I didn't find new things in the topics discussed, so much as in how they applied to, and were dealt with by these individuals and groups. The details of what people were working on, and how they were approaching these issues was what I found most novel and interesting.
I was surprised and delighted by the group dynamics over the course of the evening. There was only a short period of awkwardness as participants felt their way into the discussion. After that, people seemed to fall naturally into conversation, and the talk flowed multiple times from involving the whole group, to breaking into small, fluid sections, and back together again.
One thought I've been left with is the observation that the Berwick group has set these dinners up as an initial gathering of many different people. But you don't seem to have created a system or pathway for people to continue to build these new connections afterward. I'm not sure you need to be involved with that at all - the initiation component is a very different task, and at least as important. People are quite able to continue developing the connections they find useful on their own. I was just curious if you would ever be interested in getting more involved with that area.
I don't remember this occurring to me while helping to plan the dinner, but I was just thinking about what might have been added to the conversation by including someone who was a bit more of a man-on-the-street. Someone who might have an interest in the art scene, and who might have some involvement in their neighborhood, but who isn't as actively involved in the actual day-to-day, behind the scenes activity of these things, in a way that everyone at this dinner was. Perhaps the Union Square event might bring more of this point of view.
The conversation that has stuck in my mind most from the dinner was one about failures and their positive aspects. It seemed to do the most to challenge my normal modes of thinking, and provoke questions and uncertainties to muse on for quite some time.