Urban Commons: Lessons from Barcelona at the beginning of 21st century

Transcript

1. Urban Commons: Lessons
   from Barcelona at the
   beginning of 21st century
   Carlos Cámara Menoyo
   ‘Stadt-Teilen – Neue öfentliche Räume und
   nachbarschafliche Gemeingüter’. - Working session
   Universität Kassel
   Berlin, April 2018
   

   View Slide

2. Danke!
   ...and apologies
   

   View Slide

3. About me
   

   View Slide

4. Carlos Cámara-Menoyo
   Architect. Ph.D. Researcher. Teacher. Learner.
   Fascinated by the commodifcations between cities, technology &
   society.
   ● Researcher
   – Researcher and teacher at the School of Architecture and technology at
   Universidad San Jorge (Zaragoza)
   – Researcher at Urban Transformations and Global Change research group
   (Universitat Oberta de Catalunya)
   ● Activist
   – Involved in many initiatives related to opensource, sharing and alternative (and
   fairer) ways to produce and relate:
   ● Alternative and VGI cartographies
   ● Free/Libre OpenSource Software and Free Culture
   ● Digital fabrication
   ● Fair trade
   http://carloscamara.es
   @carlescamara
   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-
   9378-0549
   

   View Slide

5. Content ● Presentation
   ● Context
   ● Urban commons: Theory
   ● Origin and geneaology
   ● Examples from literature
   ● Urban commons: Praxis
   ● Barcelona study cases
   ● Conclusions
   

   View Slide

6. Context
   

   View Slide

7. Crisis, cities, new urbanisms and commons
   ● Global crisis
   ● Accentuation of social inequities
   – Access to housing / evictions
   – Access to healthcare
   – Access to education
   – Job conditions
   Demonstration at Plaça Sant Jaume, Barcelona
   

   View Slide

8. City: part of the soltuion
   ● Cities are a relevant context to study social and urban
   transformations
   Foto: Johny Sánchez (https://barcelona-photo.blogspot.com.es)
   City: root of the problem (Burkhalter & Castells, 2009; Harvey,
   2012; Marcuse, 2011; Sevilla-Buitrago, 2015b; Stiglitz, 2011...)
   ● Urban governance politics based in accumulation by
   dispossession processes
   ● Converted into trading goods (inhabitants and buildings
   included) in order to attract exterior capital (investments,
   tourism, subventions…)
   ● Converted into socio-technologic dispositifs oriented to
   domination and control (Foucault, 1975; Stavrides, 2015)
   and to capital’s reproduction
   Crisis, cities, new urbanisms and commons
   Crisis, cities, new urbanisms and commons
   

   View Slide

9. Superilla Poblenou (Photo: Julio Carbó)
   ● City
   – Built dimension of a society (Castells, 1983) where space is socially
   produced (Lipietz, 1979; Marcuse, 2011) in order to satisfy their interests
   (Castells, 1983)
   ● Cities and societies constantly commodifcate each other (Castells, 1983)
   ● New city models are required to fght new social problems
   – Different models (resilient cities, smart cities…) for different problems
   ● Urban commons is one possible option
   Crisis, cities, new urbanisms and commons
   Crisis, cities, new urbanisms and commons
   

   View Slide

10. The following features have been attributed to urban commons:
    ● Active role of citizenship (Ferguson, 2014)
    ● Problematize / pose alternatives to:
    – Property regimes (Dzokić & Neelen, 2015; Stavrides, 2015),
    – Public institutions’ role (Vianello, 2015),
    – Relationship between public and private sectors and alternative economic models (Baviskar &
    Gidwani, 2011)
    ● Concerned by social problems
    ● A way of exercising the “Right to the city” claimed by Lefebvre in 1968 (Castro-Coma & Martí-
    Costa, 2016; de Angelis & Stavrides, 2010; Ferguson, 2014; Harvey, 2012/2013; Observatori Metropolità de
    Barcelona, 2014)
    R-Urban ( Atelier d’Architecture Autogéreé, Paris). Photo: AAA
    Crisis, cities, new urbanisms and commons
    

    View Slide

11. «Commons are not a new concept at all»
    3 moments in commons’ history
    

    View Slide

12. 1. Commons’ archaeology
    Commons are not a new concept at all. As there are numerous historical examples:
    ● Mesopotamia
    – Collective management of water resources
    ● Aristotle: Koinon and Koinonen as public institutions to put things in common (Laval & Dardot, 2015, p. 30)
    ● Old Testament (Laval & Dardot, 2015; Linebaugh, 2008):
    – “When you are harvesting in your feld and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the
    foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.
    20When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for
    the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow. 21When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the
    vines again. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow.” (Deuteronomy 24:19-21)
    ● Other examples outside occidental culture: (Derek Wall, 2014, pp. 23-31):
    – India, Mongolia
    ● Magna Carta by King John 1st of England (1215) (Linebaugh, 2008):
    – Often used to set commons into a specifc historical and geographical context: Pre-industrial England
    Palmyra (Photo: Bernard Gagnon)
    

    View Slide

13. 2. England, commons and enclosures
    ● Documented use of comunal natural resources (common lands) in pre-industrial England → Year 1600:
    3/5 of arable surface and 35% of England’s area
    – Based on custom systems (feudal origin)
    – Limited to certain spaces (edges, forests) or temporal (fallow)
    – Source of survival outside regular economy system for many families
    ● Parliamentary enclosures (+4,000 laws between 17th and 18th centuries)
    – End of most of the common lands in England
    – Transformation of a social class into a different one: “lazy” (independent) industry workers
    →
    (dependent)
    – Urban planning policy’s materialization (Sevilla-Buitrago)
    →
    ● Sets the commons’ imaginary:
    – Year 0: Snapshot of a certain moment and place (pre-industrial England)
    ● Golden age and decline of the commons
    – Antagonist concept: enclosures as a spatial and legal mechanism for dispossession
    Parliamentary enclosures in Scafell (Cumbria, England)
    

    View Slide

14. 3. Ressurgence: the new commons
    ● 1990: Elinor Ostrom Governing the commons
    →
    – Sets Academia’s attention
    – Commons’ perspective is extended into new study felds ≠ biology
    ● Natural sciences (Biology, Geography, Medicine...)
    ● Social sciences, politics...
    ● Human production: software development, cultural production, education...
    ● ...
    ● New commons’ explosion:
    – Internet, Athmosphere, moon, space… (planetary commons – Elias, 2015)
    – Urban commons
    M31 Gallaxy. Andromeda constellation. NASA/Swift/Stefan Immler (GSFC) and Erin Grand (UMCP)
    

    View Slide

15. Theoretical framework: urban commons
    A “new commons” subset
    

    View Slide

16. Theoretical dimension
    Tracing urban commons’ triple genealogy
    

    View Slide

17. Irrigation system. Meliana (Valencia)
    Institutional Approach
    ● Authors: Elinor Ostrom (1990) vs. Garret Hardin (1968), Charlotte Hess (2008), Peter Linebaugh (2008)…
    ● Notion of a shared resource for a common good
    – Limited and excluding
    – Commonly governed rules institutions
    → →
    ● Typical examples: communal resources collectively shared:
    – Pastures, fsheries, irrigation, water supplies...
    – Knowledge
    ● Features:
    – Institutionalisation (governance, self-management)
    – Open Access
    ● Historical justifcation:
    – Commons as antique and successful phenomenon
    – Commons as an alternative for survival in a non-capitalist way
    – Concept opposed to “enclosure” example of privatisation
    →
    ● Attention from academia
    

    View Slide

18. Digital approach
    ● Authors: Stallman (1986), Lessig (2004), Benkler (2006)…
    ● Examples: immaterial resources collectively created and managed in a non-
    exclusive way
    – Knowledge, cultural creations, software...
    ● Notion of freedom:
    – Autonomy | Freedom of choice | Freedom of speech | Open Access...
    ● Hacking of legal regimes as a reinterpretation of the rules (e.g: opensource
    licenses)
    ● Use of technology in order to Produce, Share and manage commons
    ● Peer to peer and without hierarchies production
    

    View Slide

19. Activist approach
    ● Authors: Marx (1848), Klein (2001), de Angelis (2004), Hardt & Negri (2009),
    Harvey (2012)...
    ● Commons: are intangibles oriented to improve common wellness. This includes
    any nature’s product and any socially produced good outside mercantilistic logics
    – Immaterial production such as knowledge, social relations, afects, codes...
    ● Notion of freedom: absence of oppression (often as result of dispossession
    mechanisms)
    ● Procedures: decision taking processes based on assemblies
    Metrópolis, George Grosz (1916 - 1917)
    

    View Slide

20. Shared features
    Urban commons take the following features from all the aforementioned
    approaches:
    ● Non-mercantile motivations
    – They do not look for proft
    – They look for the common good
    – They pose alternatives
    ● Against privatization of diferent types (enclosures)
    ● Selfmanagement
    

    View Slide

21. Urban commons’ theoretical dimension (recap)
    ● Relevant concept that has received attention from academia and activism
    – Studied from many diferent perspectives (Natural Science, Economy, Technopolitics...)
    – Outstanding authors: Harvey, Hardt, Negri, Foster, Marti-Costa, Borch, Kornberger, Colding...
    ● Suggestive concept
    – Evidences relationship between cities/societies associated to positive values (such as
    →
    sharing)
    ● Presented as an alternative to contemporary neoliberal cities.
    ● Construction of fairer/less unequal cities and societies
    ● Slippery and ductile concept
    – Groups diverse and varied aspirations
    – Plenty of conceptualizations and approaches often contradictory
    →
    ● There is no consensus
    ● Better focus on the praxis
    

    View Slide

22. Practical dimension
    Examples of urban commons from literature
    

    View Slide

23. Urban Gardens
    Urban garden in Barcelona (Photo: Laura Calvet Mir)
    Foster (2011); Eizenberg (2012); Fergusson (2014); Colding (2011); Colding y Barthel (2013); Camps-Calvet, et al (2015)...
    

    View Slide

24. Squares as political spaces
    Acampada 15M, Madrid (Source: La información)
    Harvey (2012), Stavrides (2015), Corsin y Estalella...
    

    View Slide

25. Basic needs’ coopeartives
    Basic needs’ coopeartives
    Saettedammen, first cohousing cooperative in Denmark (1972-Present). Source: Saettedammen
    Eizenberg (2012), Bruun (2015), Larsen y Hansen (2015),
    Dzokić y Neelen (2015)...
    

    View Slide

26. Squares, streets, parks...
    Squares, streets, parks...
    47 Anderson Street - Yarraville (Melbourne).
    Baviskar y Gidwani (2011), Bruun (2015), Ferguson (2014), Kassa (2008), Löfgren (2015), Sevilla-Buitrago (2014), Stavrides (2015)...
    

    View Slide

27. Speakers’ corner, Hyde Park (London)
    Specific areas of public places
    Specific areas of public places
    Matisof & Noonan (2012), Cooper (2006)...
    

    View Slide

28. Wastes and dumping sites
    Chureca’s dumping site, Managua
    Baviskar & Gidwani (2011); Bravo & Moor (2008), Zapata & Zapata Campos (2015)
    

    View Slide

29. Exclusive gated communities
    Gated community in Ezeiza (Argentina)
    Colding (2011), Harvey (2012), Hodkinson & Chatterton (2006), LeGoix & Webster (2006), Vasudevan (2015)...
    

    View Slide

30. Self-managed social centers
    Eskalera Caracola (Photo: Daniel Lobo)
    Hodkinson & Chatterton (2006), Vasudevan (2015)
    

    View Slide

31. The city as a whole
    The city as a whole
    The city as a whole
    The city as a whole
    Barcelona
    Foster & Iaone (2015), Harvey (2012), Ramos (2016), Susser & Tonnelat (2013), Hardt & Negri (2009)...
    

    View Slide

32. Examples in literature
    ● Provide even more evidences of the concept’s ductility:
    – Great variety of examples
    – Often contradictory
    ● Diverse geopolitical contexts
    – Diferent needs, communities, enclosure types...
    – Key concepts do not always have the same meaning (eg. public/private)
    ● Approaching the concept from literature only is problematic:
    – There’s a risk of perverting the concept loss of relevance
    →
    ● Language appropriation by 3rd parties (gated communities, Sharing
    economy...)
    

    View Slide

33. Another approach: located
    

    View Slide

34. Interactive online map screenshot (Source: CCM)
    

    View Slide

35. Indignados’ camp BCN
    Indignados’ camp BCN
    The square as political space
    The square as political space
    Camp in Barcelona’s Plaça Catalunya. Photo: Virgili Araima
    

    View Slide

36. View Slide

37. View Slide

38. Camp in Barcelona’s Plaça Catalunya. Photo: Virgili Araima
    Public space appropriation in order to transform it into a temporary political, propositive and reivindicative
    space
    ● Reivindication: wide range of political, economical and social claims.
    ● Good/resource: Public space: Plaça Catalunya (Square)
    ● Promoters: spontaneous organization through social networks. Started as a FB group and then followed Madrid’s
    example.
    ● Community: Heterogeneous and broad group of people from all ages.
    – Concerned with politics but not connected to any political party.
    – No visible leaders.
    – From 45 people on the frst night to an avg. of 450 people the rest of the nights + 260,000 people at the same
    time.
    ● References: Iceland’s protests. Arab Spring.
    ● Results: creation of a reproducible model of self-organization and decision-taking processes, based on assemblies.
    Self-management of space. A number of alternative proposals for may issues, like housing, economics, education...
    

    View Slide

39. Can Batlló
    Can Batlló
    From an abandoned factory to a commons’ factory
    From an abandoned factory to a commons’ factory
    Block 11 and surrounding open spaces. Photo: La Col
    

    View Slide

40. Can Batlló at the end of 19th century (Photo: wikipedia)
    

    View Slide

41. New planning proposal (2005-2008)
    

    View Slide

42. View Slide

43. Accessing Can Batlló (June 11th 2011)
    

    View Slide

44. Block 11 and surrounding open spaces. Photo: La Col
    

    View Slide

45. Meeting point
    

    View Slide

46. Library. Fuente: Biblioteca Popular Josep Pons
    

    View Slide

47. Outdoor activities
    

    View Slide

48. Urban Garden. Photo: Centre Social de Sants
    

    View Slide

49. Events
    Complete scheduled events
    https://canbatllo.wordpress.com/agenda/
    ● Reading workshops
    ● Books’ releases
    ● Theme nights
    – Punk
    ● Exhibitions
    ● Assemblies
    ● Others
    – Flea market
    – Solidarity food
    – Yoga
    

    View Slide

50. Funding
    Public-private model:
    ● City Council
    – Building’s costs: Mainteance, refurbishment…
    – Supplies (water, electricity, Internet…)
    ● Can Batlló Community:
    – Any other expenses derived from the use of Can Batlló
    Sources of income (decided by the General Assembly):
    ● Events’ fees (some are free, others are not)
    ● Donations
    ● Bar/Pub
    

    View Slide

51. Can Batlló
    Self-managed public facility in an abandoned space claimed by the neighbours for more
    than 35 years
    ● Reivindication: construction of public facilities, park and housing for the neighbourhood, as
    promised by urban planning
    ● Good/resource: Obsolete factory of Can Batlló
    ● Promoters: Plataforma can batlló: plattform composed of neighbours and associations
    ● Community: Heterogeneous and broad group of people from all ages.
    – Mostly neighbours, but open to anyone
    – Organized in working groups and assemblies
    ● References: Indignados’ movement
    ● Results: restoration of abandoned factory and conversion into a successful self-managed
    social/cultural facility open to anyone
    

    View Slide

52. Building new (co)housing models
    Building new (co)housing models
    La Borda
    La Borda
    Plot and construction sign. Photo: La Borda
    

    View Slide

53. Plot ceded by the Council for 85 years
    

    View Slide

54. Participatory design (LaCol + architecture working group)
    

    View Slide

55. View Slide

56. View Slide

57. View Slide

58. Ceremony of start of constrution (16/02/2017). Foto: CCM
    

    View Slide

59. Self-construction session (Foto: La Borda)
    

    View Slide

60. View Slide

61. View Slide

62. Cohousing cooperative
    ● Reivindication: construction of public facilities, park and housing for the
    neighbourhood, as promised by urban planning
    ● Good/resource: Plot and building (30 dwellings)
    ● Promoters: Working group of 17 people originated in Can Batlló that would later
    become La Borda cooperative
    ● Community: Cooperativists
    – Medium incomes
    – Organized in working groups and assemblies
    ● References: Indignados’ movement, Can Batlló
    ● Results: self-funding and build 30 dwellings
    

    View Slide

63. Empty plot 2001/3-2013. Fuente: La Intervía
    Espai germanetes
    Espai germanetes
    Urban void as space for opportunity
    Urban void as space for opportunity
    

    View Slide

64. Chroma keying Workshop. Photo: La Intervía
    

    View Slide

65. Espai Germanetes. Photo: Francesc Magrinyà
    

    View Slide

66. Agenda de actividades autogestionadas
    

    View Slide

67. View Slide

68. Espai Germanetes. Photo: Francesc Magrinyà
    Urban void
    ● Reivindication: lack of public parks and squares in the neighbourhood, lack of
    “associative fabric”. Proposal of more friendly urbanism for the neighbourhood.
    ● Good/resource: Plot (500sqm of 5500sqm total)
    ● Promoters: Platform Recreant Cruïlles + City Council.
    ● Community: Groups and associations + neighbours
    – Organized in working groups and assemblies
    ● References: Indignados’ movement, Can Batlló
    ● Results: lcomplete agenda with lots of events that gathers a community of 400
    people.
    

    View Slide

69. Flor de Maig in 1908. Unknown authorship
    A history of continuous renaissance
    A history of continuous renaissance
    La Flor de Maig
    La Flor de Maig
    

    View Slide

70. La flor de maig in 2012. Photo: La Vanguardia
    Una historia de continuo renacer
    La Flor de Maig
    

    View Slide

71. Activities
    

    View Slide

72. Self-managed facility
    ● Reivindication: lack of public parks and squares in the neighbourhood, lack of
    “associative fabric”. Proposal of more friendly urbanism for the neighbourhood.
    ● Good/resource: Deteriorated historical building
    ● Promoters: Group of people related to Indignados’ movement + former members of
    for de maig.
    ● Community: Groups and associations + neighbours
    – Organized in working groups and assemblies
    ● References: Indignados’ movement, Can Batlló
    ● Results: Provide shelter to several associations + City council buying the building +
    Start of refurbishment works
    

    View Slide

73. Intervention in la rambla (2013). Photo: Fem Rambla
    Participatory process of designing the rambla
    Participatory process of designing the rambla
    Fem Rambla
    Fem Rambla
    

    View Slide

74. View Slide

75. View Slide

76. Decidim.Barcelona. City council’s online platform for participatory decision taking (home)
    

    View Slide

77. View Slide

78. Instalación de una antena de guifi.net (Fuente: guifi.net)
    Common infrastructure
    Guifi.net
    

    View Slide

79. View Slide

80. Red de nodos de guifi.net a enero de 2018 (Fuente: guifi.net)
    

    View Slide

81. Conclusions
    

    View Slide

82. About study cases
    ● Contex matters. A lot.
    ● There is a lot of variability in terms of:
    – Governance
    – Materiality
    – Importance
    – ...
    ● Shared features:
    – Discourse an motivation
    – Self management
    – Materiality más allá de la estética
    → povera (materiales, soluciones técnicas, decoración…)
    – Networked behaviour overcoming individual limitations
    →
    ● ICT play a key role
    – They “construct” new alternatives
    – Liminal dimension
    – ...
    Can Batlló Meeting point (Fuente: La Col)
    

    View Slide

83. Liminal dimension
    Liminal dimension
    ● Constantly between two poles
    – Public / Private
    ● Dependency on Public Administration (even if it is not desirable)
    – Legality / Illegality
    – Marginal / Notorious
    ● Contadictory nature:
    – Problems (incoherences, cooptation, precariousness...)
    – Great potential (they are necessarily innovative, construction of
    alternatives that do not look self-proft...)
    ● Constantly between two poles
    – Public / Private
    ● Dependency on Public Administration (even if it is not desirable)
    – Legality / Illegality
    – Marginal / Notorious
    ● Contadictory nature:
    – Problems (incoherences, cooptation, precariousness...)
    – Great potential (they are necessarily innovative, construction of
    alternatives that do not look self-proft...)
    'Liminal' - Lake District Cumbria (Katayoun Dowlatshah)
    

    View Slide

84. Alternatives’ construction
    Based in Barcelona study cases → Potential of construction fairer alternatives
    ● They work as a tool to understand how our societies and cities work (Analysis):
    – Rejected / non monetizable spaces
    ● Urban voids
    ● Public space
    – Economy’s logics: Need for looking for unconventional alternatives
    – Models of accessing to a dwelling and living (co-housuing)
    ● Social and urban transformation (Proposal)
    – Infuencers on public opinion
    – Infuence on City Council’s policies (regarding housing, energy, infrastructures, transportation,
    public participation, self-management…)
    – Urban space’s transformation (rehabilitation, use of urban voids…)
    ● Physical space becomes a social and political space
    

    View Slide

85. Proposal and hope
    Urban Commons are prototyping alternative cities and societiets. They are
    discourses that have become physical realities trhough collective action
    and are capable of transforming city and society.
    ● Exciting proposals
    – Booming sector diversity and
    →
    number of initiatives
    – Set the foundations of cities and
    societies yet to come
    ● Imperfect proposals
    – Not mature enough not yet
    →
    tested
    – They are contradictory and
    problematic
    – Not always 100% reproducible
    in other contexts
    

    View Slide

86. Vielen Dank!
    Vielen Dank!
    

    View Slide