century Carlos Cámara Menoyo ‘Stadt-Teilen – Neue öfentliche Räume und nachbarschafliche Gemeingüter’. - Working session Universität Kassel Berlin, April 2018
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
Accentuation of social inequities – Access to housing / evictions – Access to healthcare – Access to education – Job conditions Demonstration at Plaça Sant Jaume, Barcelona
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
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
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
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)
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)
(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
• 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
(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)
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
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
The city as a whole The city as a whole Barcelona Foster & Iaone (2015), Harvey (2012), Ramos (2016), Susser & Tonnelat (2013), Hardt & Negri (2009)...
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...)
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...
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
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
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
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.
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
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)
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)
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
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
ccamara
akiraasano
laurawilsonbseo1
vyadav
robintux
dsalo
2720japanoke
cm_manaus
amethyst1
yatabe
yasulab
katarinadahlin
aleyda
eileencodes
moore
jonoalderson
morganepeng
axbom
kimpetersen
signer
baasie
erikaheidi
