4CITIES 20172019 ERASMUS MUNDUS MASTER COURSE IN URBAN STUDIES UNDERSTANDING THE POLITICS OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION IN ALTERNATIVE CULTURAL CENTERS : FROM BOTTOM-UP TO WHERE? JOINT MASTER THESIS SOHEON KIM & SANILA PRADHAN 1 SEPTEMBER 2019 SUPERVISOR DIEGO A. BARRADO TIMÓN SECOND READER TATIANA DEBROUX KIM & PRADHAN 2 ABSTRACT Alternative cultural centers are born as a result of bottom-up initiatives of citizens and they often start with great zeal. However, evidence suggests that people who pursue their activities through such centers, inevitably encounter government intervention at some stage or the other. As a result, the centers either end up getting dismissed or institutionalized by the authorities to varying degrees. Focusing on the latter, this thesis primarily seeks to investigate the influence of the institutionalization process on the development of centers. It is done so by exploring the evolution of three different centers, one each in the cities of Copenhagen, Madrid and Vienna, which have faced different phases of institutionalization in their lifetime. This study aims to unravel the significance of these centers and their functions within the cities in which they operate. Using a combination of semi-structured interviews, personal observations and extensive secondary data analysis, the thesis showcases that alternative cultural centers continue to exhibit their embeddedness in the cultural ecosystem of the city, despite significant changes in the initial autonomous principles. KIM & PRADHAN 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: Research question and hypotheses ……......................................……........5 FRAMING THE RESEARCH ..................................................…......................................……........8 1.1 Alternative cultural centers ..............................………….................................………........8 1.1.1 What is alternative? ..............................………….................................……...............8 1.1.2 Conceptualizing alternative cultural centers .............................……................10 1.2 The socio-cultural center ..............................………….................................…….............12 1.3 Culture in policy paradigms ..............................………….................................…….........14 1.3.1 Understanding the timeline: Urban cultural policy ........................…………....14 1.3.2 Alternative cultural spaces in policymaking ..............................…...................16 1.4 Institutionalization ..............................…………...........................…………........................17 OPERATIONALIZING THE CONCEPT OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION …….................................21 METHODOLOGY ……............……......................................…………...........................………….......24 3.1 Criteria for site selection ..............................…………...........................….......……….......25 3.2 Empirical study and data collection ..............................…….................................…….25 3.3 Data interpretation: Guideline for analysis ........................…………............................27 3.3 Limitations ..............................…………..............................……….....................................28 CASE STUDY 1 | Huset-KBH ……...............…….......................................................………….......29 4.1 City Profile: Copenhagen ........................………….................................………….............29 4.2 History of Huset ..............................…….................................…………............................33 4.3 Present-day Huset ..............................…….................................…………........................37 4.4 Huset: the future after 50 years ........................………….................................…………..49 4.5 Institutionalization of Huset ........................………….................................…………........50 KIM & PRADHAN 4 CASE STUDY 2 | CSA La Tabacalera ……......................................…………................................52 5.1 City Profile: Madrid and Lavapies ..............................…………............................……….52 5.2 History of Tabacalera ..............................………….................................………...............57 5.3 Present-day Tabacalera ..............................………….................................……...............61 5.4 Tabacalera in 2019: a setback or a turning point? ...................................…………......72 5.5 Institutionalization of Tabacalera ..............................…………...........................…….....74 CASE STUDY 3 | Das WUK ……....................................................................…................………..76 6.1 City Profile: Vienna ..............................………….................................…………..................76 6.2 History of WUK ..............................………….................................…………........................80 6.3 Present-day WUK ..............................………….................................…………....................85 6.4 Future of WUK ..............................………….................................………….........................97 6.5 Institutionalization of WUK ..............................………….................................…………....98 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION …….........................................................……100 7.1 Assessing the impact of institutionalization ..............................…………...................101 7.2 Contradictory position of the alternative cultural center ........…………...................102 7.3 Social, political and cultural dimensions of the center ........………….......................104 CONCLUSION ……...................................................................................….................………....107 REFERENCES ……....................................................................….................................……….....109 APPENDICES ……..........................................................................................…...........……….....118 Appendix 1. List of Figures ..............................................….................……........................118 Appendix 2. Fact Sheet ..............................................….................………...........................120 Appendix 3. Interview Guidelines ..............................................….................……….........121 Appendix 5. List of Interviewees ..........................................................…...........……….....122 Appendix 6. Personal Observations ..............................................…...........………...........126 Appendix 7. List of News Articles ..............................................….................………..........127 Appendix 8. List of Events and Activities ..............................................…............………...132 * Cover page photo: WUK in the past and the present (edited by the authors using the photos from: WUK.at, Eop.at) KIM & PRADHAN 5 INTRODUCTION Alternative cultural centers in cities represent something unfamiliar and exciting: a possibility to deviate from mainstream culture and dominant policy practices. The essence of its existence lies in the fact that it is not born as a project of city councils or the corporate sector; informal actors who are conscious citizens - neither policymakers nor corporations - are the mastermind behind searching for alternatives and creating such centers. Abandoned and unused sites usually serve as a means to materialize the vision of an alternative space, where ideas flourish, socio-political debates take place, and culture is jointly created. Despite their ideal dissociation with formal bodies, alternative cultural centers and the ideas behind them are getting much attention from a policy point of view. Presently, as such spaces are considered trendy and tend to draw people, locals and tourists alike, they are viewed as a city branding tool or as a way to tackle socio-economic issues (Fraeser, 2016). This idea has led policymakers to devise two main ways of handling alternative spaces, if they decide not to simply undermine or evict the sites. First, in many cases, they legally endorse the already existing alternative cultural centers and/or put them under cultural or urban policy framework. Although such measures prevent the centers from getting evicted, it also creates a way for the authorities to bring in their interests. Second, there is evidence in which the authorities use the original concept behind alternative culture and spaces to create a new project from scratch, renovating underused or abandoned buildings for alternative cultural activities, which is commonly framed as cultural regeneration in urban policy discourses. They are not regarded as alternative cultural centers in this thesis since they are initiated as cultural institutions by the government from the very beginning. KIM & PRADHAN 6 The primary reason why we employ the term alternative cultural centers instead of social or socio-cultural centers is based on a general perception of what these centers represent in the present day: we hypothesize that culture becomes a predominant feature of the center, hence, the usage of the term alternative cultural centers. Many of such centers in European cities have a profile of being popular as a location for concerts and cultural events (Martinez, 2014). They also have a tendency to focus more on community-based cultural activities which are not guided by profitable and commercial motives