Which Common Ground for the Balkans?
January 2018
temporiuso KOsovo 2.0 Temporiuso ko gradi grad Tulla Culture Center WHICH COMMON GROUND FOR THE BALKANS
In Albania, Kosovo, Serbia and other countries of the Western Balkans there has been 15 years dominated by clientelism and short-term gains for those directly involved in the privatization of public and common assets, or simply their abandonment. Because of this, there is now a growing need and demand for active citizen involvement in imagining and influencing their habitat. Still, there are not many exam- ples of this, or tracks to follow.
Rooted in a bottom-up approach, the project Which Common Ground for the Balkans aims to create a common ground to trigger and increase the participation of communities in discussions and activities over the shape and use of common spaces.
Which Common Ground for the Balkans is implemented by Temporiu- so.net (Italy), Ko Gradi Grad (Serbia), Tulla Cultural Center (Albania), and Kosovo 2.0 (Kosovo). The four partner organizations, all with substan- tial experience in this field, also aim to identify, shape and offer models with citizens’ input that can continue to be applied for future cultural and social centers, co-working places or collectively driven housing.
The project Which Common Ground for the Balkans is funded by Balkan Arts and Culture Fund BAC.
BAC is supported by the Swiss Government through the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and the European Cultural Foundation (ECF). by: Who Builds the City (Ko Gradi Grad) (Belgrade, Serbia)
What has our common ground been like up to date?
When it comes to our field of action — the socially and economically sustainable reality of housing in the context of Belgrade — the “common ground” that brings many of its citizens together is, para- doxically, the widely-felt injustice and vulnerability they experience in regard to housing conditions.
Public policy dictates that housing is a matter that should be resolved through the mechanisms of the real estate market. Since the inception of this housing market in 1992, 98 percent of housing has become private while social housing makes up only 0.8 percent. Real estate prices have been persistently unaffordable — with an average of 1,300 euros per square meter — while the average household income in Belgrade hovers around 500 euros per month, one of the lowest levels in Europe.
As a result, 90 percent of people in Serbia are deemed too poor to qualify for a mortgage, and those that do not possess a home face extreme obstacles to resolve this through the housing market. Even if they do overcome these obstacles, their difficulties are not over: More than 70 percent of households that have the security of tenure strug- gle to pay their outgoing expenses.
This situation pushes Belgrade’s citizens into despair, sinks vulnerable and elderly people into dire poverty, and contributes to many young people seeking better opportunities abroad. Most of all it splinters the population into fragmented individuals, operating in survival mode. The challenge is to let a common ground emerge from these conditions in the form of a citizen-driven, emancipatory movement, that incorpo- rates mechanisms of mutual trust and support. by: Who Builds the City (Ko Gradi Grad) (Belgrade, Serbia)
What are the threats to communal, shareable, and currently powerful initiatives that work in this field?
The first initiatives have already emerged to address the urgent and unsustainable housing conditions in Belgrade, but they are still small-scale, vulnerable and operating in a context defined by powerful legal and economic interventions by both public and private actors.
These interventions include the Law on Housing and Maintenance of Buildings (Zakon o stanovanju i odrzavanju zgrada) that came into effect at the end of 2016, a law that does nothing to protect citizens against evictions — which can result from insecure income, outstand- ing debts, fraudulent mortgages, privatisation, etc. — while introducing a new professional field of licensed managers, essentially privatising a communal responsibility. In practice: the law deals with buildings and not with people.
The Belgrade Waterfront development does nothing to alleviate the lack of housing affordability, but nevertheless is being constructed thanks to a massive injection of public funds and is being promoted with an overwhelming PR violence. Recent developments from the State Agency for Construction, which builds apartments that end up for sale at only a fraction cheaper than the market, do not offer any real alternative.
In the face of these interventions, citizen-driven initiatives that actually address the needs of the population face difficulty in making them- selves perceived as viable and significant actors. However, the sheer dominance of particular public and private interventions — not just in legal and economic terms, but equally in the amount of media space that they occupy — have triggered an energetic counter-movement that seeks to provide alternative visions for the city, such as the Ne Da(vi)mo Beograd (Let’s Not D(r)own Belgrade) movement against the Belgrade Waterfront development. by: Who Builds the City (Ko Gradi Grad) (Belgrade, Serbia)
What has recently reinvigorated active communities in regard to the use and sharing of spaces, and commonly organized initiatives?
The Belgrade Waterfront development has been the most visible and controversial factor that has reinvigorated communities.Although inter- ventions such as this claim that they will significantly improve the living conditions of Belgrade’s population, the 3,000 euros per square meter apartments within the development show that in reality, they aim to open up economic opportunities to a small minority of the pop- ulation, while neglecting the difficulties of the vast majority. This large-scale investment has mobilized a growing number of residents, rising from a few hundred in 2015 to tens of thousands to date.
This type of high visibility intervention has to some extent obscured a range of smaller challenges that have also energized communities, in the form of mounting pressures experienced by citizens. These pres- sures include their difficulties in covering the cost of utilities, the persistent threat of evictions and the ongoing struggle to repay bad mortgages denominated in Swiss Francs, amongst others.
In situations where, for example, the state has constructed housing projects that lack public infrastructure but provide space for a petrol station or a church (like in the case of the Stepa Stepanović settlement in Belgrade), people have begun to act as united individuals in defence either of their own life and livelihood, or as part of a common action to preserve their position in the city.
The difficulty of covering utility bills, particularly heating bills, has brought national attention to the problem of energy poverty. This has been spurred on in particular by a citizens’ initiative called Udruženi pokret slobodnih stanara (United Movement of Free Inhabitants), which originated from tenants organizations in apartment buildings in the city of Niš, who demanded the right to disconnect their apartments from the public heating system, and take more control over this and other local government services, including parking. The ongoing sequence of evictions by (private) bailiffs has also ignited a broader front, with a more structured exchange between a number of initiatives and groups — activists and affected citizens have been connected in the struggle for the right to housing. Examples include groups like Zdruzena akcija Krov nad glavom (United Action Roof Above One’s Head) and Kolektivna odbrana stanara (Collective Defence of Inhabitants) that formed in Spring 2017 in Belgrade. by: Who Builds the City (Ko Gradi Grad) (Belgrade, Serbia)
What mechanisms can be envisioned that will help in the recovery and reinvigoration of common spaces and approaches? What can be imagined? How to envision the common ground as a community?
In situations where citizens are left to their own devices, emergent forms of self-organization provide opportunities for self-empower- ment. With Pametnija Zgrada (Smarter Building), Ko Gradi Grad has opened the possibility to imagine, and potentially construct, an entirely different housing model. Starting from dissecting the impossibility of finding affordable housing today in Belgrade, this arrived at a bottom-up low cost DIY approach that looks to the community itself to plan,invest in, and possibly even construct its own housing.
In future, such an approach may also emerge around and against the threat of evictions. Self-help groups might provide not just a line of first response against the evictions themselves, but may offer struc- tural help in dealing with this precarious situation, such as the support network provided by PAH (Platform for People Affected by Mortgage) in Spain. This work also includes applying pressure towards changing related laws.
Finally, when it comes to the scale of the entire city, new forms of governance are required that are responsive to the needs of the resi- dents, and that are generated and sustained by residents themselves. The movement against the Belgrade Waterfront development has reached the point where its next steps require imagining such new horizons. In February 2018, the initiative Ne Da(vi)mo Beograd enters - - enters municipal elections of Belgrade, aiming at changing the way politics is done.
Thinking and acting on this scale could mean a breakthrough in “com- moning” the city; while fragments of such an approach exist, from participatory budgeting to horizontal models of non-partisan city gov- ernance (such as that found in Barcelona), the challenge is to realise what it could bring to cities in the Balkans. by: Rina Kika / Kosovo 2.0 (Prishtina, Kosovo)
What has our common ground been like up to date?
There have been a number of initiatives to access and use public space in Kosovo over the last year. In Gjakova, a group of people reno- vated a park next to the house of the writer Ali Podrimja and created an open-air cinema. In Mitrovica, a new NGO called Ad Libitum gained access for one year to a floor in the culture house. Now they use the space to teach music and dance to youngsters. In Pristina the social center Termokiss has paved the way for the formation of a communi- ty and a shared space with shared equal responsibility. This is a new concept of sharing space that is being introduced in Kosovo and has been received with a lot of enthusiasm and support by the general public.
However, the groups behind all these projects report having undergone an exhausting and overly bureaucratic process to be able to access these public spaces. All of them reported that municipality officials did not know what process they need to follow to be able to give them the space, and because of a lack of legal framework that regulates the process, in each case there is a different, improvised process that is followed.
It seems as though public officials rarely have a vision on how to help citizen-lead initiatives recover spaces for common use. They are slowly becoming familiar with the concept because the pressure from such initiatives and support of the public. by: Rina Kika / Kosovo 2.0 (Prishtina, Kosovo)
What are the threats to communal, shareable, and currently powerful initiatives that work in this field?
A recurring threat in all these cases is the threat of privatization — especially in the cases of Kino Lumbardhi in Prizren and Kinemaja Jusuf Gërvalla in Peja, where the buildings fall under the administration of the Kosovo Privatization Agency (KPA). The case of Lumbardhi is unique, since the KPA decided to suspend all proceedings to liqui- date/sell the building because the Ministry of Culture pronounced it a building of historic heritage.
In the case of Kinemaja Jusuf Gërvalla there is an ongoing contest between the Municipality of Peja and the Kosovo Privatization Agency. So, even though the Anibar NGO went through a regular legal process to secure use of the cinema, it is possible that the municipality gave a building for use which it had no right to give.
Legally speaking (de jure), neither initiative is entirely safe. However, de facto in both cases, Kinemaja Jusuf Gërvalla and Kino Lumbardhi have seen a lot of civic activism and social pressure to safeguard these cinemas. Hence, one assumption would be that these two initiatives are likely to be safe from threats, as the municipalities and the Kosovo Privatization Agency dread the backlash that any of their actions could have in regard to these cinemas. Nevertheless other threats to communal spaces such as Termokiss is that they lack basic access to water and the sewage system, which is a clear indication for a lack of political will to support it.
by: Rina Kika / Kosovo 2.0 (Prishtina, Kosovo)
What has recently reinvigorated active communities in regard to the use and sharing of spaces, and commonly organized initiatives?
In October 2017, Termokiss, Anibar and Fondacioni Lumbardhi proposed changes to the law that governs the use of municipal property, which is currently being redrafted. Following discussions with the Ministry of Local Government Adminis- tration’s working group for the draft law, Termokiss started an aware- ness raising campaign. The campaign included a working session and discussion, a campaign video and was crowned by a petition signed by 53 organizations demanding a legal right to access municipal property. The Ministry formally approved most of the proposals, but have not yet included them in the law. The deadline for doing so is April 2018.
by: Rina Kika / Kosovo 2.0 (Prishtina, Kosovo)
What mechanisms can be envisioned that will help in the recovery and reinvigoration of common spaces and approaches? What can be imagined? How to envision the common ground as a community?
The upcoming months are crucial in the fight for legal rights to use public spaces for communal or not-for-profit use. The Ministry of Administration of Local Governance will include an application and selection process in the new law and will also determine a process through which one can apply to gain access to municipal property. Such a process could solve many issues and help safeguard common initiatives to recover spaces for common use.
In this regard, it is important to include as many different actors from civil society to contribute in the process since the said process will in fact regulate initiatives from all fields and not just culture and the arts. by: Rubin Beqo / Tulla - Culture Center (Tirana, Albania)
What has our common ground been like up to date?
Common grounds are a systemic problem in Albanian society, in both a physical and non-physical context. The economic and political model adopted right after communism which was based on publicly articulated shock-doctrine, small government and heavy privatization, has damaged the social and intellectual references of what we consider as common ground.
This has resulted in most public and common spaces being privatized, followed by demolition or a change in use. However, after years of political and economic instability, strong sentiments on public space are re-emerging in the public domain through a young generation of intellec- tuals and activists. by: Rubin Beqo / Tulla - Culture Center (Tirana, Albania)
What are the threats to communal, shareable, and currently powerful initiatives that work in this field?
The biggest threats come from a lack of awareness from the commu- nity itself, who do not consider that such spaces should constitute a right. This is certainly a mentality developed by the constant privatiza- tion and alienation of public spaces and a lack of political vision (rather than will) to create common cultural spaces. by: Rubin Beqo / Tulla - Culture Center (Tirana, Albania)
What has recently reinvigorated active communities in regard to the use and sharing of spaces, and commonly organized initiatives?
It is important that we are seeing a generational shift in the various decision making domains and social influencers. This is the case in both- public and governmental institutions, corporate and civil society.
These new actors come with a more contemporary vision of society, and have wider reference systems than the local reality. The more that people, especially those in civil society, are trying to organize them- selves into different activities, the more they realize the need for common spaces. In a way, this is becoming the new frontier for lobbying and activism. by: Rubin Beqo / Tulla - Culture Center (Tirana, Albania)
What mechanisms can be envisioned that will help in the recovery and reinvigoration of common spaces and approaches? What can be imagined? How to envision the common ground as a community?
The main mechanisms that must be developed are awareness and lobby- ing. Especially as, due to new media and social media, public institutions are much more aware of the potential and pressure of civil society.
The duty of the civil society and cultural actors therefore, is to raise awareness about the need to utilize common spaces and it is their duty to offer solutions, to lobby and collaborate with public institutions to meet these ends. Even though political will remains the most important factor, that too can be generated if the proposal from the side of civil society is well designed and broad enough in scope. by: Isabella Inti & Giulia Cantaluppi / Temporiuso.net (Milan, Italy)
What has our common ground been like up to date?
How many narratives and imaginations exist today of Italy? We focus on three possible dimensions, those of a ‘Fragile Italy,’ the ‘BelPaese’ (‘Beautiful Country’) and ‘Italia 4.0.’ On these concepts we have tried to reflect and project, in an attempt to create new instruments of territo- rial intervention, which can promote a rebirth, a new attachment to shared values and spaces, a new common ground.
There is ‘Fragile Italy,’ where ancient villages and historical landscapes at the foot of the Apennine mountains are shaken by continuous earthquakes — an Italy where illegal construction and urbanized land alongside river banks are erased by sudden floods or landslides. In Italy, disused urban areas, territorial abandonment and ghost towns, i.e. the depopulation of small and medium sized urban centers is a phenomenon that affects one in five municipalities.
But territorial abandonment and vacant buildings are also metropolitan phenomena. The city of Milan alone has over 3.7 million square meters of vacant and abandoned areas and buildings awaiting transformation. They are former railways, former barracks, former factories, agricul- tural fields, but also offices, schools, hospitals, farms, shops on the ground floor, substandard homes.
The city of Milan and its historic productive hinterland are pervaded by empty and underused spaces that could find new cycles of use, linked to the strong demand for living, working and leisure spaces for students, artisans, workers, start-up companies, and low-cost tourists. What tools to use, what opportunities for regeneration, which vision can rethink an architectural heritage and an intangible memory?
Throughout Italy the industrial and mining decline of the past 30 years has led to 49 contaminated sites of national interest — areas with high concentrations of pollutants. When these sites are part of a metropoli- tan area, as in Milan-Sesto San Giovanni, the need to find new tools for the remediation of soils and access to places of citizenship is even greater, so that they are not forgotten and neglected areas areas for decades. So what is the new ‘oil’ to be extracted for new economies and new jobs — ones concerned with the promotion, valorization and reinven- tion of our territory? Is it the ‘BelPaese’ Italy? Or is that a deception of rhetoric?
In Italy there are 51 UNESCO heritage sites, 5 percent of the world’s heritage sites. There are 4,588 museums, monuments and archaeo- logical sites. 53 million tourists arrive every year, equal to 4 percent of total international tourist flows. The economic contribution of tourism in Italy is 185 billion euros, with an impact of 13 percent on the national GDP. But is artistic heritage just a “cultural deposit” to be exploited? Is tourism the only function for our common ground?
Perhaps a functioning country must also focus on innovation, culture, research, technology and above all, if we want to reverse birth rates and unemployment, we must be able to develop migrant policies that welcome and integrate, as well as improve access to employment, homes and services for the young population aged between 19 and 35.
In the last few years in Milan, there are some signs of population growth. From 2008 to 2018 the population has increased to 1.368 million people, 75,000 more. This is thanks to policies for the emer- gence and regularization of new migrants, mobility programs and inter- nationalization for the over 11 universities and academies that attracted 171,000 students, of whom 17 percent were foreigners. It is also in part due to the arrival of new workers for the regeneration of central urban areas such as Porta Nuova and City Life, and the construction and dismantling of the EXPO area.
But what are the living conditions and meeting places of these popula- tions? Have the administration and public institutions really been able to govern the process or is it in the hands of the big investors in real estate, and the speculation of small real estate owners?
In Milan, we also face another phenomenon. We now speak of a “fourth industrial revolution” or of Industry 4.0: after steam (first), electricity (second) and computers (third), the flywheel of the fourth will be the Internet of Things and its integration into industrial and manufacturing processes. With Manifattura 4.0 will there also be a change in the places and spaces of production? Will we be able to bring craftsmen back to the center and reuse already built land? And for all these new forms of work, living, and meeting places, what common ground will be created? by: Isabella Inti & Giulia Cantaluppi / Temporiuso.net (Milan, Italy)
What are the threats to communal, shareable, and currently powerful initiatives that work in this field?
The newfound attractiveness of Milan can not hide the breakdown of old social models and its reconstruction into new forms, with the pres- ence of new players, often highly educated and trained, acting in a precarious labor market that is fragmented and with few protections. New common ground tools must adopt strong social inclusion practic- es, especially for female and male workers in low-skilled servces, which if excluded, risks generating polarized growth.
In Milan, however, we are witnessing a strange administrative schizo- phrenia, with conflicting and inconsistent policies. On the one hand, since 2012 the Milan municipality has experimented with new policies of temporary reuse of abandoned municipal property. Over 150 proj- ects for associations were started, including small start-ups, accom- modation services for students and single parents, second reception areas for migrants, and microservices like bike repair shops, co-work- ing spaces, and online neighbourhood radio stations.
On the other hand, the municipality is unable to govern its own subsidi- ary companies, which are directed by presidents with very high sala- ries that close down functional reuse projects in order to sell off assets in public auctions.
Other strong contradictions are the funding for cooperative projects between associations, and the regeneration of old farms and commu- nal farmland, while on the other hand closing the last social centers and abolishing the free loan of municipal buildings entrusted to associ- ations that offer self-organized services to the neighborhood — which either forces the associations to close projects or distorts them by incorporating commercial activities necessary to pay rents. by: Isabella Inti & Giulia Cantaluppi / Temporiuso.net (Milan, Italy)
What has recently reinvigorated active communities in regard to the use and sharing of spaces, and commonly organized initiatives?
There are several positive examples in Milan. Citizens, informal groups, networks of associations, but also social centers and private founda- tions are attentive to the care and regeneration of abandoned spaces, as well as the activation of socio-cultural programs and self-organized services, that works outside from the logic of the market and are instead based on the sharing and exchange of knowledge.
The ‘P7 temporary reuse project’ (2013-17) was housed in a building of over 300 square meters and owned by So.Ge.MI., a subsidiary compa- ny of the Municipality of Milan. A subsequent courtyard of 1,500 square meters and ‘P8’ shelter of over 400 square meters, has since housed spaces for coworking, neighborhood aggregation, student accommo- dation at low-cost prices, a bicycle repair shop and the Bassa Macelle- ria event space.
The new contractual formula does not charge rent but asks instead for payment of utilities, the exchange of knowledge, and a share of monthly time devoted to the self-maintenance of spaces and/or activ- ities for the local community.
Another example of the sharing of spaces and commonly organized initiatives is the legalization and institutionalization of the ADA Stecca association network. The creation of the body has allowed the informal groups that once activated a former factory through “creative squat- ting,” to propose a socio-cultural program and a legal association iden- tity, which allowed the assignment of a new public building, ‘Stecca 3.0,’ as a socio-cultural center.
Here, everyone can benefit from spaces like a social carpenter’s work- shop, a popular bike repair shop, a weekly organic market, coworking- coworking spaces at controlled costs, large spaces that accommodate cultural activities and offices for local and citizen associations.
Stecca 3.0, despite the defeat of the demolition of the historic occu- pied factory, saw the victory of a public recognition and the self-orga- nized management of a new space, located between the historic Isola district and the new Porta Nuova area. Here, and in other parts of the city, the large real estate and urban regeneration operations have had to reconcile the demands of the citizens supported by architects, artists and advocacy planners.
However, new major regeneration projects are also in the hands of the Public Administration, which with Open Agri is promoting the rebirth of the Nosedo farmhouse and a new supply chain of agri-food start-ups. Even the social center Macao is trying to activate legalization, public recognition and acquisition of the building of over 5000 square meters they are squatting. Macao would like to adopt the model created by the Mietshäuser Syndikat of Berlin, a cooperative that organizes the collec- tive purchase of occupied properties.
Yet another example of bottom-up regeneration comes from the Fon- dazione Italia Nostra, which since the 1970s established the Center for Urban Forestation (CFU) and created Boscoincittà — the largest green system in the east of Milan with over 110 hectares of woods, clearings, paths, waterways, and urban gardens.
Today, the new challenge is the Rogoredo grove, a green area of 65 hectares disputed between international networks of organized crime. The cleaning and care for the area and the involvement of schools and active citizens has begun, but only the perseverance of the citizens and the support of the City of Milan with new programs related to sport, forestry and gardening can bring new populations in, to counter trafficking in drugs, prostitution, illegal landfills and the shadow of resignation. by: Isabella Inti & Giulia Cantaluppi / Temporiuso.net (Milan, Italy)
What mechanisms can be envisioned that will help in the recovery and reinvigoration of common spaces and approaches? What can be imagined? How to envision the common ground as a community?
Over the last few years and continuing to the present day, Temporiu- so’s researchers and activists have put in place various devices and strategies to break up the private and/or bureaucratic rationale behind the management and assignment of the use of abandoned spaces — so that they could be used again as places to experiment with collec- tive dreams.
Recently in Milan, we have succeeded in making people understand the importance of temporary uses of abandoned spaces in areas of near transformation, as places to test and trigger possible processes of urban regeneration and social innovation — community hubs, co-de- sign workshops and spaces for the production of collective services like community gardens and centers, generative welfare spaces, ateliers for craftsmen and artists, small business start-ups, and student and low-cost accommodation.
Today, this methodological challenge has been grasped by the public administration of the Municipality of Milan, which has included tempo- rary uses in the Strategic Vision Document for Railways, and within a few months these practices will be part of the new Territorial Govern- ment Plan procedures.
We would like to ask for more — a temporary reuse desk with munici- pal officials who accompany citizens to access empty spaces with new projects. We would like once a year to have participatory planning tables at workshops organized by the City Council to bring together empty property owners, experts and associations and informal groups who have proposals for reuse.
At the disciplinary level, we tried to break the traditional planning tools of the Faculty of Architecture and Planning at the Politecnico di Milano University, which is too tied to the real estate market. From 2015 we invented the Post Graduate Course in Temporary Reuse. At the national level, in 2009 we launched a Manifesto for Reuse and Temporary Reuse and joined initiatives to promote new laws against the consumption of soil, and for the financing of reuse of buildings and abandoned areas with the involvement of citizens and local actors.
We are now promoting debates and demonstrations because at the city level new strategies are being adopted for the assignment, even temporary, of assets confiscated from crime. We have been fighting for years with NGOs and associations of artists, so that the many illegal buildings, often unfinished, that have harmed and destroyed our BelPaese will be demolished — the landscape is a common good, a common ground. by: Who Builds the City (Ko Gradi Grad) (Belgrade, Serbia)
Breaking Ground for Housing
Private apartment ownership is sold to us as a dream to strive for. However, with low income and high real estate prices, this prospect appears entirely unachievable for many in the Western Balkans. Instead, it is destined to create a toxic housing environment for gener- ations to come. How did we get here — and what does it take to aban- don such a dangerous illusion?
Our housing reality started, some quarter of a century ago, with the withdrawal of public institutions from housing policy and budgets. From that point on, we were sent to find solace for our housing needs on our own.
The introduction of commercial banks, some fifteen years ago, brought the option of financial enslavement — hardly a “dream” worth pursuing in search of a place to live. In a situation where many cannot afford, or do not even qualify for a bank loan, there is obviously a need to build a future beyond the ambition of individual ownership.
Confronted by the vast scale of the housing issue in Belgrade, Ko Gradi Grad (Who Builds the City) embarked on a search for housing solutions that neither the traditional market nor public institutions currently offer or intend to provide. The resulting initiative, “Smarter Building,” aims at opening a new possibility for a wide range of people who cannot afford to buy an apartment but would partake in a more affordable approach. Some of our experiences and findings are outlined here below.
Belgrade, January 2018: Bus 46 comes squeaking to a halt on Juzni Boulevard. At the bus stop, a few of us get out — students, some middle aged people and a few pensioners with shopping bags. In front of us, a mother cautiously navigates a pushcart beside a long metal construction fence. The ride along it seems endless.
Behind the fence, construction workers are frantically constructing over 250 new luxury apartments. Concrete trucks drive on-and-off, while we walk by. Hardly anyone glances at the billboard promising 40,000 square meters of “the atmosphere and beauty of the culture of housing.” In a few months' time, when the metal fence is eventually removed, the barrier separating us from this urban dream will remain. This glitzy housing complex will not be holding our lives. We move on.
It is a paradoxical situation. While construction is going on all around Belgrade, for an increasing number of people finding an apartment has become a distant dream. Not that there is no need. Some 150,000 people are currently sub-renting without contracts, many are crammed in with other family members in too small apartments, or are waiting to move out for a life on their own finally.
But a considerable gap separates many of us from the housing we need, and it may be no surprise that much of it boils down to one factor: price.
Imagine we are back on the bus, but this time we take line 95 to what seems like the edge of the city. We are on a search to buy an afford- able apartment, under 1,000 euros per square meter. Following an ad, we cross the River Danube and try our luck in one of smaller apartment blocks under construction in Belgrade’s suburb of Krnjaca. The online advertisement that attracted our attention states: “1.5 rooms, 37 square meters, (with a 2 meter square balcony), central heating, lift, floor 2/6, intercom, telephone. Newly built, ready in March 2018. Func- tional apartment, good room distribution. In an excellent location, close to a shop, school, kindergarten. Good quality construction: imported ceramics, oak parquet.” Prices here come in at under half of what is on offer around Južni Bou- levard. But, do we have a chance here? Let's take a closer look at those numbers.
With a price of 890 euros per square meter, the 37 square meters come to a total of 33,000 euros. This amount, mentioned in the ad, is the figure that you will pay to the developer. However, it does not include a full list of legal costs necessary to purchase the apartment. With this additional 10 percent for taxes and legal fees, we are already climbing to a figure of 37,000 euros.
Now, it is highly unlikely you will have this amount of cash upfront. You will probably need to raise a housing loan that will pay off your apart- ment in the long run. If you manage to get yourself a loan for 30 years, that loan will cost you all-in-all an extra 22,000 euros, which means two-thirds on top of the starting price advertised for the apartment! That is if you manage to get a loan at all. With 80 percent of the popu- lation of Serbia having an income of under 350 euros, chances are slim that you will walk out of the bank with a deal signed.
Even if you succeed, we are not there, yet. How much does it cost to live in that apartment during those 30 years? If we calculate all running costs (heating, electricity, water, garbage collection, insurance, annual tax, monthly and long-term maintenance), we have to add another 39,000 euros to the bill. When we put it all together, the initial price of the apartment, in fact, makes just one-third of everything to be paid over the 30 years, and we reach a figure of 98,000 euros.
That number is not just frightening — it is ultimately dangerous. Each month for next 30 years, it will chop 272 euros out of your income, leaving you barely enough to live. And if for any reason during those 30 years you lose your income, you can get uneasily close to default- ing. Or you might simply end up evicted. Now, is there any common ground on which we can build a more secure future? However large the gap currently still seems, there are a few things which can be done to radically change the way to own to an apartment and reduce its price. They come down to a few steps that might seem surprisingly obvious:
Don’t see an apartment as a realistic personal investment opportu- nity. In a city like Belgrade, real estate is just too costly compared to incomes, and that is not going to change anytime soon. Instead of having to get into extreme debt (and the accompanying risks) to personally own an apartment, it is better to aim to possess one within a group, collectively. A housing co-operative is a well-tried way forward for this.
Keep people who make a profit out of the path to your future home. Some 30 percent of the price of an apartment goes to investors, sales agencies, and other shady characters. Instead, get together with a group of people to collectively invest in your building and save the money for some other useful things.
Go to the bank collectively. As a group of, let’s imagine 40 or so, future “clients” you have a much more formidable position when you walk into a bank branch than if you go on your own. If you take on a loan as a group, you also become much less vulnerable. Then if for one reason or another something happens to your income, the co-opera- tive will be there as a buffer to save you from the bank. Count in all the costs. Apartments, as we have seen above, are silent pickpockets. What we see in the ad, is often just the tip of the iceberg. Understanding how much an apartment will actually cost us during our lives is a crucial step in becoming economically sustainable.
Don't burn your cash to stay warm. In most apartments, you will pay an exorbitant amount for heating and utilities. Instead, demand extreme energy efficiency. Today, this can be done — and will keep the bailiff out for all the years to come.
It is not necessary that everyone has everything — you can share some spaces and things. Arrange to have a common washing machine, make a common guest room (used as needed) or a work area, a gym, a children's playroom, etc. From the start, such a building can be planned differently and will give a higher quality of life.
Unimaginable in Belgrade, or any of the cities around? Over the last few years, the initiative Ko Gradi Grad has worked out exactly how this can be done. It has brought all the components together in an ambi- tious proposal: Smarter Building. Now let’s look at the numbers again when we take those points above into account. For comparison, we will use the same size apartment (37 square meters, in a location comparable to Krnjača) as we have seen before.
This time, we will invest 35,000 euros in the construction of the apart- ment (with high energy efficiency and significantly higher qualities of materials and construction to keep maintenance costs low), including all legal costs. For the loan repayment, we will reserve around 19,000 euros and count the same amount for running costs over 30 years. The total now comes to 73,000 euros.
That is about 25 percent lower than what we have to pay for the con- ventional apartment on the market. A month of living in the mentioned flat of 37 square meters (including a 4 square meter share in the common space) will cost you 195 euros, without having to bite your nails for 30 years to come.
The first Smarter Building is planned to be realized in Belgrade during the next three years. Finally, we may be able to remove the barrier to an entirely different type of “atmosphere and beauty of the culture of housing.” Ko Gradi Grad is not alone in this effort. With a movement of sister housing cooperatives, emerging across Central and South-East Europe, we are currently developing common ground to get our pilot initiatives off the ground — financial instruments and community skills being among the most pertinent aspects.
So far, much of this endeavour is taking place in spite of, and not thanks to public institutions. We are convinced that the first construct- ed pilot projects will make the broader social relevance of such citizen-driven, non-speculative housing developments obvious and finally break ground towards recognition and support from institutions. With this institutional support the affordability of housing in our cities could move to a dramatically different level. by: Rina Kika / Kosovo 2.0 (Prishtina, Kosovo)
A year in the fight for public spaces
In the summer of 2017, Kosovo’s Ministry of Local Government Admin- istration started revising the Law on Allocation for Use and Exchange of Immovable Property of the Municipality, and opened the discussion on a new draft law in October 2017.
A number of civil society organizations including Termokiss, Anibar and Fondacioni Lumbardhi attended the public discussion sessions and presented a number of proposals changing the law. They demanded amongst other things that the law should foresee the possibility of using municipal property for not-for-profit purposes, that the applica- tion process should be separate for nonprofit organizations and that the ‘highest bidder’ criterion should not apply to nonprofits.
These organizations argued that state support for not-for-profit use is a common thing in European countries such as Germany, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands, and presented some example state policies where the municipality acts as an intermediary between civil society initiatives and private actors, to ensure that they have a space for their activities. They also argued that municipal property is already being used for not-for-profit purposes in Kosovo and therefore it needs to be regulated.
At first, the working group of the Ministry was surprised with the issue raised and was not keen on discussing the proposals, instead focus- sing on the question of why it is in the public interest for NGOs to use municipal space. The Ministry also voiced concerns about the possibili- ty of exploitation and abuse of public space by NGOs for their own personal gain.
So the discussion went back to basics: Why is it important to allow civil society initiatives to use municipal/public property? Why not just go on with the “highest bidder wins” principle? Well, first of all because it is too narrow minded to think that public interest is only measured by how much income the municipality gen- erates from giving one of its buildings for use. Public interest is a much broader concept and does not stop at ensuring public services that the municipality provides for its citizens. The state obligation to protect public interest means ensuring and sup- porting initiatives such as Termokiss, Lumbardhi and Jusuf Gërvalla. The social impact that these initiatives have for the Kosovar society, especially for its young people is immeasurable.
As a result of the public discussions with the Ministry, in October 2017 Termokiss started an awareness raising campaign #MundesiPerKrejt (Opportunity for Everyone) to explain and argue why the law should define an opportunity for nonprofits to use municipal property.
The campaign comprised of a working session with civil society, a video campaign and a Common Declaration addressed to the Ministry signed by 53 different NGOs. The Common Declaration demanded essentially that the new law should stipulate a separate competition process that would apply solely to nonprofits and that 20 percent of the municipal property should be designated for not-for-profit use.
Apart from the arts and culture NGOs that are leading the process, many other nonprofits signed the declaration including women’s rights organizations, environmental organizations, organizations of people with disabilities, to mention only a few. The diversity of NGOs that signed the Common Declaration confirmed that the lack of space for not-for-profit purposes is a general problem for civil society in Kosovo, and affects nonprofits from all different fields.
In June 2017, K2.0 and Temporiuso.net hosted a discussion at Termokiss, a revitalized infrastructure converted in a social center, about the potential and needs of the communities of reused spaces like this one. Photo: Majlinda Hoxha / K2.0. As a result of these initiatives, at the end of the public consultation in December 2017 the Ministry published a Final Report where it formally accepted the proposal and agreed to address the issue of not-for-profit use of municipal space in the new draft law or a bylaw that will be adopted by the Ministry.
The fight does not end here. There will be a second round of public consultations for the law in March 2018 and it will focus primarily on regulating the criteria and process of not-for-profit use of municipal property. As this is a common issue for civil society, it is crucial that as many different NGOs participate in this discussion in order to contribute with their perspectives in what the criteria and the process should be.
The new draft law is scheduled to be sent to the Kosovo Parliament on April 18 of this year. So far, the engagement of civil society in propos- ing changes in the law has demonstrated that governmental institu- tions are willing to listen and consider suggestions. Hence, civil society needs to stay engaged and remain active in this process until the new law is adopted by the Parliament and until the bylaws are adopted by the Ministry.
More importantly, the actors of civil society involved in the process need to calculate their proposals very carefully because the process and criteria that will be determined before April 2018 will likely affect all future similar initiatives. There is a great responsibility that falls on these actors which needs to be acknowledged and taken seriously in the future process.
In a public meeting with municipal officials at Termokiss in June 2017, activists and citizens discussed the legal gaps and problems of accessing unused public spaces. Photo: Majlinda Hoxha / K2.0. by: Rubin Beqo / Tulla - Culture Center (Tirana, Albania)
A year in the fight for public spaces
Last year, Tulla Culture Center looked into public spaces — particularly buildings that have been used, are currently used or could be used as cultural and/or community spaces. However our quest was not con- cerned just with the physical objects but also with the perception of the public and institutions in regard to the need for such spaces and what they should constitute. To achieve this, we organized a number of roundtable discussions with students, as well as meetings and inter- views with individuals and professionals from different fields.
There is a growing discussion about public space in Albania, especially in Tirana, fuelled by recent developments in local government, but also due to growing political and social awareness in regard to public spaces.
However, when we talk about public spaces the general notion is to talk about spaces in the open — parks, squares, roads etc. There is little if no discussion about public spaces in terms of building and functions; libraries, cinemas, cultural or community centres.
What we noticed from our inquiries is that not only is there no clear opinion, but it appears as if there is little to no expectation from the side of the public when it comes to this issue and the idea that public insti- tutions should work to guarantee such spaces.
There is a demand, which local government has managed to address only when it comes to playgrounds for children. When we move to the needs of people aged 18–35, the demand is focused toward sports facilities. The lack of demand, or even imagination, for public cultural spaces is based on the fact that this type of activity is perceived as belonging to the private domain, and is seen mainly in the optic of entertainment.
When the debate on cultural or community centers is raised, ideas in the public domain of what such a space can be and how it should func- tion are quite vague. In our roundtables with students we discovered that most of them had never been to a cultural center and even though they like the prospect, they don’t know what to expect from one. Others who had a better idea did so because of having had the chance of an experience in western Europe. by: Rubin Beqo / Tulla - Culture Center (Tirana, Albania)
The only reference that exists in our collective understanding of what a cultural center is comes from the Communist era, when cultural or community centers were very much present in the urban and social landscape. Some of these centers and their activities dragged on until the mid ‘90s, so this experience and memory is limited to a particular age group.
During the communist era in Tirana there were 11 cultural or communi- ty centers. A number of them were expropriated villas after World War II adapted to a new function, whereas others were purpose built. But the basic principle was that every neighbourhood had its own center, alongside a main cultural center.
These spaces were focused on young people, from elementary school pupils to university students, and offered a variety of courses in the arts as well as social activities. Despite the ideological function that these institutions had, as with all institutions during the communist period, it is also clear that they offered recreational time through music, film, plays, and other forms of expression.
From our investigations we noticed that those who had a memory of, or participated in these institutions had favorable sentiments towards them, and felt that something along those lines was needed in con- temporary society.
Talking to local and central government institutions on the subject, it is clear that even though there is a lot of good will towards beginning work on creating cultural and community spaces, there is no strategy or action plan. These institutions are open to suggestions from interest groups and civil society to define the purpose, and the path toward sustainability for these spaces if they were to invest.
It is clear is that there must be an effort from the non-governmental sector to further inquire and find solutions on how to approach and work with public institutions on the issue — to develop a vision, frame- work and methodology to make these initiatives work. In Tirana, the municipality plans to provide different organizations with the opportunity to revitalize a number of public libraries.
Parallel to this we have documented different public spaces that are not in use that could be adapted for such purposes. It remains an effort to be made from the public institutions to discover the legal status of these spaces and their feasibility.
As a conclusion, we have managed to create a lobbying process that has engaged the Municipality of Tirana and the Ministry of Culture to start a concrete process of engaging the non-governmental sector into finding solutions for this issue.
The Municipality of Tirana has offered a space, an actual public library, to be transformed into a library that focuses on arts, culture and design as well as to be used as a venue for meetings and discussions that help push the agenda for cultural spaces. The Ministry of Culture meanwhile, has committed to co-organizing a conference that will focus on cultural spaces and creative industries with the aim to orga- nize the relevant factors that can provide solutions. by: Isabella Inti & Giulia Cantaluppi / Temporiuso.net (Milan, Italy)
Which common ground for Milan?
Over the last few years, in Milan, a city in constant transformation, various spaces and new ways to produce generative welfare have been created; all in order to produce culture and participate in the renewal of material and immaterial cultural heritage.
In the city there are several hubs, districts and cultural spaces. These are public institutional spaces such as universities, museums, theatres, galleries, libraries and archives, which have recently been innovated in terms of schedules and formats.
Others are communal spaces open to the public, like foundations, research centres, cultural houses, and exhibits, that have given new impetus to the transformation of neglected areas and neighbourhoods. Others include network spaces in neighbourhoods and districts, that temporarily offer cultural activities during city events, such as Design Week, Fashion Week and other festivals.
Other independent spaces are the outcome of occupations and coun- tercultural movements that offer musical and experimental initiatives to younger generations. But over the last five years, multipurpose spaces have also been given birth to in Milan, and are trying to break into the territory of associations, fab labs, co-working spaces, and hostels.
These spaces are open to a variety of populations and uses, propose new management models and try to combine innovation and social inclusion. These multipurpose spaces are still in development and are now defining, on the basis of practice, their organizational and manage- ment models.
New professional roles emerge from these spaces, for which naming attempts are proliferating. These vary from cultural operators to cogni- tive workers; research-activists, event planners, reuse managers, social-media managers, DIY architects, and cultural entrepreneurs.
These are unforeseeable pathways that continually acquire interdisci- plinary skills, moving between the dimensions of communication and critical reflection and attracting thousands of new, and newly graduat- ed, students in the metropolitan city of Milan. As the historian Salvatore Settis claims in his book “Azione Popolare. Cittadini per il Bene Comune” (“Popular Action. Citizens for the Common Good”): “Now is the time not only to give voice to indignation, under- stood as a necessary response and an antidote to the indifference that kills freedom and democracy, but it is time to give it space.”
But what actually contributes to creating local identity, values and common spaces — what is the common ground? In order to ensure that those who manage public space can also define an open commu- nity, actors must initiate a process that forms an identity, shared rules, ethical values, opening common goods for public use.
But which mechanisms, be it tools, rules or actions, are already in place and can trigger a construction process to create these Common Grounds? How is welfare and culture produced in Milan? Which services and activities are accessible to a public made up of different popula- tions? What kind of socio-cultural spaces are already present in Milan? Which organizational and management models have been adopted?
Between March and June 2017, Temporiuso organized a series of open meetings, inviting the actors and managers of Milan's socio-cultural spaces to debate and reflect, scheduled over three appointments, to compare tools and practices for the activation of common spaces and goods.
The first open encounter of 2017 between the actors and managers of Milan’s sociocultural spaces took place in Palazzina 7, a temporary use project in the abandoned General Market area managed by Temporiuso.net. Photo: Kevin McElvaney. The first was titled ‘Common Ground Milano 01 # Market Cultures,’ and took place in Palazzina 7, a temporary use project in the abandoned General Market area that is managed by the association temporiuso.net and supported by the Municipality of Milan since 2013.
Its focus was on the reactivation of public food markets through a range of organizations: the Dynamoscopio association, the TerzoPae- saggio association, temporusio.net and HC, and A.ia.b, who worked on the Lorenteggio, Suffragio, Montegani and Baggio’s markets respective- ly, through culture, hospitality and good quality food.
Keeping alive local markets in order to provide an alternative to big food chains requires the collaboration of different actors: the public authori- ty, traders, consumers and the cultural sector.
All actors agreed that the ‘reanimations’ of these places with public art and cultural activities needs to be economically sustainable, in order to produce new economies, give values to social capital and generative welfare, and be recognised by the public authorities. Milan has a big agricultural culture, which is needed to be brought from the margins to the center of city debate.
Stecca 3.0, a new building and that houses a network of associations, hosted the debate ‘Common Ground Milano 02 #Which socio-cultural models for Milan?’ Photo: Kevin McElvaney. A third discussion, about the future of cultural entities as enterprises, was organized at Lorenteggio Market. Photo: Kevin McElvaney.
The second debate was entitled ‘Common Ground Milano 02 # Which socio-cultural models for Milan?’ and focussed on new spaces in Milan that were born out of conflict with public and private entities, and are today recognised as public cultural spaces.
It took place in Stecca 3.0, a new building and the house of a network of associations, which was created after the destruction of a squatted factory. Based in the building of the ex-Ansaldo industry in the Tortona Design district, it is managed by a group of associations and cultural companies that won a public call for the use of the 12,000 square meter space. The project needs to become commercial in order to generate resources, a feat that will perhaps prove too difficult.
Who creates the content for the reuse of empty spaces? From a sub- urban area like the San Siro neighbourhood, with an empty shop run by Mapping San Siro in collaboration with the Politecnico University, to an empty space in the main square of Milano, Piazza del Duomo run by the Elita cultural association, to the new concept of Mumi Ecomuseo Urbano, we need to create qualitative and inclusive programs for different inhabitants, including students, the elderly and kids. We need to create a common framework for reflection and socialisation between the network of activists.
This intent is also pursued by Rosetta, a project of the Che Fare collec- tive, who question “how to translate the contemporary? How to scour and select what will remain of these lastten years? The original is unfaithful to the translation, and it is this gap that interests us, and that we would like to intercept.” The issue should also be referred to a new generative welfare of the Milan Public Administration for self-organized associations and groups, in order to facilitate, enhance, enable and support different local resources.
The third debate, ‘Common Ground Milano 03 #Culture and social enterprise or cultural enterprises?,’ was a discussion on the legal form of the cultural entities — a contemporary debate and a hot topic for a lot of collectives in Milan nowadays. In Italy the laws regulating the work of the third sector are being changed and it is not always clear what is the right form for legal implementation.
We invited several cultural collectives that have looked at different solutions: The Dynamoscopio group, which has been transformed from a cultural association to a social enterprise and become part of a busi- ness consortium managing the Lorenteggio Market, Mare Culturale Urbano, a social enterprise recognized as an innovative start-up with the involvement of local inhabitants as workforce, and Santeria Social Club, a private social enterprise.
Filippo Cecconi, one of the team at Santeria suggested that organiza- tions should “not demonize the concept of enterprise — overcome the idea that if you make money with culture you are bad.”
Connecting Culture, ADA Stecca and Temporiuso.net are all cultural associations, still struggling to introduce new tools and rules for a Common Ground in the city and maintain the practices of social inclu- sion and preserve social and cultural goals. Design: Besnik bajrami