9781138494930PRE.3D 3 [1–20] 22.10.2019 8:01AM Routledge Handbook of Contemporary European Social Movements Protest in Turbulent Times Edited by Cristina Flesher Fominaya and Ramón A. Feenstra 9781138494930PRE.3D 4 [1–20] 22.10.2019 8:01AM First published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 selection and editorial matter, Cristina Flesher Fominaya and Ramón Feenstra; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Cristina Flesher Fominaya and Ramón A. Feenstra to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-1-138-49493-0 hbk ISBN: 978-1-351-02518-8 ebk Typeset in Bembo by Swales & Willis, Exeter, Devon, UK 9781138494930C11.3D 155 [155–167] 22.10.2019 2:39AM 11 European squatters’ movements and the right to the city Miguel A. Martínez Introduction I first entered a squat in 1989 while I began my university studies in Madrid (Spain). The building comprised both a former printing house and the apartments where some workers used to live. A strike against the closure of the factory and claims of unpaid salaries were the spark for taking over the premises. Young autonomist activists with a few previous experi- ences in squatting moved in, shared the living spaces with the remaining workers, and set up a self-managed social centre, Minuesa. Initially, it was simply called casa okupa (squatted house) but activists adopted the name ‘social centre’ after they travelled to Italy and Germany and got in touch with a broader movement of occupations there. Occasionally, I attended concerts, film screenings—such as activist footage about the eviction of squats on Mainzer Strasse (Berlin) with armoured tanks (azozomox & Kuhn, 2018: 153)—meals, anti-militarist meetings, and parties organised by the free radio station in which I participated at that time or I just visited friends. Debates on housing, state repression, drugs, racism, the urban renewal of the area, and autonomist movements all over Europe provided a vibrant source of grassroots knowledge for many people who approached the space. Minuesa was evicted in 1994. Five and a half years of duration was a pretty long period, allowing for multiple projects to develop (remarkably, around 30% of the squatted social centres in Madrid between 1977 and 2015 lasted from 1 to 5 years: Martínez, 2018b: 29). It also paved the way for new generations of local squatters by recruiting, training, and reinvig- orating activist networks, and in a very informal fashion since they opposed hierarchical and authoritarian forms of organisation. This experience prompted me to identify a number of puzzles I have since aimed to address: 1) What kind of politics, in terms of both identities and practices, defined squatting movements all over Europe? 2) How have political, economic, and urban conditions con- strained this long-lasting urban activism over several decades? And 3) to what extent are the local circumstances of squatting and the squatters themselves connected to more global issues and transnational movements? The present chapter is an updated—and necessarily condensed— response to these queries. In particular, I use here the notion of the right to the city as a driver of my analysis. Given the purpose of this book, the chapter reviews a great portion of the available literature as well as some exemplary cases. My main argument is that there are both strengths and 155 9781138494930C11.3D 156 [155–167] 22.10.2019 2:39AM Miguel A. Martínez weaknesses in the association between squatting movements and the right to the city approach. On the one hand, Lefebvre’s anti-capitalist call for the appropriation of the city centre and the self-management of our lives holds a clear affinity with squatting movements as they were devel- oped in Northern, Southern, and Eastern Europe. On the other hand, the occupation of build- ings was not explicitly endorsed by Lefebvre and has not necessarily been the central activist practice in right to the city coalitions. In the next section, I first introduce the major academic findings about squatting movements in Europe. In particular, the types of squatting activism, the issue of legalisa- tion, and the social diversity within the movement are presented. Secondly, I discuss its implications according to the right to the city approach by focusing on two key aspects: self-management and appropriation of the city centre. Thirdly, I widen the previous ana- lysis by scrutinising the limitations of such a viewpoint; that is, squatters as right to the city activists. I conclude with some remarks about under-researched topics and possibil- ities for future inquiry. Squatting movements across European cities Squatting is conventionally defined as the occupation of empty buildings and land without the owner’s consent, although here I only pay attention to activism around the occupation of buildings and, in particular, across European urban regions. The most cited article about squatting distinguished five configurations or ideal-types of squatting: deprivation-based (usually performed by housing movements), alternative housing strategy (especially practised as communal living), entrepreneurial (social centres for cultural and political purposes), conservational (when squats focus on heritage and site preservation), and political (squats as the headquarters of specific political organisations) (Pruijt, 2013). It has been widely applied as well as criticised by many researchers. In particular, the ‘depriv- ation’ and ‘political’ categories are the target of most criticism. On the one hand, poor squat- ters can work in tight connection with housing activists which, in turn, politicises their actions and claims. On the other hand, most configurations of squatting entail political fea- tures without necessarily representing a specific political organisation or party. Nevertheless, Pruijt’s work stems from a pioneering investigation of squatting movements across different contexts (mostly, Northern Europe and New York) paying attention to crucial economic, political, social, and cultural contexts that shaped their development. In addition to a thorough engagement with scholarship from both social movements and urban studies, Pruijt’s insights became very influential because they paved the way for further discussions on opportunity structures for squatters (Piazza & Genovese, 2016; Polanska & Piotrowski, 2015), gentrification in highly squatted urban areas (Holm & Kuhn, 2017; Moore & Smart, 2015), and prefigurative politics (Yates, 2014). Many squatters of houses keep their unauthorised practice secret and do not join political campaigns, networks, or organisations. For some scholars this represents a diffused, persistent, and low-key form of contentious challenge to the rule of private property rights and housing allocation by the state. But others have argued that a sustained politicisation over time, more explicit claims, and the constraints of available vacancy set the boundaries for identifying squat- ting as a specific urban movement (Cattaneo & Martínez, 2014; Martínez, 2018c; Mayer, 2013; Milligan, 2016; Polanska, 2017). This debate is traversed by the many forms of coexistence and overlaps between overt and stealth squatting, and also between different types of squats. When broader housing movements embrace squatting as a repertoire of action, they are more prone to demand affordable accommodation from state authorities without necessarily 156 9781138494930C11.3D 157 [155–167] 22.10.2019 2:39AM Squatting and the right to the city opposing the exclusionary principle of private property (Cattaneo & Martínez, 2014; Di Feliciantonio, 2017; García-Lamarca, 2017; Grazioli & Caciagli, 2018). Their squats are equally politicised and visible, but their stance is more limited to the housing exclusion they confront than to a manifold agenda of anti-capitalist, anti-sexist, and anti-fascist issues, to name just a few, that permeates more left-libertarian squatters (Seminario, 2015; Van der Steen et al., 2014; Wennerhag et al., 2018). Droit Au Logement (DAL) in France, Coordinamento Citadino di Lotta per la Casa (CCLC) in Italy, or the Plataforma de Afec- tados por la Hipoteca (PAH) in Spain (Martínez, 2018b) are outstanding representatives of housing movements who also foster the occupation of buildings. Cooperation between different squatting and housing movements has, in recent decades, increasingly taken place. Accordingly, the participation of immigrants in squats or their autonomous initiatives to occupy living spaces have also substantially changed the social composition