SPATIAL COMMONS: TYPE of COLLECTIVE USE URBAN OPEN SPACES AS a RESOURCE 2) Attempt at a Conceptual Clarifcation: the COMMONS DISCOURSE

Dagmar Pelger 0) Introduction: Anita Kaspar WHY “SPATIAL” COMMONS? Jörg Stollmann (Eds.) 1) Thesis: THE COMMONS AS AN URBAN SPATIAL COMMONS: TYPE OF COLLECTIVE USE URBAN OPEN SPACES AS A RESOURCE 2) Attempt at a Conceptual Clarifcation: THE COMMONS DISCOURSE

3) Spatial Principles of Commons: HISTORICAL COMMON LANDS

4) Categories of Open Spaces for Contemporary and Future Commons: SPECULATIVE CARTOGRAPHY IN BERLIN KREUZBERG

5) Conditions for Spatial Commons: RECOGNIZING AND DESIGNING THE “THIRD SPACE”

Dagmar Pelger Anita Kaspar Jörg Stollmann (Eds.)

SPATIAL COMMONS: URBAN OPEN SPACES AS A RESOURCE

Authors: Dagmar Pelger Paul Klever Steffen Klotz Lukas Pappert Jens Schulze

Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin 0) Introduction: The term Allmende (“common WHY “SPATIAL” COMMONS? land” or “commons” in English usage) describes shared ownership Engaging with commons—those stake in a resource. This shared fundamental natural and cultural ownership establishes a “third resources that serve a community’s space” between public resource wellbeing—also requires coming to space‚ which is potentially freely terms with spaces. This is because available‚ and the privatized the question of resource availability space used by individuals or always extends to the question of corporations. The common goods the place where such resources extracted from or created within are available‚ or are made available this resource space can be both for the community—and therefore material and immaterial‚ and to the question of a community’s therefore this third space can spatial organization. be either physical or virtual. As a collectively administrated partition of a resource‚ however‚ this third 2 space is always given a spatial organization and corresponds with the sociopolitical organization of the community. The meaning and use of commons or Allmende have In this feld of tension—between communities calling changed over time‚ taking many different forms. In the for increased participation in processes of planning and feudal system of medieval Northern Europe‚ Allmende spatial production on one side‚ and ongoing privatization (from the Middle High German al[ge]meind describing‚ and fscalization of urban habitats on the other side—it for example‚ shared woodland) denoted unparceled land becomes ever more urgent that we focus on developing that was cultivated in common by the peasantry‚ usually and describing concrete spatial models capable of being with the sanction of the lawful owner‚ the feudal lord. In experienced and recognized for the organization of com- modern Europe‚ these once collectively administrated munity life. woodlands‚ pastures‚ or Alpine meadows were converted into private or public property. For this reason‚ we rarely What can the spatial commons contribute to this? encounter common land as a rural form of collective cultivation today. In the late 1960s‚ the commons was ultimately rediscovered as a consequence of scarce resources and the discussion about sustainability kicked off in late-capitalist Western societies. But in this iteration‚ the commons primarily described universal resources such as water and air. Since the beginning of the 1990s‚ the increasing promi- nence of digitalization and neoliberalization processes have contributed to another shift in the meaning ascribed to commons. On one hand‚ due to the spread of information technology‚ we have seen a collectivization of know ledge and authorship take place within the virtual space of the internet. Shared production of and participation in knowledge has become the motor for a new debate about the commons‚ leading to the concept of the knowledge commons (Wissens-Allmende in German). Working in the opposite direction‚ the intangible cultural common goods produced by this technology—namely the free availability of information—is being curtailed step by step through barriers to entry‚ commercialization‚ or criminalization. These limitations to access bring about a shortage or con- straint upon immaterial resources‚ and thus increasingly enclose the knowledge commons. On the other hand‚ at a concrete spatial level around the globe‚ the increasing retreat of governmental regulation and provision‚ and a growing competitiveness across various areas of life‚ have led to enlarged resource scarcity at all levels of scale‚ in both the environmental and social realms. As in the case of the knowledge commons‚ this circumstance—in particular‚ the growing privatization of public goods—has prompted calls for more participation‚ at all levels of society‚ in economic production processes as well as in political and planning decisions. It has also prompted calls to preserve and to create new open spaces‚ both rural and urban‚ that function as commons accessible to everyone. Movements like “Occupy‚” “Direct Democracy‚” or the “right to the city”— similar to phe- nomena like “open source” or “wiki”—amount to collective 3 practices of resistance and appropriation that can also be related to concrete urban space‚ rural space‚ or architectural space. 1) Thesis: It is especially in urban open THE COMMONS AS AN URBAN TYPE spaces‚ that resource reduction OF COLLECTIVE USE and scarcity are becoming directly palpable today. Those The spatial dimension of the areas designated as “public commons can be investigated space” and which thus belong to at different levels of scale. everyone—parks‚ squares‚ streets‚ Investigations at the geographical waterfronts‚ but also undeveloped scale treat commons as resource areas and urban wasteland—are spaces—such as forests‚ pastures‚ increasingly exposed to neglect mountains‚ lakes‚ and oceans— or commercialization. It is these and concentrate on their open spaces within cities that administration and cultivation. can be read as today’s equivalent Investigating commons at the scale to the traditional medieval of urban space‚ on the other hand‚ common lands: administrated and can shed light on the commons as maintained by municipal‚ state‚ or an urban type of collective use. even increasingly private hands‚ Today‚ self-organized groups of these spaces form a reservoir urban citizens have taken the place of urban life‚ an urban natural of the peasantry‚ establishing a new environment‚ that should enable relationship between both natural everyone to participate in the and cultural resource spaces and life of the city. Understood as an the local commons as a site where extension of the natural resource these resources see collective use. space that surrounds the city‚ urban open spaces generate a connection between the city and nature. This interpretation of 4 urban open spaces as a part of the greater resource space makes it possible to translate the traditional relationship between natural space‚ the commons‚ and the village over to the contemporary city. To date‚ urban studies haven’t devoted much research To examine this thesis step by step‚ one must begin by to this spatial aspect that underlies the connection be- gathering the different facets of the varying defnitions of tween large-scale resource space and settlement space‚ commons and considering them in terms of their respec- and how it relates to the organizational‚ action-bound‚ tive relationship to spatial production. Therefore‚ chapter often small-scale dimensions of the commons. Moreover‚ two will take an overview of the commons discourse in an in the commons discourse‚ action as a factor essential to attempt to reach a better understanding of the principle space formation often plays a subordinated role. These of the commons‚ to reveal certain spatial criteria‚ and two aspects—the urban commons as a spatial system and to counteract appropriations of the concept by tracing the degree that spatial production is conditioned by ac- it back to its original principles. This will be followed by tion—therefore deserve more detailed investigation. an analysis of historical examples in chapter three‚ which It seems that the social and political transformations will serve to further develop the question of the typologi- that were described in the introduction‚ which have made cal patterns that underlie the commons principle. On this the commons newly relevant‚ will have an even exacer- basis‚ we will extrapolate the spatial principles of the types bated impact on the urban challenges we can expect to of commons identifed‚ which can then be used to help face in the future. Increasing cultural and social segrega- read today’s urban open spaces in a new light‚ from the tion‚ as well as ever less predictable population growth perspective of collective use and production. and/or decline in European cities‚ are leading to a state Ultimately‚ it’s only by working on location that we can of bewilderment about what purposes can or should be assess the actual potential of the commons principle for served by urban open spaces. These circumstances‚ in the future development of urban open spaces. By under- which planners can no longer presume the existence of a taking a speculative cartography of concrete locations supposedly homogenous general public‚ but must instead in Berlin in chapter four‚ not only do we derive different negotiate with diverse groups of users‚ are fueling calls for spatial categories of potential commons‚ but also point to- alternative models of producing urban space. Such models ward possible design approaches for those spatial reserves would help reactivate‚ and make legible‚ collectively used that have yet to be discovered‚ the future urban commons. urban space as a “mediator” (Latour‚ 2007) for a diversify- With this short investigation we hope to lay out a trail ing society. for understanding the commons principle as a tool that can Considering its community-building qualities‚ an updat- be used for a more cautious and responsible handling of ed form of the commons could—here we put forward our the city’s spatial resources—taking into account everyone thesis—be an urban type of collective use that represents who contributes to the city’s creation and participates in a sociopolitical and spatial alternative to existing forms of its experience. urban space production.

2) Attempt at a Conceptual Nearly every study and approach to commons takes their historical origin in medieval Europe’s feudal system Clarifcation: as the primary point of reference. The concentration of capital that took place in the early ffteenth century (what THE COMMONS DISCOURSE Marx later described as primitive accumulation) also took the form of enclosing the commons. This loss of a propri- etary stake in the emerging market economy had serious Revisiting the commons discourse consequences for the collective goods that had formerly been overseen by the peasantry. The traditional commons of the past decades should help principle largely disappeared in Europe‚ with a few excep- clarify what approaches to defning tions such as Great Britain’s state-registered common lands. On other continents‚ by contrast‚ the commons commons predominate in the tradition has persisted for a considerably longer time‚ as different disciplines. In history‚ demonstrated by the philosopher Silvia Federici using the example of Nigeria‚ in the introduction to her study on the philosophy‚ economics‚ political commons (Federici 2004). Some key features of this original form of the commons science‚ and gender studies‚ just are: an open-access resource space and a self-organized as well as geography‚ city planning‚ commoner community that acquires from a portion of this space the raw materials necessary for survival. Often what and architecture‚ questions about emerges from this is a clearly delineated but unparceled community space that is designated as a commons. The commons’ community-based fnal‚ indispensable component to the defnition of a com- production process are on the mons is the shared use of the yield generated by cultivat- ing this collective space. However‚ the owner doesn’t nec- agenda all over. Commons are being essarily need to have given permission to use the resource. described‚ on the basis of their historical development‚ as highly complex and contradictory systems of organization that never actually disappear‚ but must always be fought over afresh.

8 Therefore‚ for a resource to be a common good‚ by Alongside the defnition of commoning as a major ele- defnition it must permit open access for all—yet some ment of commons‚ philosopher and feminist Silvia Federici form of boundary is often indispensable if a commons is to adds the notion of reproductive work in the medieval be cultivated collectively‚ as the political scientist Elinor commons system to the defnition. Reproductive work— Ostrom demonstrated in her investigation of the commons concretely‚ the bearing and raising of subsequent genera- principle using the example of fshermen (Ostrom 1990). tions‚ as well as other activities ascribed to the female Overfshing can only be avoided by limiting use rights for sphere of activity—created important yields for the com- everybody. With this she confrms the well-known‚ and moner community. Yet these activities were excluded from often misinterpreted‚ thesis of the “tragedy of the (un- the wage labor introduced with the advent of capitalism. regulated, remark of author) commons‚” as formulated At the same time‚ the yields of reproductive work—above by Garrett Hardin (Hardin 1968). Ostrom expanded the all‚ offspring capable of supplying labor—were integrated defnition of the commons by including a set of elemental into the production cycle and thus‚ similarly‚ expropriated principles. These principles call for‚ among other things‚ from the community (Federici 2004). resources to be handled more responsibly and thus by Making reference to this‚ Michael Hardt and Antonio necessity with more regulation—by the commoners them- Negri adopted Foucault’s concept of biopolitics to argue selves. But‚ within her principles of governance‚ the prob- for a newly emerging biopolitical power. As work is in- lem of scale remains unsolved: how can large resource creasingly rendered “immaterial” by information technol- spaces be administrated just as responsibly by commoners ogy‚ services like “providing information” or “producing as smaller-sized‚ traditional common lands where use and contacts and interactions” receive ever higher wages. access can be monitored easily. They interpret this as a “reintegration” of reproductive At this point‚ it already becomes clear what kinds of work‚ which formerly received no compensation‚ into the problems are posed by a commons defnition that makes capitalization process (Schatz 2014). A new economic sec- no conceptual distinction between resource space‚ a tor is emerging based on the reproduction of immaterial concretely cultivated territorial portion of that space‚ and information goods‚ carried out in working environments the yield that is generated from it—but instead charac- that are virtual‚ unconfned‚ and therefore diffcult to con- terizes all of these equally as “commons.” This leads to trol. In a very optimistic interpretation‚ Hardt and Negri inconsistency‚ not only regarding one’s viewpoint toward see this circumstance as an ‘opportunity space’ for a form the commons as a product or space‚ but also regarding the of commoning that opposes this commercialization‚ and scale—natural resource space or territorial portion of that might extricate collectively created immaterial products space—and the accompanying questions of demarcation‚ from the process of commodifcation. In making this argu- monitoring‚ and access. ment‚ they reshape Federici’s component of the commons The historian Peter Linebaugh builds on Marx’s analy- defnition—reproductive work—into a positive perspective sis of primitive accumulation and compares the medieval toward the future. waves of enclosure with the waves of privatization in neoliberal economic systems by identifying an ongoing‚ continuous process of accumulation (Linebaugh 2008). From the fact that new resources are continually being privatized‚ he reaches the conclusion that there is a correlated process of new commons continually being produced‚ which are threatened in turn by further privatization. He describes this dynamic as the action-bound nature of commons‚ using the phrase “no commons without commoning‚” thus expanding the traditional concept 9 of commons by including the act of commoning—in other words‚ the coordinated social process that frst creates the commons and then preserves it. Other approaches to the commons have adopted this important aspect and expanded on it. These components to the commons defnition—com- The nature of this description‚ characterized by its moning‚ reproductive work‚ and immaterial products—have emphasis on process‚ is echoed by David Harvey’s call for far-reaching signifcance for the question of the spatial the “creation of the urban commons‚” where commons are commons‚ that is‚ the specifc spatiality of commons. They understood as “an unstable and malleable social relation serve to expand the traditional defnition of commons between a particular self-defned group and those aspects from a purely territorial concept for securing material of its actually existing or yet-to-be-created social and/or subsistence by incorporating a fundamental attachment to physical environment” (Harvey 2012). According to Harvey‚ action and‚ with it‚ a temporal dimension. the urban commons can only emerge through a “double- This expanded defnition‚ whether applied to histori- pronged political attack‚” where a distinction is made cal examples or present-day and future phenomenas‚ between the large-scale resource space‚ which requires describes the commons as a socio-spatial principle for se- state protection and preservation as universal common curing one’s subsistence—immaterial subsistence included. good‚ and small-scale portions of this space or subspaces And the expansion also represents a signifcant shift in that are constantly being re-appropriated by self-empow- perspective when analyzing urban spaces that are used in ered commoners. a commons-like fashion. The architect Stavros Stavrides A collection of essays published in 2014 by the phi- has provided an impressive demonstration of this using the losopher Lieven De Cauter shall close the circle‚ incisively example of a parking garage in Athens. The garage was oc- consolidating a number of the “components of a defni- cupied and converted into Navarinou Park through a self- tion” mentioned above and addressing questions about organized process (Stavrides 2009). Here‚ urban space was the spatial dimensions of the commons. He too draws appropriated for a certain length of time and transformed a distinction between the commons’ two fundamental into an urban commons. According to Stavrides‚ this as- levels of scale and relates these to issues of commoners pect of the commons‚ its temporality‚ goes hand in hand and ownership. Universal commons he characterizes as with a conception of a fragmented urban spatial network large-scale‚ shared natural and cultural resources‚ such that is diffcult to comprehend formally or morphological- as air and language. These belong to everybody and no- ly‚ and must primarily be read in regard to its socio-spatial body‚ exist without a community‚ and must be protected qualities. and secured by international or national law. Particular commons he characterizes as those subspaces that frst emerge through a practice of commoning by a community—that is‚ classic common lands and their expanded form—and thus require an ongoing process of reproduction. Spatial commons he understands as sites with the potential to be temporarily appropriated by a commoner community. Since the classic common land‚ defned as a territory‚ no longer really exists as a legal form‚ these sites always retain an unstable status. Among spatial commons‚ he differentiates between urban commons‚ or location- bound “objects” in the form of open spaces‚ city squares‚ squats‚ or urban voids‚ and the common as process‚ that is‚ “the decision making on how to act on this object” (De Cauter 2014). Urban commons‚ in their free accessibility‚ 10 bear the potential for practices of commoning founded in a community-coordinated process. As commons are neither public nor private‚ but instead belong to everybody and nobody at the same time‚ De Cauter argues they form a “third category” that is neither political nor economic: if the location of the community can be assigned to neither the polis as a space of public negotiation‚ nor to the oikos as a private economic space‚ then the commons by defnition eludes state appropriation and economic exploitation (De Cauter). According to David Harvey and Lieven de Cauter‚ the potential of the commons is thereby both non-formalized—in other words‚ not administered by the state‚ but by the community—and non-commercial—that is‚ productive‚ but not capitalizing. In summary‚ the principle of the commons is built on an archetype grounded in territory. This original defnition‚ however‚ by implying social activity and describing a certain system of organization‚ involves a series of contradictions and hazy formulations. Expanding the defnition to include the immaterial and reproductive realm‚ and drawing logical conclusions about how its temporality and instability affect space‚ serves to rewrite the commons as a sensible socio-spatial construct‚ which is only preserved through an ongoing process of negotiation. From this somewhat diffuse point‚ jumping into a spatial analysis of historical examples will begin to provide more clear insights about spatial and typological interrelations.

11 REGULATION: PROTECTION OF REPRODUCTION: “COMMONING”: THE TRAGEDY OF THE “UNREGULATED” RESOURCES: HISTORICAL CONTEXTS HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT COMMONS PRINCIPLES FOR MANAGING A Context 1: 1) Medieval era: Reproduction (self- According to Hardin‚ when a resource COMMONS (Medieval Europe‚ up to around the preservation) through regulated access is made available without limitations‚ ffteenth century) to spaces and resources on royal land‚ everyone will attempt to maximize their “1) Clearly defned boundaries: Individu- Meadows‚ woods‚ lakes‚ wild pastures‚ tolerated as a “de facto right.” individual gain. This will work‚ Hardin als or households who have rights to and hills used by serfs with the sanction argues‚ as long as the resource is not withdraw resource units from the CPR of the feudal lord. 2) Early modern period (example of depleted. The moment‚ however‚ that (Common Pool Resource) must be England in the sixteenth to eighteenth the number of commoners rises above a clearly defned as must be the boundar- Context 2: centuries): Enclosure of common lands certain extent‚ the tragedy of the com- ies of the CPR itself. (Medieval Europe‚ end of the ffteenth as a process of separating people from mons takes hold: everyone attempts‚ as century) the means of production. Training of before‚ to maximize their individual gain. 2) Congruence between appropriation Increasing enclosures by feudal lords af- the modern proletariat (“primitive ac- But the resource is no longer suffcient and provision rules and local conditions: fect not only collectively managed land‚ cumulation”). for everybody. The costs produced by Appropriation rules restricting time‚ but social relations as well. The peas- overexploitation are borne by society as place‚ technology‚ and/or quantity of antry’s struggle against feudal power is a 3) Autonomia movement, 1960s: First a whole. But for the individual‚ Hardin resource units are related to local con- “struggle for the commons.” revival of the commons debate during argues‚ the momentary gains produced ditions and to provision rules requiring the independence movement in Italy. by overexploitation are fundamentally labor‚ material‚ and/or money. higher than the costs‚ which only be- “So important were the 4) Globalization since the 1980s: Neo- come noticeable in the long term. Thus 3) Collective-choice arrangements: ‘commons’ in the political liberalism as increasing enclosure in the ultimately each individual contributes to Most individuals affected by the opera- economy and struggles of the form of privatization; squats‚ alterna- both their own and society’s ruin. tional rules can participate in modifying tive markets‚ and network trading as a the operational rules. medieval rural population that reaction. their memory still excites our “Freedom in the commons 4) Monitoring: Monitors‚ who actively imagination, projecting the brings ruin to all.” audit CPR conditions and appropriator “It was the essence of the open behavior‚ are accountable to the appro- vision of a world where goods feld system of agriculture Garrett Hardin (microbiologist, ecolo- priators or are the appropriators. can be shared and solidarity, – at once its strength and gist): “Te Tragedy of the Commons,” rather than desire for self- Science 162 (1968): 1243–1248. 5) Graduated sanctions: Appropriators its weakness – that its who violate operational rules are likely aggrandizement, can be the maintenance reposed upon to be assessed graduated sanctions substance of social relations.” a common custom and (depending on the seriousness and (p. 24) context of the offense) by other appro- tradition (…).” (p. 50, quoting R. H. Tawney) priators‚ by offcials accountable to the Context 3: appropriators or between appropriators (Europe after the ffteenth century) “Te fellowship of mutual aid, and offcials. the partnership of service 12 “Capitalism was the counter- 6) Confict-resolution mechanisms: and protection, which Appropriators and their offcials have revolution that destroyed the characterized the village rapid access to low-cost local arenas to possibilities that had emerged community Tawney calls ‘a resolve conficts among appropriators from the anti-feudal struggle.” or between appropriators and offcials. little commonwealth.’ ” (p. 51) (p. 21)

7) Recognition of rights: External Some of the “possibilities” in this “Tere are no commons governmental authorities allow local context were continuing to harvest without commoning.” commoners a minimal degree of rights resources from the commons‚ and the Massimo De Angelis, citing Peter Linebaugh, An Architektur to devise and implement their own rules. minimal economic reliance that resulted 23, “On the Commons” (2010): 7. from this. 8) Nested institutions: Management of Peter Linebaugh (historian): Te Magna shared property is only successful at the Context 4: Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons small scale. Larger structures should be (Twentieth-century global develop- for All (Berkeley: University of California split into smaller units.” (p. 90) ments using the example of Nigeria‚ Press, 2008). 1984) Main thesis: A successful commons is The Structural Adjustment Program defned‚ among other things‚ by the imposed by the World Bank to integrate ability to generate a maximum yield for Nigeria into the global market amounted the totality of commoners‚ a balanced to a new round of primitive accumula- distribution of resource units to appro- tion: land privatization by enclosing priators‚ and to responsibly handle the communal property and disciplinary particular resource system. measures to regulate procreation rates can be traced back to the struggle for Elinor Ostrom (political scientist): commons and the capitalist disciplining Governing the Commons: Te Evolution of women in medieval Europe. of Institutions for Collective Action (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Main thesis: In the transition from feudalism to capitalism‚ reproductive female work is subordinated to productive male work and excluded from wage compensation‚ while at the same time the product of reproductive labor‚ the reproduced workforce‚ is integrated into the production cycle.

Silvia Federici (philosopher): Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation (New York: Autonomedia, 2004). IMMATERIAL EMPHASIS ON SOCIAL UNIVERSAL/ PRODUCTS: PROCESS: RELATIONSHIPS: PARTICULAR:

A CONCEPTUAL CHANGE IN MEANING COMPONENTS TO THE DEFINITION OF PROBLEMATIC OF THE COMMONS THESES ON THE COMMONS COMMONS Commons as a traditional concept: Private goods or goods that are publi- Lieven De Cauter outlines 15 theses The natural world outside of society Pooled resources: Commons comprise cally available and managed must be on the contemporary relevance of (soil‚ air‚ etc.). some kind of shared resource pool—a appropriated by citizens to become commons: non-commodifed means of satisfying common goods (Syntagma Square‚ Commons as a biopolitical concept: needs. Tahrir Square‚ Placa de Catalunya). All ancillary realms of life and society, Neoliberal policy‚ by diminishing public “1. Te Common is under for example the “commonalities of Community: Commons are created by goods‚ also diminishes the accessibility threat. Both Nature and language‚ customs and mores‚ gestures‚ communities and controlled by their of common goods. Culture are under severe emotions‚ codes‚ and so on.” own rules. This can be trans-local; commons are not necessarily bound by Without regulation‚ individualized pressure. As the common The commons are neither private nor location. capital accumulation destroys the two is under threat, we become public. fundamental societal resources‚ work- aware of the common. Verb‚ “To common”: Commons emerge ers and land. CONTEXTUALIZATION OF THE COM- and reproduce themselves frst through 2. We have to reinvent the MONS a social process. Urban common goods feature all the common. Te dichotomy political contradictions of common between private and public CONTEXTS AND CONDITIONS goods in a highly concentrated form— “Tis ‘becoming female,’ or above all the problem of scale. has obscured it. . . . ‘feminization of work’ (Hardt, Capital and commoning: “Capital is 3. Te common is what is Negri 2010; 147), it is argued, promoting the commons in its own way Ostrom’s approach of nested forms neither public nor private. Te . . . capital will need the commons and of organization can only be effective leads to a blurring of the capital will need enclosures‚ and the if decentralization and autonomy are common is what belongs to boundaries between labor commoners at these two ends of capital grounded by overriding rules—and it is everybody and to nobody (like and life, between production will be reshuffed in new planetary unclear how to achieve this. Since the air and language). hierarchies and divisions.” 1980s‚ neoliberal policy has defected and reproduction, to labor the costs for the social reproduc- 4. Te common space is not ‘becoming biopolitical.’ Seen Public and commoning: “The community tion of the workforce and the costs of necessarily a political space. . . . optimistically, this labor is refers to an entity . . . whereas the idea environmental destruction onto our 5. Te universal commons are of the public puts an emphasis on the global common goods‚ creative negative only ‘externally’ governed relation between different communi- common goods in the process. generic, ‘commons without by the logic of capital: as ties. . . . Relating commons to groups community’ (nature and ‘afective labor,’ ‘immaterial of ‘similar’ people bears the danger of Since the crisis of 2007‚ neoliberal culture as such); the particular eventually creating closed communities. policy has been facilitating the private labor’ it produces ‘social . . . Conceptualizing commons on the appropriation of common goods‚ commons are practices of networks, forms of society, basis of the public . . . [focuses] on the amounting to a comprehensive attack commoning by a specifc forms of biopower,’ and is ‘not very differences between people that on environmental commons and the community. . . . can possibly meet on a purposefully common goods of social reproduction. compelled or organized from instituted common ground.” 6. Modernity opens up the outside, as was the case with the enclosure of “Unfortunately the idea of for earlier forms of work.’ ” State and commoning: “The state is a the (spatial) commons. guarantor of property and land rights‚ the commons (like the right Holger Schatz writing about Commonwealth, in Infobrief Capitalism begins with the 14, “Die Debatte um Commons und Gemeingüter” (Zurich: which . . . establish forms of control . to the city) is just as easily Denknetz, 2011). . . . Claims of property rights concern original appropriation: the appropriated by existing specifc places that belong to certain stealing of the common and political power as is the value “Te change in the capitalist people or establishments‚ which might the criminalisation of the also be international corporations. The to be extracted from an actual production from material to state . . . is in fact the most specifc ar- expropriated . . . urban common by real estate immaterial labor provides rangement of powers against which we 10. Scale is one of the big interests.” (p. 87) the opportunity to think can struggle.” problems of the commons: about commons that are Reproduction and commoning: “We A “double-pronged political attack” is direct democracy, self- necessary to extend and enhance the produced in the system have learned from feminists . . . that organisation, bottom-up for every visible work of production quality of common goods: the state but can be extracted and there is an invisible work of reproduc- must be forced to supply more public practices etc, are ill equipped potentially turned against tion. The people who want to keep the goods‚ and populations must organize to for the larger scales. In the age take proprietorship over these goods. the system. We can take the [Navarinou] park will have to work hard of globalisation problems play notion of immaterial labor for its reproduction. . . . Thinking about at a planetary scale. . . . the work of reproduction is actually “Te common is . . . to be as an example of a possible one of the most fundamental aspects of 12. Te spatial common is construed, therefore, as . . . future beyond capitalism, commoning.” temporary, more a moment an unstable and malleable where the conditions of labor than a space ‘a moment of Spatiality and commoning: “Starting social relation between a produce opportunities for to think about space as related to the space.’ More a use, than a particular self-defned social understanding what it means commons means to conceptualize it property. . . . group and those aspects of its to work in common but also as a form of relations rather than as an 15. Te urban commons as entity‚ as a condition of comparisons actually existing or yet- to-be- to produce commons. ” instead of an established arrangement object (open space, urban created social and/or physical Stavros Stavrides writing about Commonwealth, in An of positions . . . as a potential network void, squat, terrain vague) Architektur 23 (2010): 17. of passages linking one open place to environment.” (p. 73) another.” is something else than the Michael Hardt (literary theorist) and David Harvey (human geographer, social common as process (the Antonio Negri (political scientist): Com- Public interview from 2009 with Massimo theorist): Rebel Cities: From the Right to decision making on how to monwealth (Cambridge, MA: Belknap the City to the Urban Revolution (Lon- De Angelis (economist) and Stavros act on this object). Te unity Press, 2009). Stravrides (architect): “Beyond Markets don: Verso, 2012). or States: Commoning as Collective of form and content is the Practice,” An Architektur 23 (2010). beauty of many actions under the sign of the commons.”

Lieven De Cauter (philosopher, art 13 historian): “Common Places. Teses on the commons,” available online at: http:// www.depressionera.gr/lieven-de-cauter- i, 2014 3) Spatial Principles of Commons: Comparing historical types HISTORICAL COMMON LANDS of commons—whether seen as community-organized economic In what follows‚ we will investigate forms or concrete spatial entities— four historical types of commons— demonstrates the relationship alp pastures‚ common pastures‚ between the social practice of fallow pastures‚ and village greens commoners and the formation (Alm‚ Hutweide‚ Vöde‚ and Anger in of space that results from it. German)—by using key criteria from The individual types distinguish the discourse as they relate to the themselves not only in their spatial following considerations: location relationships to settlement areas‚ within the resource space‚ rules but also in their use frequency and of ownership‚ historical form of the degree to which commoners cultivation‚ and contemporary use. identify with the common area. From this analysis‚ we can derive a series of spatial principles that are characteristic of the relationship between natural resource space‚ the common land‚ and parceled settlement area. These insights will help sharpen our focus as we proceed into the following section‚ a cartography of potential spatial commons within the urban fabric of Berlin.

14 Having emerged in the chronological order of alp The somewhat rarer example of a common pasture pasture‚ common pasture‚ fallow pasture‚ and village (Hutweide) differs in this respect. Because the common green‚ the examples investigated here can be interpreted pasture allows greater ease of access‚ both then and to- as stages in a line of development. In this developmental day‚ it can be used according to a more everyday rhythm‚ path‚ spatial positioning with regard to the settlement area linking it more closely to settlement space. Its peripheral exerts a strong infuence on the use of the commons‚ while location adjacent to felds‚ streams‚ or the edges of for- the interaction between the resource space‚ the group of ests fosters a very specifc form of use. The contemporary users‚ and the form of cultivation becomes increasingly use of the Hornbosteler Hutweide in Lower Saxony‚ for dense and complex. Seen in this light‚ this developmental example‚ which today is cultivated collectively as a private sequence can be characterized as a kind of urbanization of business‚ ties back to its traditional use through animal common lands. husbandry and small-scale farming. This contributes to While the location of the alp pasture (Alm)‚ in the a culture of remembrance‚ the dissemination of knowl- mountains far away from the village‚ necessitates the con- edge‚ the conservation of landscape‚ and the retention of struction of lodging for its seasonal operation‚ the com- cultural heritage. mon pasture’s (Hutweide) location on leftover agricultural In the example of the fallow pasture (Vöde)‚ the traces spaces‚ not far from the village‚ enables a use frequency of use have disappeared because of the administrative for people and animals on a daily or weekly basis. And complexity. The former Vöde areas‚ which were temporar- although the fallow pasture (Vöde)—a locally created form ily held in common by landless peasants‚ have gradually from the late Middle Ages amounting to a “moving” com- transformed from felds with changing crop-use areas to mons—is used similar to a common pasture‚ the fact that it freely accessible municipal property‚ like the Bochum City moves to different fallow felds each year means that the Park‚ and have thus become public space. village community has less identifcation with the actual The case of the village green (Anger)‚ of which many ex- common land. Finally‚ the village green (Anger)‚ the most amples are preserved‚ represents a fully developed‚ urban urban form of common land with its central location in type of open space that resulted from the broadening of the village‚ results in its own type of settlement—what was the main road connecting the village with its surround- called the Angerdorf (“village-green town”)‚ a widespread ings. Because village greens are public open spaces and model across central and eastern Europe up and into the form the center of the settlement‚ held in municipal care nineteenth century. and maintenance‚ no collective practices are necessary Even today‚ the spatial situation determines how the to maintain them in the present day. Nevertheless‚ the types of common land being examined are used. The contemporary form of the village green raises the question mountainous location of the alp pasture‚ for example‚ of how we handle our resources‚ not the least because of defnes the form of seasonal cultivation still seen today. Its its spatial qualities: the central location‚ spatial compact- contemporary social signifcance‚ where it’s considered as ness‚ pervious surface‚ and free accessibility make it a a seasonal site of retreat away from the cities‚ also derives comprehensible example of a ‘possibility space’ where the from the cycle of grazing‚ milk production‚ and cheese different interests of local residents can be negotiated manufacture designed to ensure a steady food supply jointly. throughout the winter. As a cultural commons‚ this space Today‚ hardly any of the open spaces that originally and its operation now function to preserve and reproduce served as common land are maintained as commons in a cultural landscape that is charged with ecological signif- the traditional sense. Instead‚ investigating how they’re cance and importance to the tourism economy. One could used today affrms the thesis formulated at the beginning: interpret the alp pasture’s social signifcance—seen as a the traditional spaces of commons have been dispersed space for retreat and remembrance—as an element that into both the public sphere (Vöde‚ Anger) and the private enhances to make it legible as a commons-like phenom- sphere (Alm‚ Hutweide). However‚ deeper research into enon today. the contemporary use of former common lands can help identify contemporary traces and future potential for commoning as a community-based practice for the production of urban space.

15 CONTEMPORARY USE CONTEMPORARY USE ALP PASTURE (ALM‚ > TRACES OF COMMONING COMMON PASTURES > TRACES OF COMMONING ALPE‚ ALB) TOURIST & CULTURAL (HUTWEIDE) TOURIST & CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE AS A PLACE REVIVAL RESOURCE RESOURCE OF RETREAT UNIVERSAL COMMONS‚ UNIVERSAL COMMONS‚ The Hornbosteler Hutweide in Lower Saxony‚ which was revitalized in 2009‚ In addition to its original economic “MOUNTAINS” “MEADOWS AND PASTURES” is partly grazed throughout the year by function‚ tourists began using the alp wild horses and Heck cattle in an effort meadow in the twenty-frst century. Alp pastures (Alm‚ plural Almen) As regulated livestock farming spread to protect nature and preserve the As a result‚ the meadows shifted from emerged in mountainous regions in across medieval Europe‚ common cultural landscape. Other aspects of its focusing exclusively on production three different foundational periods‚ pastures (Hutweide) emerged as grazing contemporary use include natural- to becoming cultural spaces with a at a steadily lower altitude and thus land for sheep‚ horses‚ cows‚ or goats. experience tourism‚ local recreation‚ holistic social relevance. Today‚ their diminishing distance from settlement To create common pastures‚ existing and hunting. The Hutweide operations‚ use and cultivation is no longer driven areas: (1) from 3000 B.C.–800 A.D.‚ overgrown forest was often pruned back held in community hands on land leased purely from economic considerations‚ emergence of “Uralmen” on high pla- slowly over time. from the state‚ specialize in conveying but instead takes into account natural‚ teaus or mountain pass crossings above information to visitors. The habitat for environmental‚ cultural‚ and social per- 1500 meters; (2) from 800–1500 A.D.‚ OWNERSHIP RULES AND COMMONERS uncommon animals and plant species is spectives. Tourism adds another form of alp meadows established at heights of maintained in its original form through use to the picture: the task of retaining TOLERATION AND around 1000–1400 meters; (3) from targeted livestock husbandry. As a and reproducing the alp meadow as 1500–1700 A.D.‚ emergence of alp APPROPRIATION nature preserve‚ it gives insights into the a landscape type. This brings a high meadows in alpine forest clearings at wildlife and ecosystem that would have potential for confict with existing uses; heights of around 600 meters. The earliest forms of common pastures‚ existed at the location some centuries the meadow’s location as an enclave‚ like other commons‚ were land held as prior. withdrawn from societal control‚ has private property by feudal lords‚ who turned into a collective symbol that is tolerated their use as commons. SPATIAL PRINCIPLE open to social projections. This discourse has gone beyond the alp meadow TRADITIONAL CULTIVATION “VILLAGE EXPANSION” and shifted to urban space—and the > COMMONING products of this discourse fnd spatial The term Hutweide‚ or common pasture‚ expression in alp meadows. MONOFUNCTIONAL is not encountered frequently today‚ SUBSISTENCE SUPPORT but lives on as a way to characterize a SPATIAL PRINCIPLE specifc form of land use—a pasture As designated pasture areas cultivated outside a village—and in numerous feld “SEASONAL RELOCATION” names across Germany. Looked over by OWNERSHIP RULES AND COMMONERS by the village community‚ common pastures served a monofunctional agri- a shepherd or individual villagers‚ INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY IN The most signifcant spatial feature of cultural purpose of helping the peasants livestock on the common pasture is the alp meadow is its elevation between involved meet their subsistence needs. tended on a daily basis. This daily rhythm COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP 600 to 2400 meters. The alp-meadow serves to strengthen the spatial economy is a three-stage process that is connection between the village and the The frst organizational form of alp also refected spatially. The frst level in common pasture outside. meadows were collective Markgenos- the valley contains the domestic farms‚ senschaften (historical cooperatives where one stays through the winter‚ as of villages or farmsteads with shared well as the lower meadows belonging law and markets). In the second and to it. The middle meadows‚ at around third foundational periods‚ however‚ 1000 meters‚ are used in the early and most alp pastures were established late summer‚ while the high meadows as settlements led by landlords. Thus from 1600 to 2000 meters are occupied four organizational forms developed during the peak of summer. If you see in tandem: community meadows with the alp meadow as a cultural space property rights and use rights (e.g.‚ used that has a holistic social relevance‚ as a Pasture lands used collectively‚ on a by an entire village or multiple individu- collective space it puts up no barriers to daily basis‚ located on leftover areas als); meadows owned by cooperatives; visiting and passing through. outside of the settlement space. private meadows; and tenancy meadows owned by the state or lords‚ with use rights limited to a specifc user group.

TRADITIONAL CULTIVATION > COMMONING MULTIFUNCTIONAL ENCLAVES

As mountainous regions for pasturing Pasture lands used collectively livestock during the summer‚ most alp on a seasonal basis‚ that serve as meadows are not cadastral areas with subspaces within the universal consistent land use‚ but instead entire resource “mountains‚” far away from landscapes that are cultivated season- populated areas. ally and sometimes also temporarily occupied. Depending on the extent of development‚ the alp meadow infrastructure (other than the pasture land) consists of buildings and stables‚ livestock shelters‚ fences‚ paths‚ freight elevators‚ troughs‚ as well as facilities for water and energy supply.

16 CONTEMPORARY USE CONTEMPORARY USE FALLOW PASTURES > TRACES OF COMMONING VILLAGE GREEN > TRACES OF COMMONING (VÖDE) “REGULATED INTERIM USE” (ANGER) RECREATION SPACE‚ IDENTIFIABLE “CENTER” RESOURCE The Vöde remained intact as an institu- RESOURCE tion until the mid-nineteenth century. Today‚ the village green usually forms TEMPORARY COMMONS‚ In the aftermath of industrialization‚ PARTICULAR COMMONS‚ a square or small park at the center of however‚ ever fewer livestock were “FALLOW LAND” “VILLAGE CENTER” town‚ without necessarily having any run on pastures. On the Vöde in the commercial or cultural signifcance. Vöden were lands with alternating ag- Bochum area‚ pasture operations The typology of the village green (Anger) were shut down in 1870. The majority ricultural use. For some years in a row‚ stretches back to the Germanic tribes‚ SPATIAL PRINCIPLE they were farmed using compulsory of the land fell into the hands of the understood as a square located in front crop rotation‚ and then left fallow for city‚ which created Bochum City Park‚ of or near a settlement‚ used primarily “ANGERDORF” the same amount of time (a process a cemetery‚ and a central prison in its for cultural purposes. While the increas- known as the open-feld system). While place—in other words‚ the city gave the ing density of settlements pushed the The Anger‚ or village green‚ a mostly the felds were fallow‚ landless peasants land over to public use. One can read village green toward the center of grass-covered area in the middle of the ran their livestock on them and used the present-day principle of “interim villages‚ during the medieval era it was settlement‚ is held in collective hands‚ them as pastureland‚ also called Hude. use” as a contemporary way of using consciously established in the village and thus part of the commons struc- Therefore‚ owning at least two Vöde resources on barren sites in a manner midpoint‚ where it shifted to being used ture. The space is usually surrounded on felds was a prerequisite for maintaining similar to the Vöde. Such forms of use as a central space for (agri-)culture both sides by a forking thoroughfare. As a continuous crop cultivation. Another are quite varied‚ ranging from tolerated within the village limits. common land‚ the village green is gener- characteristic feature of Vöden was that squats to trailer villages‚ all the way to ally unparceled. The word “Angerdorf” they were shared by multiple peasant community gardens or informal business OWNERSHIP RULES AND COMMONERS (“village-green town”) is therefore used communities. collectives. to characterize a type of village whose LIMITED USE RIGHTS main ordering element is a central and SPATIAL PRINCIPLE publically accessible village green. The “THE MOVING COMMONS” In medieval Europe‚ all settlers had Angerdorf has existed since the Middle basic rights to use the commons—which Ages as a purposefully planned form of included the village green‚ the woods‚ village settlement. Considering that the location of this bodies of water‚ and loam pits—even if commons changed annually to a new site these rights were sometimes restricted. in the landscape surrounding the village‚ This economic dependence on the we can assume that Vöde had a loose commons among commoners created spatial connection to the corresponding a simultaneous relationship of depen- villages. For this reason‚ it’s primarily dence upon each other‚ which made it the group of peasants‚ as a community essential that commons were protected of users‚ who generate the continuously OWNERSHIP RULES AND COMMONERS on a collective basis. The village green‚ evolving relationship between the village as a central and spatially defned unit‚ PRIVATIZATION AND and the collective pasture outside. Pasture‚ park‚ or buildable lands was therefore subjected to an unusual used collectively‚ serving as a central COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP degree of social control‚ which ensured infrastructural component of the its ongoing preservation as a limited settlement. When the Vöde’s form of cultivation resource. switched over to pasturing‚ so too did the ownership and use rights within it. Feudal lords controlled the use rights. In crop years‚ access was limited to the small group of farm owners. When used as a Hude (pasture)‚ in contrast‚ any citizen who owned livestock could Pasture lands used collectively‚ on have their animals graze the pasture. a daily basis‚ at different locations Owners‚ who couldn’t use the land while in between populated areas that it was being grazed‚ received fnancial change on a seasonal basis. compensation—during Hude times‚ they only paid half their property taxes. TRADITIONAL CULTIVATION TRADITIONAL CULTIVATION > COMMONING > COMMONING MULTIFUNCTIONAL MONOFUNCTIONAL CULTURAL PRACTICE SUBSISTENCE SUPPORT Among Germanic tribes‚ the Anger‚ For the populous class of poor livestock located on the village outskirts‚ was owners‚ the pasturelands of the Vöde distinguished by its cultural func- were essential for their daily subsis- tion as fairground‚ ritual ground‚ and tence. execution site. When the village green shifted to the town center‚ different sorts of institutions relevant to the 17 community could be located there. Traditionally‚ these institutions might include the parish hall‚ the bakehouse‚ the forge‚ the shepherds’ cottage‚ or the church—often including an attached sacristy and cemetery. As a result‚ villagers had a close relationship to the village green‚ which functioned to safeguard basic food provision through fsh storage and poultry enclosures‚ to accommodate the population in times of crisis‚ to shelter the sick‚ and to hold animals in preparation for slaughter. The village green was also used as a place to slaughter animals and wash laundry. 4) Categories of Open Spaces In what follows‚ we will consider for Contemporary and Future these urban open spaces— Commons: interpreted as smaller-scale SPECULATIVE CARTOGRAPHY IN extensions and thus segments BERLIN-KREUZBERG of the larger regional resource space—as possible urban commons. If one considers Berlin’s urban From this perspective‚ we will landscape as an infrastructural investigate their potential to fabric‚ what becomes visible is generate alternative‚ community- an open-access spatial system based practices of appropriation. composed of transportation routes connecting the city to its environment—rivers and canals‚ arterial roads‚ levees‚ railway lines‚ viaducts. As linear open spaces‚ these transit lines generate a spatial continuity between the parceled urban carpet of the city and the extensive regional resource space beyond it‚ composed of meadows‚ felds‚ lakes‚ and woods. Inside this infrastructural network‚ bulges‚ dead ends‚ and overlaps allow for the emergence of parks‚ squares‚ alleys‚ or bodies of water‚ but also give rise to undefned spaces in the urban fgure.

18 The Berlin district of Kreuzberg would seem predes- The area running along the Landwehr Canal‚ which tined for such an investigation. It’s a district character- crosses Kreuzberg from east to west‚ is a good candidate ized by a high level of diversity—in terms of both its built for a more in-depth spatial consideration. Here‚ connect- environment‚ thanks in part to severe rebuilding programs ed to the canal and the intersecting system of pathways implemented in the 1970s‚ and its socio-cultural environ- and parks running alongside it‚ one fnds a variety of spatial ment‚ due to its former location near the border between bulges that are well-suited for a speculative cartography East and West Berlin. Additionally‚ while Kreuzberg has of commons—not only because of their ambiguous‚ evolv- witnessed intense gentrifcation in recent years‚ it also ing character‚ but also because of their precarious status. features a population that has actively opposed this For example‚ the unfnished Flaschenhals Park alternates process. Within such a heterogeneous urban setting‚ we between an over-defned play area and a neglected‚ vacant were able to fnd substantive examples of collective ap- lot‚ appropriated in many different ways. The Dragoner- propriation as well as practices that can be interpreted as Areal‚ a state-owned former military barracks used by commoning. small local companies and cultural projects on a seemingly For example‚ since 2012‚ in the southern area of the semi-legal basis‚ has become an object of resistance for public junction at Kottbusser Tor‚ there is located a in- urban-political initiatives fghting against speculators and formal space for protest‚ events‚ and discussions. Called the attempted sale of the site by the Federal Agency for “Gecekondu” (1) (built overnight in Turkish)‚ the space is Real Estate Management (Bundesanstalt für Immobilien- operated collectively by the tenants’ initiative Kotti & Co‚ aufgaben‚ or BImA). Further up the canal‚ Mehringplatz is functioning as an enclave within the public space‚ con- undergoing a municipality-driven enhancement treatment‚ structed outside of any offcial authorization process. Urbanhafen‚ a popular recreation area‚ is being partially Not far from here‚ the southern area of Oranienplatz was privatized‚ Wassertorplatz has mostly deteriorated into used by refugees and activists as an informal residence a pass-through area‚ and Kottbusser Tor is both a busy‚ and protest camp (2) with no legal status from 2012 to complex transit hub and a cultural and local-business cen- 2014. This occupation excluded the site temporarily from ter for wide-ranging segments of the population—a setting the public sphere until the camp was evicted by police‚ for regular manifestations‚ a heavy police presence‚ and despite widespread public protest. Many other alternative- nightlife tourism. These six locations form the foundation living projects in Berlin can be interpreted as something of our cartographic analysis: what spatial qualities encour- akin to commons‚ including the Lohmühle trailer camp age commoning-like practices‚ and how do these prac- on the former frontier zone between East and West‚ the tices‚ in turn‚ impact the existing urban spaces? spontaneous settlement on a vacant lot on the River Spree Through interpretive cartographies of these six loca- called Cuvry-Brache‚ and various cooperative housing and tions‚ traces of contemporary commons-like use of open cultural initiatives like the Haus der Statistik‚ begun in late spaces were precisely located‚ mapped‚ and described. 2015 as a project focusing on common welfare and social Using graphic and written accounts‚ these open-space ar- issues for refugees‚ artists‚ and creatives in the Mitte dis- eas were analyzed according to the following main criteria: trict. Lastly‚ Berlin as a whole—and Kreuzberg in particu- their spatial qualities (for example their texture or surface lar—features many community gardens like the Allmende- condition)‚ ownership status‚ and thereby their accessibil- Kontor (3) on Tempelhofer Feld‚ which now‚ since being ity and degree of demarcation; the groups that are active founded in 2011‚ has 500 members tending the gardens at the location‚ evaluated on the basis of activity patterns‚ and is legally protected by an interim-use contract leased practices‚ or traces of use; and estimations concern- in the form of a lump sum‚ as well as the Prinzessinnen- ing use frequency‚ collective-choice arrangements‚ and garten (4)‚ a mobile urban farm on a vacant lot next to potential yields. Criteria that might speak against the site Moritzplatz founded in 2009‚ or the Interkulturelle Garten being interpreted as a commons or the practice being Rosenduft (5)‚ founded in 2006 and enclosed inside the interpreted as commoning were also taken into account. Gleisdreieck Park complex that was built shortly after. Building on this analysis and the investigated examples‚ we made a speculative projection into the future‚ not only in an effort to rethink what already exists‚ but in service of identifying new spatial reserves‚ making legible new forms of commons and new practices for possible commoning. Therefore‚ the cartographic descriptions target both the contemporary and future conditions for spatial commons.

19 MAPPINGS IN BERLIN-KREUZBERG

Erkelenzdamm

Friedrichstraße

MEHRINGPLATZ Segitzdamm ICE-Linie 28 Prinzenstraße * see insert MAP SC 2.3 U1 Gitschiner Straße

Landwehrkanal

DRAGONER-AREAL

Kottbusser Damm

(5) FLASCHENHALSPARK

Mehringdamm Erkelenzdamm Friedrichstraße (4)

(2)

SegitzdammKOTTBUSSER TOR

ICE-Linie 28 Prinzenstraße

U1 WASSERTORPLATZ Gitschiner Straße

(1) URBANHAFEN * see insert MAP SC 2.4 Landwehrkanal

Kottbusser Damm

Mehringdamm

(3) Put in concrete terms‚ we can divide the open spaces 1) The central areas of the open spaces under inves- found in the investigated areas into four different spatial tigation—usually planned as a clear form or “object” (De categories. These categories differ in relation to the fol- Cauter)—represent a publicly available cultural good lowing criteria: the spatial qualities of the resource; the functioning as a location-bound spatial commons that‚ in legal status of the space being used; the size of the com- principle‚ is accessible to everyone. These spaces form a moner community; the use frequency of the location; the center‚ a midpoint‚ that serves to strengthen local identif- collective-choice arrangements used by commoners as cation while maintaining supra-local ties to the entire city. well as resource owners; and the yield created by using the The quality that especially defnes this category of “public space collectively. Properly speaking‚ none of the spaces urban space” is the presence of a vacancy or gap in the and practices identifed can be classifed as commons in built environment‚ a void that offers space for spontane- the full sense of the term. Nevertheless‚ describing the ous gatherings‚ broader social interpretations‚ or various practices observed‚ and comparing these to historical forms of temporary use. types‚ makes the urban spaces legible in terms of their Examples of this category include the circular plaza at potential for collective creation and reproduction by com- Mehringplatz‚ the diamond-shaped basin at Urbanhafen moners. Therefore‚ in what follows‚ four types of spatial surrounded by waterside meadows‚ or the open octagon commons will be associated with the four categories of of Kottbusser Tor. open spaces. 2) The spatial category of nomadic spatial commons is constituted by temporary occupations within central or peripheral open-space areas. As a form of “particular commons” (De Cauter)‚ this is the most unstable and informal category. These commons are constantly varying in their extent and position‚ and‚ in contrast to location- bound commons‚ are always being formulated afresh by a few users‚ on a daily and above all seasonal basis. Examples of this category include non-formalized‚ (ir)- regular spatial occupations of U-Bahn entrances‚ groups of trees‚ or park benches‚ as well as more conventionalized appropriations of green spaces for recreational purposes. 3) In transition zones of residential areas or the areas peripheral to infrastructure‚ small groups make temporary claims. Appropriating these ambiguous spaces with a more clear objective in mind than the users of nomadic commons‚ they establish a relationship between the site and their own place of residence nearby. These self-organized or municipally initiated groups operate small community projects that are commons-like in nature‚ consciously pursuing material or immaterial gains and undertaking activities collectively that serve purposes like gardening‚ cultural exchange‚ or the exchange of knowledge. This spatial category could be characterized as neighborly spatial commons and is usually connected to a location-bound commons‚ is more regulated and traditional‚ and can be expanded more easily to private spatial reserves. Some examples of this are the gardens found on the outer sections of the circle at Mehringplatz and on its public ground-foor areas‚ or the fower beds planted and maintained by neighborhood residents on a public median west of Urbanhafen.

22 4) The fourth category‚ which lies outside the feld of view and only becomes evident at second or third glance‚ is referred to as exterritorial spatial commons. Such commons are potentially possible in the future but remain hitherto inaccessible. Similar to a thicket in an unexplored wood or the swampy meadow of a stream bed‚ these commons have the capacity to be discovered and made accessible. On one hand‚ these kinds of potential spaces— vacant lots‚ surplus spaces‚ unused or forgotten areas—can emerge as extensions of location-bound spatial commons. Yet in a completely opposite way‚ exterritorial commons could also be produced by reshaping spatial reserves that are over-determined‚ highly organized‚ or overused‚ and face enclosure or privatization. What ties the two poles 23 together‚ regardless of the degree to which the spaces are already predefned or used‚ is that a space’s current status as public or private is undergoing a challenge. In being challenged‚ it becomes available for collective appropriation by many‚ or even almost everyone. Examples of a space that is underused and under-determined‚ and thus open to being imagined as an exterritorial commons‚ would be the partly neglected frst- foor zones of the circular plaza on Mehringplatz‚ or the parking lot behind‚ owned by the housing association. An example of overuse or overextension on the part of local authorities forced into austerity might be the Prinzenbad at Urbanhafen‚ a public pool threatened by privatization—a fate to which the hospital across the water was consigned in 2012—and which could possibly be rediscovered as a particular commons. These two examples‚ both offered on a speculative basis‚ differ fundamentally in their possibilities and the demands they place on potential commoner communities. A fexible parking-garage structure‚ for instance‚ might allow for a wide variety of uses‚ at different regularities‚ with little investment—think of the parking garage atop the Neukölln Arkaden shopping mall‚ which was turned into a bar and garden a few years back—whereas a public swimming pool is composed of multiple types of spatial‚ technical‚ and natural resources‚ each of which must be maintained individually by quite different nested communities (Ostrom)‚ which would likely lead to a fundamentally different sort of use for the pool. This still somewhat rough classifcation of spatial commons into location-bound‚ nomadic‚ neighborly‚ and exterritorial commons is meant to bolster the “double- pronged” call (Harvey) for forceful municipal protection of universal resource spaces and the exhortation to collectively claim‚ on a daily basis‚ particular urban subspaces. Many kinds of space are at risk here. By depicting them‚ we hope to enable the reader to carry over the cartographic interpretation together with the components of the commons defnition (including its contradictions) and the abstract historical spatial analysis to form an independent‚ if also somewhat blurry‚ overall perspective—a perspective that makes it possible to imagine a wholly different‚ com- munitized handling of urban space. FOUR SPATIAL 1) LOCATION-BOUND 2) NOMADIC SPATIAL P: allowing temporary SPATIAL COMMONS (similar COMMONS (similar to fallow interventions in the public CATEGORIES OF to village greens) pastures) sphere; enabling temporal COMMONS interventions‚ occupa- Q: central area of the open Q: variable subspace of the tions‚ cultivations while space‚ usually has supra- central open space; pro- simultaneously preventing IDENTIFICATION local signif cance tected from sight and wind; preferential treatment for CRITERIA: often furnished‚ illuminat- individual groups of people; S: municipal property; pub- ed‚ or landscaped establishing new forms of lic space temporary architecture like Q: SPATIAL QUALITIES S: non-formalized appro- gecekondus‚ camps‚ and C: open to all; indirect re- priation of public space‚ trailers as an urban tool S: STATUS lationship to place of resi- seldom tolerated by own- for mobile participation dence; spatial dimension of ers; can result in temporary in urban space—which‚ in C: COMMONER COMMUNITY the resource exceeds the demarcation‚ contamina- successful cases‚ take root concrete number of users tion‚ or beautif cation of permanently U: USE FREQUENCY the subspace; nevertheless U: irregular‚ seasonal‚ de- publically accessible A: COLLETIVE-CHOICE AR- pendent on weather RANGEMENTS C: few users; usually an A: municipally adminis- indirect relationship to Y: YIELDS trated‚ legally protected place of residence; variable and if necessary controlled‚ number of users directly X: CRITERIA THAT RESTRICT conventionalized use def nes the extent of the COMMONING community space Y: immaterial cultural good‚ DESIGN CRITERIA: recreational use; social U: short-term‚ irregular‚ participation in public life‚ seasonal‚ dependent on P: POTENTIAL HANDLING a place for gathering and weather protesting A: circumventing regula- X: formality; reliance on tions for public space‚ sub- 24 state authority and control versive‚ unconventional

P: enhancing the legibility Y: immaterial; social subsis- and experience of open tence‚ cultural practice in spaces as a form; adjusting the broadest sense form to (match) content for better usability; enabling X: involves little care or temporary appropriation of maintenance‚ seldom subspaces for specif c types responsible handling‚ little of commons by investing coordination suff ciently in the spatial resource and its protection; def ning‚ spatially and legally‚ the peripheral zones and possible expansion areas of the central open space 3) NEIGHBORLY SPATIAL P: continuing to develop 4) EXTERRITORIAL NEW P: developing new forms COMMONS (similar to com- existing regulations like SPATIAL COMMONS (similar of commons‚ even (common pastures) special-use contracts‚ to summer alp pastures) mons that are) independent hereditary leases‚ etc. to of central open spaces; Q: peripheral and transition simplify commoning for or- Q: underused or over-used strengthening the di- areas from central open ganized groups; legally and spatial reserves—whether rect relationship to place space to surrounding built spatially def ning the transi- vacant lots‚ vacant build- of residence‚ enabling environment; ambiguous or tion areas between central ings‚ or municipal institu- an indirect relation- specif c spatial zones open space and surround- tions; spatial relationship ship; complementing the ing built environment; to a central open space is network of existing open S: (seldom) formalized preventing the privatization possible but not necessary spaces by bringing in new appropriation of public of spatial reserves that have common land; integrating or private space; mostly an urban signif cance‚ and/ S: appropriation of mu- social‚ political‚ economic‚ tolerated by municipal or or gradually municipalizing nicipal or private/corporate and ecological factors into private/corporate owners; these reserves property; the aspiration to spatial design; formulating demarcation obvious or preserve accessibility organizational fundamentals necessary for self-empowered‚ self- C: many users or‚ even initiated‚ community-based C: some users; usually a better‚ everyone; high and spatial production as “invis- direct relationship to place f exible number of users ible” strategic designs for of residence; a steadier with highly varying levels of spatial commons; gradually number of users indirectly individual investment developing potential com- def ne the subspace’s ex- mons into visible‚ formally tent on the basis of its use U: open legible‚ and inherently balanced spatial systems of U: relatively stable and A: very open when little temporally anchored spatial longer-term infrastructure is involved‚ commons very nuanced for more A: goal-driven‚ legally le- complex infrastructure gitimated where necessary; resource- and/or context- Y: material and immaterial bound goods; yields can be social‚ cultural‚ natural‚ or differ- Y: material and immaterial ently construed; goods and goods; yields can be social‚ yields range from care and cultural‚ natural‚ spatial‚ preservation of a neigh- or differently construed; borhood to subsistence 25 goods and yields range from provision; enshrines the care and preservation of cultural practice of creat- a neighborhood to subsis- ing‚ preserving‚ and caring tence provision for common goods

X: threatened by formaliza- X: pressure to formalize or tion or commercialization; commercialize because of can lack care and respon- heavy investment; unproven sible handling; too little nature of legal regulations collective choice for protecting the resource CARTOGRAPHY AND PROJECTION FLASCHENHALS PARK DRAGONER-AREAL MAP SC 2.1 MAP SC 2.2

Interpretations and speculations based on the works of Tobias INTERPRETATION INTERPRETATION Birkefeld‚ Carlo Costabel‚ Claudia Fraust‚ Paul Klever‚ Steffen Klotz‚ This section of Gleisdreieck Park‚ the Apart from two entrances‚ this Martin Morsbach‚ Peter Müller‚ Lukas Pappert‚ Caroline Pfetzer‚ newest‚ is dominated by old train rails pentagon-shaped site (1) is enclosed Franziska Polleter‚ Simone Prill‚ Jens Schulze‚ and Hang Yuan. and what is called the “Gleiswildnis” by the built environment‚ making it (railway wilderness)‚ where native diff cult to see inside—although‚ as vegetation and pioneer woodlands have federal property‚ it is freely accessible. reconquered the space. As the park The landmark-protected buildings of grows narrower‚ at Monumentenbrücke this former military barracks amount (monument bridge)‚ three pathways to a cultural or universal commons‚ yet merge together. These designed and the majority are empty‚ dilapidated‚ or thus “externally determined” pathway barred up‚ and thus inaccessible. Traces zones are defned clearly‚ and have been of political demonstrations and placards conceived to accommodate heavy use. testify to the public’s interest in the site In contrast‚ signs caution against and its importance as a contested living entering the Gleiswildnis to the side of environment for the neighborhood. Ex- the paved pathways. The clear contrast amples of informal appropriation of the between the wild‚ overgrown “surplus formally public space—of it being used spaces” and the highly organized “park as a “particular commons”—range from spaces” is noteworthy considering the small businesses that have expanded hazy boundaries. Most users pass across the entire open areas in front through the triangle-shaped park (1) on of their car garages (2) to a stonema- the bicycle path‚ without leaving much son’s workshop that stores material trace of use. A second group of users in between two brick halls. The site’s tarries a little longer on the established resource spaces are used as work and pathways‚ paved surfaces‚ or protected recreation spaces alongside the equally sections of railway track and uses the informal businesses that operate there. athletic courts and playgrounds set up Outdoor grills used by the tradesmen there‚ which generates wear and tear as lay amidst the wreckage of tires and well as maintenance costs. A third group car parts. of users‚ in contrast‚ appropriates the wild‚ overgrown‚ uncontrolled‚ partly SPECULATION fenced-in‚ and predominantly The already extant traces of common- hidden-from-view Gleiswildnis (2). This ing could be fortif ed and expanded. latter community pursues a wide variety For example‚ the shared spaces of the of activities in the secluded areas‚ workshops could be better organized seeming to follow a shared code. and maintained by making greater Firepits‚ beaten paths‚ tire tracks‚ and concessions to users. Indicating more graffti are some of the traces or clearly that the entrances are open products of this codifed use. One tent would serve to activate the vacant indicates longer-term occupation. areas—which would also become open to neighborhood activities—and revive SPECULATION the empty landmark-protected build- In being redesigned and opened as a ings (3). However‚ any conceivable use park‚ the former vacant zone has been of the space organized on a neighbor- given new signif cance as an urban com- hood basis‚ from interaction with the mons for a wide spectrum of potential surrounding residential developments to commoners. When projecting into the the establishment of collective housing‚ future‚ of interest would be the negotia- would necessitate a clear commitment tions between different groups of users‚ from the public owners not to privatize who don’t currently practice particular this valuable cultural good—a com- care or maintenance. Some possible mitment on the part of authorities to approaches to using the open space respectfully develop the asset together more cooperatively‚ while maintaining with residents and users. the Gleiswildnis as a cultural space and natural space‚ might be to make collective decisions about the un-integrated spatial resources near the fenced-in railway yard beside the old residential development (3)‚ or on Monumenten- brücke directly in front of the new (4) residential area (4). (3)

(2)

(3) (1) (2)

(1)

(4) MEHRINGPLATZ URBANHAFEN WASSERTORPLATZ KOTTBUSSER TOR MAP SC 2.3 *see insert MAP SC 2.4 *see insert MAP SC 2.5 MAP SC 2.6

INTERPRETATION INTERPRETATION INTERPRETATION INTERPRETATION Once a thriving‚ prestigious urban plaza‚ The landscaped area along the Urban- Wassertorplatz is divided in two by Ska- The spatial f gure that distinguishes the circle (1) with the Friedenssäule hafen (1)‚ which features an embank- litzer Strasse and the elevated U-Bahn Kottbusser Tor is a broken-open (peace column) remains a spatial f gure ment area and a body of water‚ can be line that runs along it‚ which severely octagon (1) that frames the area of the with identif cation value and symbolic described as a universal commons. Here‚ diminishes its legibility as an oval plaza plaza‚ where six streets f ow into a traf- value. The historical and political dis- the site’s spatial qualities and public (1). Yet at the same time‚ because of f c circle with an elevated subway line course that is tangible at the site must status make permanent appropriation its planning history as a part of Luisen- cutting across diagonally. Its historical‚ be incorporated into any consideration diff cult‚ privileging more spontaneous‚ vorstadt (a historical district of Berlin) cultural‚ and political signif cance‚ in of the plaza as an urban commons. The ad-hoc uses. and its former connection to the Land- addition to its supra-local embedded- group using such a commons is the The wildf ower meadow on Baerwald- wehr Canal‚ it has major signif cance to ness‚ contribute to its classif cation as a whole of society; its product is discur- strasse (2) is an urban sanctuary for the historical landscaping of Berlin. The universal commons. sive commoning. plants and animals in the local system architecture of the bourgeois residen- In its numerous niches‚ transition zones‚ The niches and protected spaces (2) of green space. Within the investi- tial development surrounding it attests underground and overground subway on the roundabout‚ however‚ have gated area‚ this biotope evinces certain to this‚ conf rming its place as a cultural entrances‚ as well as the open-access been appropriated and marked out by commons-like tendencies‚ as it meets commons. Yet the most noticeable use ground f oor and f rst-upper-story of users who are displaced from other many criteria of self-management. of the open space is for parking: under the surrounding housing development locations. This group of users depends Additionally‚ the Statthaus (3) in Böckler the cover of the elevated subway track‚ (2)‚ there are countless forms of sponta- on public resources with easy access Park is run collaboratively as an institu- along the median‚ and even on the neous and coordinated appropria- and places to congregate. Similar tion for cultural and social exchange for pathways that spread across the south- tion‚ undertaken by the most varying spaces can be found in the green areas‚ children and teens. As an enclave within east section of the plaza (2)‚ the public group of users imaginable‚ taking place protected passageways‚ and mezzanines the park‚ it amounts to a social refuge space has been turned into an informal simultaneously. These range from drug of U-Bahn stations‚ between which that escapes any clear designation as parking lot. traff cking to informal gastronomy‚ to the user group migrates depending on public or private. The only signs of use that remotely urban-policy protests‚ all the way to the time of year—which can be read resemble commoning are groups of collective artistic interventions. The as a form of seasonal commoning. The SPECULATION skaters who hang around the southern most important commoner community residents of the complex’s inner ring‚ in The Prinzenbad swimming pool (4) is segments of the octagonal concrete is clearly the tenants’ association Kotti contrast‚ use the plant-beds and green composed of different resource areas: area (3). The heavy overgrowth around & Co‚ who built and operate a protest patches on the circle’s periphery (3) landscaped space (a sunbathing lawn the plaza indicates very little use. Few structure in the form of a “Gecekondu” as “their” front gardens‚ activated on a and athletic felds)‚ infrastructure (the of the front gardens along the walking (3) on the southern section of the seasonal basis‚ and take a cautious hand swimming pool and its technical paths are used for any purpose; simi- plaza. Installed close to the residential in designing the spaces by setting up services)‚ and provision (a cafeteria and larly‚ a triangle-shaped group of seats buildings‚ the Gecekondu serves as a birdhouses‚ for example. Some of the kiosk). Public pools are a central feature sees only sporadic use. base of operations‚ from which different rented-out interior and exterior spaces of basic social provision‚ yet they’re subspaces of the plaza-shaped traff c of the outer ring (4) are being activated increasingly being divested from SPECULATION junction are continually being used for by incorporating the residents. The municipal hands and privatized. A Besides partially restoring the area as different events with the participation latter‚ municipally initiated projects (partially) user-operated Prinzenbad an urban asset‚ two areas in particular of other users from the site. raise the question of how successful a would unite residents‚ operators‚ and its could play a central role: the built neighborhood garden can be if its com- user base‚ leading to a new identifca- perimeter around the site features SPECULATION moning process is prescribed‚ leaving tion with the pool. In a future different forecourts that face the plaza Kottbusser Tor is surrounded by mul- little room for self-determination by Prinzenbad commons‚ municipal (3). These could be used as community tiple spatial reserves that haven’t been effectively necessitating membership in management could be paired with user crossover zones‚ similar to the strategy exploited. In addition to the diff cult- the administrative organization. administration to protect the resource seen in the informal appropriation of to-use areas underneath the elevated space while activating processes of the pathways as parking spots. subway line‚ and the surplus spaces that SPECULATION co-production. Depending on the Additionally‚ there is an unused but open up in the second row behind the A form of open commoning would en- complexity of the subspace‚ clearly demarcated green area (4) frontmost residential buildings‚ it’s pri- able the protected niches within the different-sized communities could be between the plaza and the street that marily the two-story pavilion buildings public space to continue being used offered the opportunity to appropriate could be appropriated as a new spatial in the northeast section of Kottbusser on a short-term basis for a variety of the space for short-term or long-term reserve‚ perhaps instigated by social Tor (4) that stitch together the plaza‚ purposes. Organized commoning‚ on initiatives—even outside summer initiatives in the neighborhood. the arcade passages‚ the f rst-upper- the other hand‚ could take place in the months. stories‚ and the residential buildings— communicative ground-f oor zones of Böckler Park (5)‚ in contrast‚ is yet these pavilion buildings are diff cult the buildings‚ which would have a re- confronted with an excess of use and a to access‚ lacking visible entrances and inforcing impact on the exterior street dearth of maintenance. Local are often closed off. Activating the space. More straightforward self-em- authorities and visitors alike have failed (4) connective spatial network through powerment on the part of commoners to take responsibility for the site‚ community uses might help transform toward local authorities and businesses leading to neglect. The park’s spatial the fragmented and neglected spatial would be an essential prerequisite for system also includes the meadow and gaps into usable in-between zones. Both this. Lastly‚ universal commoning would playgrounds of the adjoining housing (3) (2) the neighborhood inhabitants and local happen through practices and actions estate (6). One approach might be to businesses could prof t from the vacant with supra-local reach taking place on involve a select public in caring for the spaces‚ which are presumably in private the large open spaces. This vision for site and generating yields from the hands‚ being opened up‚ or the empty (1) future commons would involve all three gardens or recreational areas‚ thus areas‚ which are presumably public‚ forms of commoning coinciding at the transforming Böckler Park into receiving new def nition. same place. user-administrated subspaces‚ i.e. The underutilized parking garages (5) urban commons. At the same time‚ it owned by the housing association could would be necessary for the spaces to offer new spatial reserves for this pur- remain open to the general public‚ as an pose‚ where the various forms of com- invitation for others to participate. 27 (2) (4) moning could be tested out over time. Questions about handling the yields and using these resources‚ as well as installing protections against commodifcation‚ would need to be (3) (1) resolved through concerted negotiations with the municipality. (5) (4)

(1) (5) (6) (2) (3) (3) (4)

(2) (1) 5) Conditions for Spatial Commons: The description of four spatial categories in the pre- ceding chapter—location-bound‚ nomadic‚ neighborly‚ RECOGNIZING AND DESIGNING THE and exterritorial—dealt with different forms of collective use of open spaces; these forms draw on the respec- “THIRD SPACE” tive spatial qualities of a site. These spatial qualities can be described using parameters such as density‚ porosity‚ ambiguousness‚ relationship to built environment‚ stability‚ Spatial commons are not a “given”; fexibility‚ and positioning within the overall system of the city. Such a qualitative description serves to establish dif- rather‚ they’re a hidden potential ferent zones within the continuity of urban open spaces‚ that can be activated for a certain to which different forms of collective use are best suited. How then can planning function to bolster these spaces‚ to period of time. They need to be help them emerge‚ and above all to keep from destroying created‚ protected‚ and preserved them? The actual act of transforming open spaces into a “third through a complex community space‚” which is neither public nor private‚ can only be decided upon and carried out by commoners themselves. process involving immaterial‚ Nevertheless‚ certain spatial qualities can be formulated material‚ human‚ and non-human as conditions that an existing or future urban space must fulfll in order to support commoning. In the reciprocal actors. This process organizes itself relationship between spatial conditions and the collective using‚ caring for‚ and preserving of those spaces‚ planning in space. And beyond how this and design institutions must certainly be dependent on the space is managed and coordinated‚ potential community of users—yet such institutions may also advocate on their behalf. To overcome the challenges it’s the particular quality‚ the facing cities of the future‚ preparing fertile ground for commoning is an important feld of action. A more spatially properties of this space‚ that astute concept of commons is a highly relevant model either enable commoning or thwart in a world increasingly confronted by resource scarcity‚ the capitalization of many areas of life‚ segregation‚ and it. This turns space itself into an cultural diversifcation. It’s important‚ therefore‚ that the essential participant in commoning. urban commons be established as a type and component of the city. The “third space” must become part of the expertise of urban planners and designers. A unique feature of spatial commons is how available spaces and resources are collectively activated‚ temporarily translated into a third‚ heterotopic condition. This enables individuals to meet their own needs as amicably as possible through a process of ongoing negotiation with the needs of others. In this social process‚ space can take on not only the role of a “container‚” but that of a “mediator”—as Bruno Latour demands of objects in his actor–network theory—which‚ in interacting with other non-spatial and non-human components‚ “makes some- one do something” and thereby facilitates new connec- tions (Latour 2007). Space‚ for example‚ can “authorize‚ allow‚ afford‚ encourage‚ permit‚ suggest‚ infuence‚ block‚ render possible‚ forbid‚ and so on.” The commons’ quality of putting space‚ action‚ and community into relationships 28 with each other is enormously relevant for the disciplines of urban planning and spatial design‚ as well as for political theory‚ economics‚ or sociology. Commons can make an essential contribution toward equipping urban residents with prospects for action despite all the obstacles of the urbanization process. The importance of commons is confrmed when tested What also becomes clear in discussing concrete ex- against two extreme scenarios: One scenario of a dystopi- amples—in addition to the ‘possibility spaces’ and changes an future‚ where deregulation has been carried out to the in perspective that might help the commons concept be maximum degree and every facet of life has been commer- applied productively—is the potential for confict entailed cialized‚ and another scenario of a utopian future‚ where by the idea of communitization. The commons principle all resources are regulated and secured commonly on a is a challenge on the level of politics and organization‚ as transcontinental level. In both scenarios‚ commons be- well as planning and design. To some extent‚ the broad feld come a central form of organization and means of design: of possibilities for designing and organizing the commons in the frst scenario‚ they’re the sole remaining crisis-man- can be gleaned from the two future scenarios described agement strategy left to the precarious and those without above. In both of these‚ the commons is understood as an means for ensuring their livelihood; in the latter scenario‚ intuitive action-based principle‚ one that organizes the co- they’re a spontaneously widespread‚ self-evident cultural existence of people—but to the same degree‚ it’s also un- practice for collective use of the secured resources. In derstood as a spatial strategy in the fght for survival under the case of the crisis-management scenario‚ however‚ it’s political and climatic conditions that continue to worsen. worth critically evaluating whether commons intrinsically Commons serve to integrate and delimit at the same time; function to resist the capitalization of all common goods‚ they’re based on freedom of choice and the need for pro- or rather might ultimately be instrumentalized as an inte- tection; they’re resource-bound yet entirely dependent gral and deliberately tolerated feature of neoliberal policy. on the particular capacities of the commoner community. Similarly‚ in the case of commons as cultural practice‚ it’s In both the public and private sphere‚ a superordinate worth questioning whether collective practices would ac- state power—or better yet‚ a power with transcontinen- tually be carried out jointly by all members of the commu- tal legitimacy—which protects resources against damage‚ nity—or whether they even should be. Regardless‚ in view encroachment‚ and disproportionate individual interests‚ of the need to responsibly handle resources‚ the “ongoing” remains a central premise of the commons experiment. (Linebaugh) spread of commons should be supported. Yet‚ as has been mentioned before‚ applying the commons Moreover‚ commons facilitate a more diverse organiza- principle becomes increasingly diffcult for commoner tion and preservation of open spaces‚ both material and communities of overlapping scales and varying sizes. It’s immaterial; through collective action‚ existing open spaces precisely here that the spatial experiment must begin. must be protected and maintained as commons‚ and new Only through repeated concrete attempts can the fragility open spaces must be conquered and established as com- of commoning be tested. In doing so‚ space presents itself mon goods (Harvey). not only as a preexisting structure‚ but most importantly as a factor that can be designed. In order to condition open spaces as possible spatial commons‚ therefore‚ we must work critically on the possibilities for infuencing the space-formation process. The questions that result‚ similar to commons themselves‚ require a broad basis of collaboration and a connection to research and practical knowledge‚ so that answering them contributes to a better understanding of the community possibilities contained in the commons principle. Only through transdisciplinary discourse can we develop spatial concepts for coexisting‚ networked spatial commons.

29 To understand the rules that govern different communities—whether associations‚ cooperatives‚ activist coali- tions‚ or other cultural circles—or even to ask fundamental questions about alternative forms of regulating ownership‚ it is necessary to gather insights from disciplines such as law‚ history‚ and economics. It’s also indispensable to incorporate the sociological perspective for decipher- ing the interplay between space and action (Löw 2001) in greater detail. Moving forward from this‚ commons at levels of scale like built structures could be investigated as collective practices similar to dwelling and working‚ for example‚ opening a perspective onto architectural space as a connective link. Furthermore‚ the increased signifcance of an action- based concept of space in rural‚ urban‚ and architectural settings could be given added impetus by incorporating positions from cultural studies‚ psychology‚ or philosophy‚ contributing to a more precise understanding of the spatial commons as a third space‚ with its own spatio-temporal qualities. Especially in a Europe undergoing immense change‚ new methods of planning and design for urban development and redevelopment must be conceived‚ applied‚ and tested with a clear emphasis on practice. In particular‚ we need solutions for handling the open spaces in large late-modernist housing estates and newer estates inside or on the peripheries of growing cities—solutions dedicated to retaining or reinterpreting neighboring spaces. Today‚ commons often remain a promise‚ an ideal‚ or even worse a rhetorical fgure in political discourse. But the spatial commons‚ the third space between public and private‚ puts such lip service to the test. Embedded in the physical and socioeconomic reality of the urban‚ spatial commons are the litmus test for whether members of our society are ready and able to handle our environment in a way that is more respectful and socially just.

30 BIBLIOGRAPHY INTERNET SOURCES

Bruno Latour. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Holger Schatz. “Die Debatte um Commons und Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press‚ Gemeingüter.” http://www.denknetz-online.ch/content/ 2005. infobrief-14. Accessed on September 25‚ 2014.

Silvia Federici. Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body Lieven De Cauter. “Common Places: Preliminary and Primitive Accumulation. New York: Autonomedia‚ 2004. Notes on the (Spatial) Commons.” http://community. dewereldmorgen.be/blogs/lievendecauter/2013/10/14/ Elinor Ostrom. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of common-places-preliminary-notes-spatial-commons. Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge Accessed on January 8‚ 2016. University Press‚ 1990. Lieven De Cauter. “Common Places. Theses Garrett Hardin. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162 on the commons.” http://www.depressionera. (1968): 1243–48. gr/228010/3373977/texts/lieven-de-cauter-i. Accessed on November 27‚ 2014. Peter Linebaugh. The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons for All. Berkeley: University of California Press‚ IMAGE SOURCES 2008. All photographs and depictions in this publication were Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. Commonwealth. created by the authors‚ with the exception of the fgures Cambridge‚ MA: Belknap Press‚ 2009. listed below:

Massimo De Angelis and Stavros Stravrides. Public interview‚ P. 16‚ summer alp pasture: “Arzler Alm um 1910‚” 2009. “On the Commons. Beyond Markets or States: http://www.sagen.at/fotos/showphoto.php/photo/52733. Commoning as Collective Practice.” An Architektur 23 Accessed on February 15‚ 2016. Photograph: Kunstverlag (2010). Leo Stainer‚ Innsbruck‚ Nr. 200‚ © Bildarchiv SAGEN.at

David Harvey. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the P. 16‚ common pasture: “Schafherde bei Tauernfeld 1956‚” Urban Revolution. London: Verso‚ 2012. http://www.deining.de/kultur/geschichte-u-infos/serie- aus-dem-archiv-geplaudert.html. Accessed on February 15‚ Martina Löw. Raumsoziologie. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp 2016. Gemeindearchiv Deining‚ Schulchronik Tauernfeld. Verlag‚ 2001. P. 17‚ fallow pasture: “Stadtpark Bochum‚ Parkhaus‚ 1905‚” http://www.route-industriekultur.ruhr/themenrouten/29- bochum/stadtpark-bochum.html. Accessed on February 15‚ 2016. Sammlung Dr. Dietmar Bleidick.

P. 17‚ village green: “Tränke-Langenweddingen‚” http://www.langenweddingen.info/sonstiges.html. Accessed on February 15‚ 2016. © langenweddingen.info.

Picture insert: “Schafwäsche in der Laber bei der Eisenbahnbrücke‚” http://www.deining.de/kultur/ geschichte-u-infos/serie-aus-dem-archiv-geplaudert.html. Accessed on February 15‚ 2016. Gemeindearchiv Deining.

31 MAP SC 2.3 MEHRINGPLATZ‚ Mehringplatz is a particularly good example of this. Over Berlin’s history‚ this plaza has been perceived and repro- BERLIN-KREUZBERG duced in widely diverging ways across different eras. The place’s meaning and signifcance have changed many times‚ Paul Klever and Steffen Klotz sometimes as a result of its function changing. For example‚ since the city was temporarily divided‚ the plaza went When considering potential urban commons and com- from being a central location to a peripheral location‚ then mons-like practices‚ it is important not only to view them back again. This not only altered how Mehringplatz was in terms of their spatial position and how they are used‚ perceived‚ but also entailed different requirements for but also in light of locally relevant discourses in the realms representation and identifcation. of urban policy and city history. Immaterial commons— When we search for collective forms of organizing and such as‚ for example‚ the collective identifcation with an appropriating urban commons‚ we also need to ask which urban space—can be created and preserved through the uses are best-suited to a place. What distinguishes the collective remembrance of historical and contemporary urban space of Mehringplatz are the low thresholds of its events that transpired at a place. Conversely‚ it is pos- spatial divisions. This lack of rigid boundaries‚ however‚ sible to trace a place’s history through collective acts does not entail unrestricted use of the space. Various like building monuments or choosing street names—and practices of appropriation—even undesirable sorts—align therefore‚ by the same token‚ to make “collective identi- with the spatial segmentations‚ and seek out their own fcation” visible as a commons. Places function as ves- hidden niches or unfold where they are given a platform. sels of memory. In doing so‚ they preserve the commons Moreover‚ Berlin’s climate does not allow open spaces to of “collective identifcation.” This means‚ in turn‚ that a be used uniformly across an entire year. Seasonality‚ in place’s meaning can also be co-created through the uses other words‚ is immanent to the spatial production of the and practices taking place there. In this collective process‚ city. Depending on the time of year and time of day‚ spaces we can characterize the product—the common good that see varying levels of use and are handled with different results—as a place’s “image.” The place becomes known intensity. Commoning-like practices require protected for this “image‚” and the use or practice corresponding to spaces‚ and even if a space does not seem designed for this image can even be equated to how the place is under- spontaneous occupation‚ it can nevertheless be appropri- stood. This understanding functions to incorporate users ated by skillful groups of users. with similar intentions and exclude others. That is to say‚ the plaza’s “image” is also co-created by uncoordinated‚ unconventional practices that shape its meaning as a place. At the moment‚ Mehringplatz is in fux. In addition to alterations of the built environment‚ the site is being targeted by policymakers from the political and urban-planning spheres‚ who are trying to lend the place a new identity that would rehabilitate its symbolic status. In doing so‚ policymakers must take into account and reas- sess the practices of appropriation taking place now‚ and the image associated with these urbanization processes.

32 IMPERVIOUS HISTORICAL IMPERMEABLE MORPHOLOGICAL PLANNED UNPLANNED CURRENT SURFACES TRACES OBJECTS OBJECTS PRACTICES

asphalt vanished wall buildings play equipment seating group prescribed structures

cast-in-place fence open storey bench, palettes, seasonal/ concrete former lightning timber locally adapted connection

TextText hedge contour lines concrete bicycle stand, ponding change of plates historical PERMEABLE VEGETATIVE advertising colomn location designation FUTURE SUPERORDINATE COMMONING INFRASTRUCTURE stones concrete gabions trees tree area, paving plant container FORMALIZED

universal running waters kerbstone bushes large scale dog fenced stone paving playground kitchen garden organized

subway tunnel barrier accumulation fndling, poller of leaves small scale parking space stone paving marks free TRACES OF TRACES COLLECTIVE USE street RESOURCE BOUNDARY interior SPATIAL ELEMENTS interior foor covering furnishing

highline SPACE FOR FOR SPACE COMMONING?

permeable roof garden foor covering NON- FORMALIZED

sand

accumulation of crown caps permeable planting area

lawn

shrubs RESOURCES MAP SC 2.4 URBANHAFEN‚ Since being developed‚ the site around Urbanhafen has been characterized by large-scale infrastructures BERLIN-KREUZBERG that can be understood as urban common goods. Use of the harbor guaranteed the city’s provision of essential Lukas Pappert and Jens Schulze material resources. Water‚ as a connective transporting element‚ was the primary common good. Yet because the In the mid-nineteenth century‚ shipping increased on Urbanhafen lacked room to expand and was not connected Berlin’s river Spree. To relieve the burden on the river‚ to the railway‚ its importance faded after the construction the city f rst constructed the Spandauer Ship Canal‚ fol- of Osthafen in 1913 and Westhafen in 1923. In 1963‚ the city lowed by the Landwehr Canal built from 1845 to 1850. The began to remove the harbor basin‚ f lling the side canals inland harbor called Urbanhafen was constructed inside and connecting the island with the southern bank. the Landwehr Canal at its juncture with the mouth of the Urbanhafen has since become part of a superordinate Luisenstädtischer Canal‚ which linked the Landwehr Canal system of urban open space along the Landwehr Canal. with the Spree to the north. To construct Urbanhafen‚ the The conversion of the harbor facility and relocation of canal was widened by 140 meters between the two bridges Berlin’s f rst gasworks‚ once located at the site‚ enabled Admiralbrücke and Baerwaldbrücke‚ so that it surrounded the canalscape’s open spaces to shift their function‚ an artif cial‚ trapezoid-shaped basin with space for 70 becoming a municipal offering of public welfare and rec- ships along the quay walls. reation. The extensive converted areas turned out to be predestined for the location of a new social infrastructure. Reloading points that were formerly privatized resource spaces when Urbanhafen was used as a harbor—waterways‚ embankment zones—became accessible again as universal 34 common resources after the conversion. Over the course of the structural changes of the 1970s‚ they underwent a radical change in meaning‚ coming to be understood as recreation spaces for the new “leisure society.” Embed- ded in a park landscape‚ Urbanhafen became a connective tissue between different social infrastructures‚ such as a large housing estate‚ a hospital‚ a public swimming pool‚ and a cultural center. Today‚ Urbanhafen stands like something of a relic‚ a remnant of a welfare state that only sparingly cares for leisure spaces and local recreation spaces. Municipal institutions struggle with limited f nancial means‚ o r f n d themselves privatized—even when they belong‚ spatially or functionally‚ to the universal commons without which the community cannot survive. As a result‚ our future handling of commons presents challenges but also major opportunities. With political and administrative bodies showing less willingness to take responsibility for municipal welfare‚ models of user-driven management are increasingly coming to the fore.

water physical wear and tear potential: boundary, formalized permeabel commons

harbour wall prototypical movement physical potential: boundary, non-formalized non-permeabel commons boat prototypical action

property line activation of commoning fence

swans

historical infrastructure of FUTURE street goods supply furniture COMMONS crown caps

historical facade infrastructure of toward social services garbage public space

mattress f o o r s BOUNDARIES

Google topography Earth tag

permeable barbecue surface area

sportsf eld

trees SOCIAL PRACTICE TRACES OF USE AND AND USE OF TRACES

bushes, grove SPATIAL SPATIAL RESOURCES Editors: IMPRINT Dagmar Pelger Anita Kaspar Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Jörg Stollmann Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Technische Universität Berlin Deutsche Nationalbibliografe; detailed bibliographic data Institut für Architektur - A 30 are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. Fachgebiet für Städtebau und Urbanisierung Straße des 17. Juni 152 10623 Berlin www.cud.tu-berlin.de Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin‚ 2017 http://verlag.tu-berlin.de Authors: Fasanenstr. 88‚ 10623 Berlin Dagmar Pelger Tel.: +49 (0)30 314 76131 / Fax: -76133 Paul Klever (historical common lands p.16/17) E-Mail: [email protected] Steffen Klotz (historical common lands p.16/17) Lukas Pappert (commons discourse p.12/13) This publication—with the exceptions of the fgures on Jens Schulze (commons discourse p.12/13) pages 16 and 17‚ the picture insert‚ and the citations—is licensed under the Creative Commons License CC BY 4.0 Research advisory board: License: Creative Commons 4.0 International Charlotte Geldof‚ Ester Goris‚ Nel Janssens http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ www.magnifcentsurroundings.org Print: Belgrad Creative. Risograph‚ Riso RP 3700 magnifi cent surroundings Layout and typography: Belgrad Creative with Zara Pfeifer

English Translation: Rob Madole This work is based on fndings from “Die Allmende als urbane Typologie” (The Commons as an Urban Typology)‚ a Edition: 200 cartography seminar offered at the Chair for Urban Design and Urbanization‚ TU Berlin‚ in the winter semester 2014/15‚ ISBN 978-3-7983-2932-4 (print) with Dagmar Pelger‚ Tobias Birkefeld‚ Carlo Costabel‚ ISBN 978-3-7983-2933-1 (online) Claudia Fraust‚ Paul Klever‚ Steffen Klotz‚ Martin Morsbach‚ Peter Müller‚ Lukas Pappert‚ Caroline Pfetzer‚ Franziska Published simultaneously online‚ on the institutional Polleter‚ Simone Prill‚ Jens Schulze‚ and Hang Yuan. repository of the Technische Universität Berlin: DOI 10.14279/depositonce-5968 The seminar’s point of departure was the research project http://dx.doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-5968 “The Future Commons 2070 – Map C01: Harwich to Hoek van Holland and the Dover Strait‚” an exploratory Part of this publication takes the form of a 70-by-100- maritime map translating a future vision for the North Sea cm map insert: Paul Klever and Steffen Klotz‚ MAP SC 2.3 and its coastal areas‚ by Charlotte Geldof‚ Nel Janssens‚ Mehringplatz‚ Berlin-Kreuzberg. Lukas Pappert and Jens Caroline Goossens‚ Ester Goris‚ Dagmar Pelger‚ and Patrick Schulze‚ MAP SC 2.4 Urbanhafen‚ Berlin-Kreuzberg. Labarque. Ghent‚ Belgium (2011).

This publication was frst printed in German in 2016 under the title “Spatial Commons. Städtische Freiräume als Ressource”.

The common is neither public nor private‚ neither political nor economic. The common belongs to everybody and to nobody — like air and language. No particular commons without community — the universal commons (nature and culture)‚ however‚ are commons without (or beyond) community.

Lieven de Cauter

ISBN 978-3-7983-2932-4 (print) ISBN 978-3-7983-2933-1 (online)