When I came to Leeds over 20 years back, it felt like home. People were cheeky, friendly and I felt like I could be direct in a way that I’d struggled with back home. It might have been more to do with coming away to University, finding my own voice and being the person I really was. Either way I’ve always entertained the feeling that if you are friendly to people, they tend, on the whole to be friendly back.
So I’ve mucked in over the years, in my local community, and in Leeds, both in the city centre and most recently across the city with a big creative project. And pretty much nothing has shaken my belief that at their heart the people of Leeds are very warm, friendly and welcoming.
I am the person who smiles at you on a bus, or on the street, or pretty much anywhere. Some people find it a bit alarming, others seem to be glad to make eye contact. Nobody has carted me off yet, and it’s led to chance encounters, new friendships, and an understanding of my city that makes me feel connected and proud.
You could say I’m biased when it comes to the belief that friendliness is a really great way to go about your life. And I don’t think it’s just for extroverts either. When our street in Armley, won the accolade of Friendliest Street in Britain, as voted for by the listeners of Radio 5 Live, we knew it was a bit of a joke, but a particularly shy resident said it made her feel more inclined to be friendly to people she didn’t know when she encountered them. Imagine that! Well it had taken 5 years of creating moments together in our community to have food, drink, music, cake competitions, a website, charity calendars, but overall we won it because we were connected, and cared for each other. Since then we’ve done less, but when 2 arsons happened not that long ago, the street came together to help each other out. Some might call that ‘building resilience.’ Except we did this because we still look out for each other.
It brings me to the city narrative and strategy, that sometimes we citizens are asked to shape, and other times we have told to us. Currently we aim to be the Best City in the UK, a Child Friendly City, An Age Friendly City and A Dementia Friendly City. So if you look at that and ask who don’t we want to be friendly to, then the answer seems to be single people without kids under 50 roughly! Seriously, it seems we’re moving to an idea that we just want to be a friendly city, and have some set priorities to address inequalities in areas we need to improve.
If that’s the case, I’m all for it. Friendliness is not zaniness. It’s about the HOW we go about stuff as much as plastering a wide smile on our faces and scaring strangers!
So when we consider what friendly means, I have a request. When putting boards, steering groups, strategies together can you consider the diversity of who sets the tone for shaping the city as we move forward. We are in times of financial hardship (as we are told every minute of the day) so we understand that we need to be more resourceful and connected as a city, we do need to participate more in our daily lives and not expect things to be done for us unless the state has a legal responsibility to do so. But if we are to be a city that the next generation feel part of, proud of, plugged into, and participate in, can we address the way in which the decision making seems to be done by mostly males of a certain generation and background, with a bit of lip service to ‘consulting’ thrown in for the feel good factor.
Can we make decisions together about how we go about a friendly city? Where we can socialise without spending money. Where we can sit together in nice spaces, with our own lunch, making eye contact and feeling part of something rather than hurried along. Can we find ways for citizens to feel that we ‘own’ the place we live in? Can we walk or cycle the city at ease. Can we stop and smell the flowers? Can we club together to do stuff, can we determine the look and feel of the place we live in. How can we access or create the information that helps us to be friendlier to each other?
The friendly city would be a great value to aspire to, both in how we treat each other and welcome people from outside. Not just as consumers, but as new neighbours and potentially friends. Whether you were born here, or decide to die here, surely it’s time that we put people, our greatest asset together to find commonality and solve some challenges together? More spaces where people feel part of, where they can hang out together rather than get moved on, or made to feel uncomfortable would surely address things like feeling lonely, isolated and disconnected?
You’ll think me an old hippy. Well I’m deadly serious about this. If we don’t start by putting ourselves forwards to be taken seriously then we can’t complain when we are excluded.
Here’s the Vision for Leeds Strategy Document.
Can we start by making it simple as to how we engage with the strategy of a city? What about leading with a value proposition that we can all understand. A way we go about business here in the region. So if diversity and inclusion is important in our strategic vision as city to ensure that future generations have equal chances of success, happiness and wealth then let’s be upfront about it. Let’s work out just how we put it out there so that even if we’re not there yet, we know we aspire to get there.
So that’s me with my heart on my sleeve, if you ever fancy a cuppa and want to chat about how we can get together to make Leeds as friendly and welcoming a place as possible, let me know! There’s a great thriving cafe culture here, lots of great people, and so much potential.
Good post! Conviviality, or more bluntly Love IS the answer.
Interesting that the single demographic that the city is arguably most friendly towards in terms of housing and economic policy are single people with no kids under 50! Most of the new city centre residential development has been aimed at and attracted exactly this demographic.
So, I won’t judge by words and crumbs from the table of our civic leaders, but by where the big money goes…..
I strongly disagree that this city has favoured single people under 50 with no kids.
In the past decade poverty among the elderly has fallen from the highest of any group to the lowest of any age group. Among pensioners it has dropped enormously over two decades.
Poverty among children has fallen more slowly, but almost continually for the last 20 years.
On the other hand, for nearly 30 years, poverty among working age adults has risen. Among childless working-age adults poverty is predicted to rise by over 40% from 2010 to 2020.
Child poverty is down. Elderly poverty is down enormously. Working age poverty, particularly among the childless, is up. If we are favouring single people under 50 with no kids – why has this happened?
A city that favoured those of working age without children wouldn’t have passed laws to limit the number of shared homes, in certain areas such as Headingley. Leeds has.
A city that favoured those of working age without children wouldn’t have passed laws banning barbecues in the park closest to that population. Leeds has.
A city that favoured those of working age without children wouldn’t provide free bus passes to the elderly while increasing parking charges and allowing huge increases in the price of public transport as Leeds has.
As you say, Leeds has allowed the construction of high-rise flats in the city-centre. But the vast majority of the money to build them has not come from the council. These building are largely populated by working age adults without children because this is about the only demographic who are willing to live in the city centre without driving.
Many of these people would like to live elsewhere but they have been rejected by “communities”, usually older people or those with children, who restrict HMO numbers and object to planning applications for new homes.
I regularly speak to young adults around Leeds who’ve arrived from all over the world. Many find a warm welcome from people similar to them, but outright hostility from many older people in Leeds and the government of Leeds.
I fully accept that the poverty figures I’ve used are national not local. But that’s an important point. Leeds’ citizens have had chances at referenda to take power locally and address these imbalances. On every occasion we have chosen not to. Those with property have chosen to sit on it and stop those without from building their own. Those with pensions have chosen to increase their pay while denying the young similar benefits in the future. We have elected governments that have frozen spending on education and health – services used mostly by the old and young – and cut local government to a service that can provide little more than emptying bins and providing social care to the old and vulnerable.
I see no evidence that this city has favoured single people under 50 with no kids. I see precisely the opposite.
Usual ageist nonsense from Tom Forth who speaks only for himself.
I suppose its unfair to young people that we have a campaign to decrease to social isolation of the elderly, that the illnesses young people are marginalised in health care because of the burden of the long terms needs of the elderly, retired elderly people are presumably adding to climate change by having their heating on during the day (if they can afford to) instead of turning it off and dying of hypothermia as they do anyway. Of course elderly people are over-occupying social housing by not moving on but fortunately (no doubt in his view) we have the bedroom tax to sort this out.
Lets try crime – do older people engage in violent crime or scamming against one another – no I don’t think so – it young on old crime that is the problem. Who makes the city centre exclusive to a single demographic in the evening – I know its those drunken pensioners causing trouble again.
On communities – IMHO it is older people who at the heart of many local community organisations and the comment about the old being unwelcoming to strangers is simply gratuitously offensive.
-But looking specifically at the poorly argued section of Tom’a account of social exclusion by the vested interests of older people he se3ems to be saying that (a) the regulation of houses in multiple occupation should not be regulated by the council as this deprives younger people of somewhere to live. So presumably a free market should operate where landlords do not have to ensure basic safety standards. It is clearly patronising of older councillors to try to protect people in this way. (b) That is it is equally inappropriate for the council to seek to achieve “balanced” communities through planning policy. Although in practice the this horse has left the stable decades ago nevertheless it is now accepted as the way forward.
On the other prejudiced remarks e.g. around pensioners “having chosen to increase their pay” I’m not sure what this refers to but at best I assume he means that because politicians of both parties know retirees proportionally vote more (although are a minority of all voters) the a collusive relationship has built up across all administrations so whoever is in power pensioners get more – hmmm I’ll have think about that one.
On poverty – perhaps Tom ought to focus on income inequality as a whole rising rapidly rather then pick one group off against another.
Trying to rationalise his arguments to create greater – as he sees it – age justice in the city he seems to want – more house building with affordable rents/mortgages available to be built by the council but restricted to young people, less regulation and planning intervention, an end to free bus passes, reduction in state pensions and an elected mayor. Vote for Tom Forth you know it makes sense !!
The ‘vibrancy list’ has been put together by information services company Experian. Its experts analysed 75 urban areas using data from the 2011 Census.
Housing type, economic activity and the professional status of residents were all criteria that helped Experian pick out places with young, affluent populations – a key factor in deciding their level of vibrancy.
“It is [people’s] demand for leisure and entertainment, convenience and their ready use of technology that is helping to bring life and establish communities in our urban centres,” says Experian’s report.
Leeds’s urban area – classed as a 1km radius circle around the exact centre of the city – also performed well due to its high number of purpose-built flats and low unemployment rate.
I must be living in a different Leeds! The Leeds I live in is getting more and more unfriendly by the day, I find the people here rude and aggressive. In comparison to other northern cities (Sheffield, Newcastle, Liverpool etc) Leeds is really lagging behind in the friendly stakes! It’s unfortunate but Leeds is transforming itself into the London of the north and losing it’s own identity…
The answer to the question whether Leeds can overcome various social issues by friendliness can be found in the old Yorkshire expression “See all, hear all say nowt; eat all, sup all, pay nowt; and if ever thou dust owt for nowt allus do it for thee sen”
Obviously if this is part of the local folklore there are some major cultural barriers to be overcome.
Lets also ignore for the moment obvious issues of institutional racism, homophobia, misogamy and discrimination against people with disabilities coupled with incitement against immigrants and benefit claimants with I’m not sure friendliness alone can overcome
Perhaps more significant to this debate (and the “nice public realm makes a difference” conversation on another thread) is the fact that – as a I read today – LCC is facing £76m cut in funding.
In this context despite the efforts of Leeds together for peace, Leeds City of Sanctuary etc. I think it is inevitable that social relations in the city will be become strained and that a campaign to bridge the gap by friendliness will have little impact.
To continue to pretend that the city can be the best at anything in the face of these cuts means that either the few staff remaining will die trying or that citizens in the city will continue to swallow Cllr wakefield’s hypocrisy that the city is continuing to move forward despite the difficult choices he is regrettably having to make.
Forget friendliness I think anger might a better way
A friendly city might just have the evolutionary edge http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429980.200-what-pacific-islanders-have-taught-me-about-friendship.html?utm_source=NSNS&utm_medium=SOC&utm_campaign=hoot&cmpid=SOC%7CNSNS%7C2014-GLOBAL-hoot
If you want to talk about a friendly Leeds you should get yourself down to Roseville Road for a walking performance by A Quiet Word that is built on the warm welcome of strangers sharing their history.
Left wondering about my place here. How I ended up here and why I am still here 9 years later…
Wonderful.
http://eaststreetarts.org.uk/members/roseville/
I think if ‘Leeds’ had more confidence in itself it would become a friendly place. Style over substance seems to be the byword up here at the minute it’s all fur coat shops and no knickers. They’ve built a great city centre but there’s no heart there to pump out the friendliness.
Is being friendly in an adversarial culture something you can discuss?
Well it struck me that being Friendly brought out a few polarised views, and a not particularly collegiate feel to discussing the merits of the post.
That aside we’re conditioned to debate in this way. It seems pretty much how we point score these days, rather than actually discuss and learn from each other.
I guess it’s a plea, and a point of principle that we can apply our better selves on a day to day level. If we all thought about what it meant to be friendly, to neighbours, bus drivers, each other then perhaps we might find out way through tough times.
”Today I awoke in the Western Outer Slum Band, took a sip of my ‘Ambi – Valent’ medication, wiped the crust from my eyes and caught the 24 hour Mega Bullet Bus to the Inner Core Metropolis Dome. That’s where I have to work for 39 hours a week (dressed up as an Owl) as an ‘Ambassador to the Friendliest City’ … for my Job Seekers Allowance Credits. I think I’ll walk back home or maybe I won’t.”
ME Leeds 2023
Well speaking as I found, coming over to Leeds this summer to introduce a film about Liverpool, I thought the people I met were very friendly. And have continued to be so, particularly through Twitter.
I sometimes feel I know nearly as much about Leeds – including your robots and your empty homes and your cycling and recycling issues – as I do about Liverpool.
So no need to beat yourselves up, you already are a friendly city!
We absolutley loved entertaining you and hearing your views of Liverpool and your reflections about Leeds. Even better that we continue to chat on Twitter and witness the world though each others eyes.
You said some stuff that really stuck in my head about finding the people in places who love that place and the people there. I’m pretty sure that’s what we need to do more of as times get tougher.
We should take a leaf out of your book and host the Leeds City Region Awards! How did it go?
One of the things I’m gleaning is where the direction comes from. So if the strategy as perceived to be from ON HIGH is to be friendly it makes people feel cross and antagonistic. Am I right?
But if, as I was suggesting, we all have it within ourselves to be friendly, and do kind stuff etc, then perhaps we might not need to devolve our power to the civic leaders quite so much?
How can I make this leap from smiling, being pleasant, helping each other, looking out, listening, having fun (yes it is possible to still do that for FREE even when you do feel totally skint and stressed) to it making any impact when severe cuts are facing us all?
Is friendliness a cop out, and people like me totally naive and worse still an willing accomplice to making the cuts actually palatable if we’re more in community with each other?
Believe me I believe in a philosophy of abundance, of creating bigger pies, not aportioning and fighting over ever smaller pieces. I can see some political movements like Podemos in Spain which are galvanising people in positive participation, and wonder if movements like that will give us some sense of power once more.
In the meantime the only thing I can really do to make a difference, day in day out, is try to be friendly to everyone I meet. That way i feel in control of my life.
I am a little perplexed by the trajectory of this thread. I’d always assumed that friendliness was relational and personal and based on a person’s innate disposition and such things as courtesy, good manners, the disposition of the other person(s) in the exchange etc rather than on factors like annual income, age, geography and so on.
Two instances of unfriendliness today (one me, one someone else):
My metro card wouldn’t read on the exit gate at Leeds station and the bloke behind me was getting decidedly ratty with me (factor = hurry, impatience, poor service)
Stranger approached me in the street clearly intent on stopping me – I immediately went into eyes-averted, suspicious mode anticipating chugger or person spinning story about having wallet nicked and needing money for the train fare to Manchester. Fortunately – perhaps anticipating my anxiety to escape – he was able to ask for direction to the station before I had chance to speed away and I immediately became charming, helpful and friendly which, usually, is my default mode (factor = too many expensive encounters with menaces)
(Incidentally, hint on how to deal with the train fare scam – and this is very friendly – is to offer to go to the ticket office with them and buy them a ticket to Manchester or wherever; you will find that they instantly begin to protest and ask if you can’t just give them the money. At this juncture I think you are entitled to say “no” with a clear conscience)
Point = everyone has potential to be both friendly and grumpy and I really don’t think it’s predicated on social class or age or proximity to power and influence. One or other state is far more likely to arise (and I’m assuming the intended theatre of friendliness posited in this thread is out in public) from the petty incidents (good or bad) that arise accidentally and providentially from day to day that can influence mood (charming or grouchy) at a particular moment. My impression from the lofty perch of my seventh decade is that on the whole folk prefer to be friendly than otherwise (including in Leeds) though they may be – simultaneously – reserved, shy, not obviously extrovert, a tad dour on the outside.
Leeds is most certainly NOT a friendly city – miserable, ignorant people who never smile and will go out of their way to be rude and unpleasant are the blue collar default. It threatens Leeds’ future as a city – if people encounter rudeness and aggression when they arrive here, they will simply go elsewhere – to Manchester, Bristol, London,etc. It is self defeating, and I speak as a lifelong Loiner, but try telling that to people who live in places like Seacroft, Whinmoor and Gipton.