calculus of win or lose, only voters and their interest's matter.

Vote.

Find out more about movements that have shaped society by exploring our interactive heritage timelines

Jacobs Wells Baths - Image Credit: Sam Prosser

Preserving and maintaining community spaces is proving increasingly difficult as local authorities grapple with continued budgetary pressures. Some local authorities are facing or have already issued Section 114 notices – which means expected income isn’t enough to cover expenditure. In response, the Government is considering making it easier for councils to dispose of publicly owned assets to cover rising costs of essential services. Financial news provider, Bloomberg, sets out how, “The move would mark a sharp relaxation of the current constraints, which prevent councils from using money from asset sales to meet budget pressures from day-to-day services without approval from the central government.”

"The choices we make now in response to the challenge of preserving civic and cultural infrastructure in the face of financial uncertainty is a decision that will have lasting consequences for future generations" Emma Harvey

Community groups and charities are collaborating to devise shared solutions to protect civic and cultural assets from disposal and loss; from volunteering to manage local allotments and raising money to invest in parks and play areas, to taking on ownership of local pubs or community buildings and developing their own Neighbourhood Plans.

Whilst there are individual success stories of spaces saved, the challenge lies in how we create a national community asset transfer approach that is replicable, scalable and sustainable. As Brendan Conway, a leading voice in community assets, sets out in a LinkedIn post at the start of the year; “we must not valorise small precedents that have hidden foundations and assume that they are replicable.”

The current model places communities under increasing pressure to do more, though they may not equally hold all the necessary resources to convert short-term passion into sustained success. Existing funding schemes tied to short-term political cycles overlook the complexities of such projects, which require a variety of factors to align. Passionate people who care will inevitably overcommit and inexperienced individuals will underestimate what’s necessary to sustain a recovery effort over time. Some communities may hold the aspiration, but struggle to channel the right energy, investment or efforts consistently and continually. Others may just be overwhelmed, fatigued, or disheartened from past failed efforts to save the things they’ve loved and lost. This could lead to an increasingly disproportionate distribution of social resources, unless we proactively lay the foundations required to enhance success rates equitably across the breadth of UK communities.

The solution as to how we preserve civic and cultural infrastructure amidst financial uncertainty requires a nuanced, adaptable and holistic approach. It’s a delicate balancing act that, if we fail to get right, will leave our communities of tomorrow without the infrastructure they need to allow our more diverse, more densely populated neighbourhoods to function. The more we embark on these ambitious, quirky, complex projects, the more we will see projects fail. Should sites revert back to local authority control at a point where resources and capacity has further depleted, this will only compound risk of future asset disposal, not least because now one might also point to how the community tried, but failed to make it work.

In Bristol, there are a number of organisations driving a community ownership movement and a more strategic approach to community asset management, such as Bristol’s Community Anchor Network who have launched a manifesto to ask for more targeted support and investment to protect the city’s social fabric. More widely, Platform Places are collaborating with councils, community asset managers and owners to repurpose vacant high street properties, whilst Locality are continuing to promote their #SaveOurSpaces campaign by launching a new “community power revolution” to place more power in the hands of communities.

The choices we make now in response to the challenge of preserving civic and cultural infrastructure in the face of financial uncertainty is a decision that will have lasting consequences for future generations. To ensure a resilient and culturally vibrant future for UK communities expanding in diversity and population density, we must adopt a nuanced, bespoke and holistic approach to the assets that underpin our daily lives; one that embraces all the complexities, personalities and idiosyncrasies of our changing social and cultural landscape. And we need to do that pretty soon, before we have no space left to fight for.

Emma Harvey, CEO Trinity Community Arts

#SoldFromUnderYou

#SaveOurSpaces

About this article

• Trinity are committed to advocating for shared community and cultural spaces. We are members of Locality and are currently leading an appeal to restore Jacobs Wells Baths in Hotwells.
• Read our 100 Beacons report that shines a light on the importance of – and understand the risks posed to – Bristol's community and cultural assets.
• Read opinion piece "The preservation paradox: sell now, pay later"

Tide and Tales perform during Summer Stay and Play sessions. Photo credit: Alistair Brookes

Trinity CEO, Emma Harvey, reflects on the challenges facing Bristol arts in the context of the wider cuts to arts funding and the impact this has on limiting pathways into careers in the creative industries.

In December 2023, Bristol City Council (BCC) announced their decisions for the Cultural Investment Programme, awarding grants in principle to 15 organisations. This included Trinity, newly funded Unique Voice, and Travelling Light Theatre Company who recently lost their regular funding from Arts Council England. Also Acta, ASLS, Asian Arts Agency, Bristol Pride, Circomedia, CYN, KWMC, Paraorchestra, Rising Arts Agency, Spike Island, St Paul’s Carnival and the Tobacco Factory.

With nearly a 40% reduction in total funds compared to past rounds, 13 groups missed out on regular investment. This included previously funded groups Bristol Old Vic, Encounters, Exchange, IBT, MAYK, RWA, Saffron, St Georges, Trigger and Watershed, alongside new proposals from APE, SSGB and Wardrobe Theatre.

"Rather than sharpening our elbows to fight for the crumbs that fall from the table we should be Oliver Twisting it up and asking for more."

As testament to the sector’s precariousness, two long-standing arts organisations were listed as, “closed or closing so not considered for investment”. Those not selected have responded with concerns about the continued cost of living crisis reducing audience revenue alongside rising overheads placing pressures on finances. Cultural institutions traditionally seen as too big to fail are facing an uncertain future and all funding is still subject to annual approval. This continued uncertainty means we're all on a sinking ship, just at different points of an inescapable decline.

Successes and setbacks are all part of business as usual at Trinity. After almost 20 years the best I can say when someone asks if we'll be here in twelve months is, "hopefully". In the voluntary sector, survival is as good as it gets. Hearing frequent ‘Nos' then trying to work out what's next is part of the job. Competitive funding rounds linked to political cycles are perhaps the worst at breeding a "them and us" mindset, making organisations old and new, big and small go up against one another for ever decreasing funds. It creates a short-term focus and leads to over-commitment, particularly from those smaller, newer groups desperate to move from being “out” to “in” any funding portfolio round. It leads to an unrealistic emphasis on measuring the intangible that benefits no one and decreases our appetite for risk, stifling the very creativity we’re seeking to support.

Rather than sharpening our elbows to fight for the crumbs that fall from the table we should be Oliver Twisting it up and asking for more. Were BCC to fund all 30 organisations listed to the maximum annual grant amount of £30k per year, this would amount to the amount to less 2% of the city’s total annual revenue spend. With many administrations nationally issuing or on the verge of section 114 notices due to difficulties in delivering balanced budgets, this can make such a case for arts funding appear entitled and out of touch with the everyday suffering of many across the country. But cuts to arts funding are part of a wider narrative (see links, below) of reduced investment in the arts that deprives those without the means from carving out meaningful experiences and careers in the creative industries.

Arts can be an easy thing to cut in difficult times but we’re doing so to the detriment of those who benefit from its power most. There is an intrinsic value that’s accepted and widely evidenced. Art is good for us; our economy, our health, our sense of place and belonging. And yet, one of the wealthiest city's in one of the wealthiest countries globally can’t even resource the creativity that sits at the heart of our local identity.

Collaborating with three local primary schools, Trinity recognises the significance of early engagement with culture in igniting creative aspirations. Children locally and nationally have witnessed reduced access to arts education compounded by challenges stemming from the pandemic and the ongoing burden of cost of living limiting access to out of school activities.

The ongoing decline in arts investment nationwide results in a gradual erosion of our opportunities to engage with the arts, limiting our cultural pathways. As the voices shaping our shared narratives become fewer, the story of our national identity risks being conveyed through an ever narrowing lens. Over time, this reduces the chances for individuals without existing wealth and means to pursue meaningful careers in an industry that contributes billions to the UK's economy annually.

It is commendable that, for the time being at least, BCC have sought to protect what remains of their public subsidy for the sector and focus what resource it can with the aim of sustaining participatory arts provision within neighbourhoods. But if we really want to ensure everyone has the opportunity to access and make art we need to think of better ways to ensure the investment is felt beyond a handful of suspects, however usual or unusual.

Some of the most successful schemes to support arts and diversify the arts sector have come from creative co-option of back-to-work schemes, from Future Jobs Fund and the recent Kickstart Scheme, providing paid entry level roles for <25s, to Thatcher’s Enterprise Allowance, which enabled some of the UK’s most prolific cultural practitioners to carve out their early careers and saw the birth of Brit Art movement.

Some trusts and foundations are catching on and supporting organisations and creatives in new and flexible ways. As far as public subsidy goes, we’re fighting for a seat at a table where chairs are continually being taken out of the game. Who will secure the chair once the music stops? A more impactful path involves collaborative efforts to lay the foundations for fairer resource distribution. Let’s stop playing someone else’s game and tip the table over.

By Emma Harvey, CEO

Further reading:

Bristol City Council defends cultural venue funding cuts (BBC)

Restore Bristol arts funding! (Equity)

The arts are in crisis (Gal Dem)

Government urged to intervene over local arts cuts (Campaign For The Arts)

Funding cuts and weak economy send UK’s visual arts into crisis (The Art Newspaper)

How will art funding cuts in schools affect creativity? (It’s Nice That)

Huge decline of working class people in the arts reflects fall in wider society (Guardian)

Image credit: Visual Thinkery

This issue of our built environment and who shapes it is a local affair. Aside from exceptions such as the nefarious demolition of The Crooked House pub, campaigns rarely make national news. Headlines of collapsing schools, public sector strikes and unrelenting cost of living and housing crises can make preservation of our heritage and civic realm appear out of touch and NIMBYist.

"Amidst the minefield of regulations, funding shortfalls, and bureaucratic complexities, the neglect of our shared spaces carries profound implications for generations to come. We must move beyond a meritocracy model and the need to balance our short-term fiscal needs to take a duty of care over the long-term reimagining of a shared civic canvas on which to build our collective future."  Emma Harvey

Context is a cornerstone principle of the national planning framework, yet local authorities find the threat of an overturned decision and the resulting fines too risky at a time when 26 English councils risk of bankruptcy in the next two years [^1^]. Councils have powers to issue enforcement notices for urgent preservation or compulsory purchase of important, privately owned buildings. All too often though, it’s these same councils who are the reluctant custodians of our ageing social infrastructure.

We find ourselves trapped in an ongoing “estates rationalisation” exercise that deprives future generations of the shared spaces that shape the collective narratives of our communities. Research from the IPPR shows £15bn of publicly owned assets have been sold off since 2010. That’s 75,000 civic spaces, libraries, leisure centres, community halls and youth spaces lost. There is funding available to save them; £300 million DCMS Youth Investment Fund and £150 million DLUHC Community Ownership Fund. And yet it would appear only a fraction of these central government funds have been allocated.

These old, often listed, almost always complex buildings are in desperate need of investment after decades of cuts that have de-prioritised preventative preservation. This leaves such projects to save these spaces with an inherent messiness that is just to risky amidst continued rising costs of essential services. Such conditions make it almost impossible for all but a few fortuitous groups to lever funds to save the spaces we love.

While new laws have appeared to protect statues in the wake of the Colston statue's toppling, this protection seems to favour a type of politicised heritage storytelling, rather than building connections through our shared past. Our heritage spaces are being co-opted by those looking to control the narrative as exemplified by the recent case of the Restore Trust's bid to dominate the governance within the National Trust [^2^]. If those who control the present control the past and that past shapes our future, then the erosion of our stake and influence in shaping these narratives poses significant threat, especially if we continue to lose the spaces that allow us to make these stories our own.

The idea that we can only fix the roof whilst the sun is shining risks leaving us with no roofs at all under which to learn how to swim, to dance, to read, to make memories, connections and shared solutions to the problems facing us all. After a decade plus of political storms the ability to define heritage, own space and determine which assets should be preserved feels like a luxury. Distracted with the immediacy of our collective woes, the agendas of all but a few will define who we become.

Amidst the minefield of regulations, funding shortfalls, and bureaucratic complexities, the neglect of our shared spaces carries profound implications for generations to come. We must move beyond a meritocracy model and the need to balance our short-term fiscal needs to take a duty of care over the long-term reimagining of a shared civic canvas on which to build our collective future. Cost-saving solutions that fail to think beyond the current political cycle means we pay in perpetuity. Somewhere, in some form, we always pay.

Emma Harvey, CEO

About this article

Trinity are committed to advocating for shared community and cultural spaces. We are members of Locality and are currently leading an appeal to restore Jacobs Wells Baths in Hotwells.

Read our 100 Beacons report that shines a light on the importance of – and understand the risks posed to – Bristol's community and cultural assets.

[^1^]: The Guardian: "At least 26 English councils at risk of bankruptcy in next two years"

[^2^]: The Guardian: “Vote no to the thinktank pod people trying to body-snatch the National Trust”

Artwork credit ASLS

Trinity CEO Emma Harvey reflects on the importance of community buildings following the news that Jacob Wells Baths is now at risk of being taken out of public ownership.

Jacobs Wells Baths is an asset owned by us. Built in 1889 to serve the working poor, the Grade II Listed building holds within its walls a wealth of of architectural and social heritage - from its time as a public swimming baths to its 30 year history as a dance hub.

This all risks being lost as, in December 2022, leisure company Fusion Lifestyle announced they were pulling out of restoring and managing the space meaning our cash-strapped local authority may now table it for disposal.

The story of this asset is sadly not unusual. A 2019 report by Bristol Cable revealed how Bristol City Council has sold off millions of pounds’ worth of public property as part of their ongoing response to austerity. This local saga is set against a national backdrop dubbed as ‘The Great British Sell-Off’, with local authorities across the UK attempting to combat funding crises through sale of our shared civic and heritage spaces.

"One thing you can say about Bristol is we’re a city that has demonstrated we can take complex heritage assets and transform them into viable community and cultural hubs."

It’s a pattern that shows no sign of stopping in 2023. Bristol faces yet another round of cuts and the pressure’s on to plug a £32m funding gap in whatever way possible. 134 years on from the Baths’ construction, it feels as though Bristol folk are still working hard though still very much the poorer for it.

It’s really easy to reduce these buildings to numbers on a spreadsheet. If we sell Jacobs Wells then the headache as to what to do with it next is finally over. Plus, we get some cash to plug a gap so we can all breathe a temporary sigh of relief until the next cycle of cuts. If you grew up poor it’s actually understandable. I’m sure many of us have memories of our parents pawning what few possessions they’d acquired just to make ends meet. It’s just what you do when you’re broke.

The problem though is that, when our Councils take this same attitude to balancing the books, this robs current and future generations of the assets we own and makes us all collectively poorer. In a city like Bristol, growing in density and diversity, it deprives us of places to come together, connect and share experiences. To learn and grow, to grieve or to celebrate. To keep fit, dance and be merry. To avoid loneliness or just to get out of the cold. Even to problem solve, mobilise and take collective action about the things that matter to us.

What is unusual about Bristol though is that for every Jacobs Wells Baths there are other success stories that run counter to this ‘sold from under you’ narrative. From Spike Island, to Watershed, to the Tobacco Factory, one thing you can say about Bristol is we’re a city that has demonstrated we can take complex heritage assets and transform them into viable community and cultural hubs.

The Trinity Centre is one such building as over the last 15 years we have demonstrated that we can take a big old dilapidated liability and transform it into a celebrated, multi-use arts and community asset.

So what’s stopping us from doing the same with JWB? Even with our track record, groups like Trinity just aren’t treated as serious contenders when the future of assets like Jacobs Wells Baths comes up for discussion. Maybe that’s because we don’t have millions of pounds at our disposal, or maybe its because I look like a Fraggle and talk like the love-child of Russell Brand and Janet Street-Porter. Decision makers just aren’t that great at trusting anyone to solve complex problems if the solution isn’t packaged in received pronunciation and a smart suit.

We don’t do it because we’re told we can’t, are scared to try or don’t believe we can. If we want to change this narrative this doesn’t start with the Council. It starts here and now with us. If we want to save our spaces and protect Jacobs Wells Baths and other shared civic spaces for this and future generations, as citizens we need to come together and say we want one last shot at reimagining a different future.

The Council may be the landlord but these buildings are ours. Once they’re gone they’re gone and there is no going back. We just need to believe for a moment that we can do this Bristol. Let’s put our heads and voices together and make it happen.

Take action today:

• Contact your Councillor and MP – write to them about why JWB is important
• Prepare a statement for local Cabinet
• Check out past feasibility study and plans for viable asset management
• Send your support to ensure it is registered as an Asset of Community Value
• Share on social media using the tags #SaveOurSpaces #SoldFromUnderYou #SaveJWB
• Read our 100 Beacons Report and find out more about Power to Changes We're Right Here Campaign

Image credit: Docklands Community Centre/Full Circle

Dubbed by agencies across the voluntary sector as, ‘The Great British Sell-Off’, our shared heritage and civic assets, community and youth centres, libraries and public green spaces are being lost as part of the council funding crisis.

Bristol City Council’s 2022-23 budget announcement is framed with the proviso that further cuts will be needed to plug a £19.5m deficit. This includes, “£3.5m by reviewing the buildings we own across all services.” With the statue debate still raging nationally, we’re sleepwalking into a future that, even prior to the pandemic, has already stripped Bristol of £30m worth of publicly owned assets.

"If we continue to deplete our supply of places where we can read our first book, become a Scout, learn a language or a new dance move or play Bingo in our retirement, we’ll continue down the pathway to polarisation."

The challenge is not in making such spaces loved, it’s in making them viable. We neglect the leaking community centre, or the inaccessible library, whilst trying to ‘level-up’, through investing in ‘transformative’ projects where the cost of the economic impact assessment alone would cover repairs and alterations across community spaces citywide. It’s hard to see how the building of an Arena or a multi-million concert hall refurb compensates us for the loss of the places where we connect with one another, make memories and build our sense of place and belonging in our everyday lives.

As costs of a few projects escalate to keep pace with aspiration, this increases the distance between the ‘viable’ and ‘non-viable’ spaces. If you’re a charity running a building, it’s almost impossible not to get caught on the capital conveyor belt to nowhere, in which we all chase an unattainable vision of the perfect building. Often, like Trinity, it’s what we’re legally constituted to “preserve” our asset. This means, even with the best intentions, we can end up leaving behind our stakeholders and our communities in the pursuit of building back better.

When we get swept up in the notion that a capital project is the priority above all else, we lose sight of the thing that makes buildings important in the first place; it’s the empty space within and the energy it’s filled with that matters more than the bricks and mortar.

We want to make Trinity the best venue it can be, just not at the expense of other venues or those who need the building in the first place and who have been happy using it even at its shabbiest. Balancing the need to future-proof and make a viable and sustainable Centre, whilst taking others with us and ensuring any investment is felt beyond our four walls.

This is why we produced the 100 Beacons report in partnership with other venues and the Council to evidence the contribution of Bristol’s community assets, including the critical role they’ve played in providing local services as part of the COVID19 response.

As part of Bristol’s One City Plan, early indications are a commitment from the Council to invest in improvements to concessionary lettings, such as those referenced in our report. This could provide a lifeline to buildings owned by the city and managed on our behalf. As the budget is still in draft form, we still don’t yet know how this will translate into money to make neighbourhood hubs useable, accessible, green and COVID-Secure. However, this is at least an example of what can be achieved if we work together on what matters to people, to ensure spaces are retained for community use for the benefit of ourselves and future generations.

If we continue to deplete our supply of places where we can read our first book, become a Scout, learn a language or a new dance move or play Bingo in our retirement, we’ll continue down the pathway to polarisation. Such catastrophic loss to communities makes it easy to develop false attachments to an effigy of a slaver not designed with us in mind, whilst increasing our resentment towards those we see as encroaching on any space we feel we have left, be it the immigrant or the gentrifier.

If only those advocating to preserve commemorative statues put even a fraction of that energy into campaigning to save their local heritage asset or civic space, volunteer at their local community or youth centre, or set up a regular social activity in their local library we’d all feel the positive effects. As we continue to navigate the isolating impact of a period of successive restrictions, it’s the spaces that reduce the distance between us that help us to level-up, culturally, socially and economically.

Emma Harvey, CEO

Read the report: A Community Canvas - building the case for community infrastructure 2022 - 2026