Context of Latvia

CONTEXT OF LATVIA Vacancy, Commons, and Free Riga

🔥 🔥

Information material is made for the project BASICC: Building Alternative Skills for Creativities and Commons purposes.

Free Riga team: Paula Cukura Mārcis Rubenis Zane Ruģēna Annija Bērziņa Vidzeme University of Applied Sciences team: Marija Katrīna Dambe Liene Goļča Linda Murāne Text written by Linda Murāne and Marija Katrīna Dambe. (ViA) History of Free Riga provided by Mārcis Rubenis (FR).

“Time spent with cats is never wasted.” – Sigmund Freud

Table of Contents 01 Introduction

02 Main historical events that shaped Riga

03 The period of privatization

04 Why are there so many ruins

05 The benefits of commons

06

History of Free Riga

chapter: 1

Welcome to Riga...

When you arrived in Riga, what caught your attention in the cityscape? Perhaps you had the chance to explore the Old Town, with its array of historical buildings showcasing various architectural styles, set against the iconic silhouette of Riga punctuated by church towers.

Alternatively, your gaze may have been drawn to the enduring legacy of the Soviet regime, evident in the imposing yet functionalist structures crafted from reinforced concrete. If you were especially fortunate, you might have had the opportunity to wander through the Art Nouveau quarter, where the ornate facades and intricate details of the buildings transport visitors to a bygone era of artistic splendor.

The features of Riga have undergone significant transformations throughout history, reflecting the evolving attitudes and influences of different periods. From its earliest beginnings, Riga's landscape has been shaped by various factors, including architectural styles, economic activities, and societal values.

Countless wars and periods of occupation have left undeniable marks on the cityscape, with each successive conflict leaving its own imprint on the urban fabric. From medieval fortifications to Soviet-era structures, Riga's architectural heritage tells a story of resilience and adaptation in the face of adversity.

Moreover, the views of Latvians themselves have played a crucial role in shaping the city's identity and appearance. As the nation has navigated through periods of independence, foreign rule, and societal change, Riga has served as a canvas for expressions of national pride, cultural revival, and artistic innovation.

The search for identity has been a driving force behind many of Riga's urban development initiatives, from the preservation of historic landmarks to the promotion of contemporary art and cultural events. As Latvians continue to explore their roots and forge connections with the broader European community, Riga's role as a cultural hub and architecture remains as vibrant and dynamic as ever.

In summary, Riga showcases a diverse mix of influences and styles spanning centuries.

Yet, according to the legend, 'Riga will never be ready,' implying an ongoing narrative of growth and renewal.

chapter: 2

Main historical events that shaped Riga Let the animals guide you through the narrow streets of historical periods In order to fully grasp the current situation, it is crucial to explore pivotal historical events in the late 19th and 20th century. I hope you don't mind a short history lesson.

During this chapter you will notice QR codes that we encourage you to take a look at.

They will lead you to the authentic videos of the appropriate period, and hopefully will help you to understand the context of how Riga has changed in recent times.

NATIONAL IDENTITY AND REVIVAL The late 19th and early 20th centuries witnessed a profound cultural awakening among Latvians, which played a pivotal role in fostering a strong sense of national identity and aspirations for independence after numerous occupation periods of Germans and Russians. This transformative period, known as the National Awakening movement, sparked a resurgence of interest in Latvian folklore, traditions, and language.

The cultural revival found expression not only in literature and the arts but also in architecture, where traditional Latvian motifs and elements were integrated into building designs, reflecting a newfound sense of pride and belonging. This period is referred to as National Romanticism.

Kārlis Ulmanis, a prominent figure in Latvian history, played a central role in shaping the nation during what many consider Latvia's "Golden Age." As Prime Minister and later President, Ulmanis led the country through a period of stability, prosperity, and significant progress. His leadership during the interwar period saw the implementation of wideranging reforms in agriculture, industry, education, and social welfare, laying the foundation for Latvia's modernization and development.

SCAN ME!

Under Ulmanis' leadership, Latvia experienced economic growth, industrial expansion, and agricultural reform, bolstering the country's economy and improving living standards for many citizens.

His policies focused on strengthening Latvian identity, promoting cultural

expression, and protecting national interests, fostering a sense of unity and pride among the population.

Therefore, central to Latvia's journey towards self-determination was the rejection of Germanic cultural and architectural influences that had long been associated with foreign domination and colonial rule. As Latvia sought to assert its own identity and autonomy, there was a conscious effort to distance itself from centuries of German influence, paving the way for a renaissance of traditional cultural expression.

The legacy of Ulmanis and his era is often viewed nostalgically as a period of relative prosperity, political stability, and national pride. Many Latvians associate this time with progress, order, and a sense of optimism for the future. However, it's essential to acknowledge that this perspective is not universally shared, as Ulmanis' regime also faced criticism for its authoritarian tendencies and suppression of political opposition.

The turbulent landscape of the early 20th century provided fertile ground for Latvia's aspirations for statehood. In the aftermath of World War I and the collapse of the Russian Empire, Latvia seized the opportunity to declare independence on November 18, 1918.

THE SOVIET PERIOD During the Soviet occupation from 1944 to 1991, Riga underwent a profound transformation, shaped by the ideologies and policies of the Soviet regime. This period was marked by a concentrateded effort to impose Soviet culture and ideology on the city, along with extensive Russification of the Latvian nation.

One of the most striking developments was the rapid industrialization of Riga, with the construction of large-scale industrial complexes and factories. These sprawling industrial zones not only reshaped the city, but also brought about the emergence of new towns and housing estates to accommodate the influx of workers.

To address housing shortages and accommodate the growing urban population, the Soviet authorities embarked on ambitious mass housing projects. These projects gave rise to vast residential neighborhoods characterized by prefabricated panel buildings, colloquially known as "khrushchyovkas." These buildings, often comprising communal apartments, reflect a historical context where multiple families lived in shared spaces. However, the legacy of communal living in these structures carries a negative connotation due to cramped conditions and limited privacy.

Such high-density housing developments became emblematic of Soviet urban planning in Riga.

Yet, amidst the grandeur of Soviet architecture, the city's historic cultural heritage was not spared. Many buildings were demolished to make way for new developments deemed more fitting with socialist ideals. This reshaping of the urban landscape reflected the tension between preserving Latvia's cultural heritage and conforming to the dictates of Soviet ideology.

SCAN ME!

POST-SOVIET ERA After regaining independence in 1991, Riga entered a new chapter in its history, marked by a period of transition and transformation.

The post-Soviet era brought about profound changes to the city's urban fabric, as Latvia embarked on the path of democratic governance, market economy reforms, and European integration.

At the same time, Riga struggled with the challenges of urbanization, infrastructure development, and social inequality. The influx of foreign investment and economic liberalization led to disparities in wealth and living standards, with some parts of the city experiencing rapid gentrification while others faced urban decay and neglect.

One of the most notable developments during this period was the revitalization of Riga's historic center. Efforts were made to preserve and restore the city's architectural heritage, including its medieval Old Town, Art Nouveau districts, and wooden architecture enclaves. These preservation efforts not only enhanced Riga's appeal as a tourist destination but also reaffirmed its cultural significance as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

While privatization aimed to stimulate growth and innovation, it was spoiled by allegations of corruption and insider dealings, exacerbating social inequalities. In the next chapter, we'll explore how these dynamics shaped Riga's economic landscape and urban development.

Meanwhile, the transition to a market economy brought rapid urban development and modernization in Riga. The city experienced a construction boom with new commercial and residential developments.

Shopping malls, office buildings, and highrise apartments transformed the city's urban landscape, reflecting Riga's aspirations for economic growth and prosperity.

SCAN ME!

chapter: 3

The period of privatization THE GOAL SEEMED NOBLE Following the attainment of state independence in 1991, it became imperative to transition from a centrally controlled economy to a market-driven model grounded on private ownership and individual enterprise, with a focus on advancing the national economy of the Republic of Latvia. To accomplish this objective, efforts were initiated to restore property rights through denationalization and implement widespread privatization of state and local government assets, fostering the emergence and advancement of private entrepreneurship.

Land reform was introduced in both rural and urban areas.

The objective of the state-directed privatization process was to alter the ownership of state and municipal assets, cultivating an environment conducive to the expansion of private capital and reducing the scope of entrepreneurial activities undertaken by the state and local government.

In order to encourage the involvement of Latvian citizens in the reform endeavors, the state issued and allocated privatization certificates to citizens based on their residency duration in Latvia.

These certificates could be utilized as a form of payment when acquiring various state and municipal properties, aiming to facilitate citizen participation in the privatization process.

Equal opportunities for all, but was it really?

THE NAIVE UTOPIA The civilians opted to sell their acquired certificates primarily due to poverty and lack of entrepreneurial spirit and experience.

Despite having a nominal value of 40 euros, these certificates were often sold for as little as 0.70 cents. During that period, purchasing certificates became a widespread practice, as the inexpensive certificates could be utilized in the privatization of enterprises, enabling investors to cover up to 80% of a company's value using these certificates.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, companies within the country were left weakened and technologically backward. Foreign investors would only express interest in such enterprises if they were sold at symbolic prices. However, the reality was that not all Latvian residents possessed the requisite knowledge and readiness to effectively manage these companies, but it was a great opportunity for the well established individuals to get wealthy fast.

The steep rise in national currency exchange disarray

rates, in

the

alongside former

the

USSR's

settlement system, combined with high prices of raw material and energy,

led

bankruptcy

to

the

premature

of

a

considerable

number of industrial enterprises.

Either bankruptcy or the company had to be sold to foreign investors. Companies with a local market, such as those in the food industry, or those with access to local raw materials for export, like the timber industry, stood a better chance of survival.

Conversely, producers of consumer goods struggled to compete with foreign products in terms of quality and pricing.

The complicated situation, often figuratively described as "theft of the state", has affected the urban landscape, where the industrial and architectural heritage is inadequately managed. The premises are empty and the buildings has lost its function in the society.

This has also affected the quality of housing fund.

Through the process of privatization a building may have several landlords who are unable to have an agreement on management and maintenance requirements of the building.

SCAN ME!

chapter: 4

Why do we have so many ruins?

"SLUMS" IN RIGA

THE ABANDONED REGIONS

The Property Department of the Riga City Council has launched the website grausti.riga.lv , aimed at identifying buildings falling into three distinct categories: those that degrade the environment (categories A and B), and those that degrade the landscape (category C). However, an issue arises with the department's classification of certain buildings as 'slums,' a term carrying negative connotations. Even if a building is in a usable condition and occupied, it may still be labeled as a slum. Traditionally, a slum is defined as an 'old, unusable building.' This classification could potentially distort citizens' perceptions regarding the value of the building and the need to preserve them over the long term.

In various regions of Latvia, numerous properties have been left in a state of disrepair. A significant factor contributing to this phenomenon is the migration of the population towards the capital, attracted by employment prospects and cultural amenities. The artificially inflated regional development during the Soviet Union collapsed with the regaining of Latvia's independence.

Significant factor contributing to this phenomenon is the migration of the population towards the capital, attracted by employment prospects and cultural amenities. The artificially inflated regional development during the Soviet Union collapsed with the regaining of Latvia's independence.

Word of the day: "grausts" An old, ruined building. A slum.

An illustrative case is the village of Kuprava, situated near the Russian border, which saw the establishment of the Drain Pipe Factory in the 1960s. At its peak, the factory supported a community of approximately 1,500 residents, prompting the construction of five block-shaped apartment buildings and a school. However, following the closure of the factory in the 1990s, the village experienced a significant decline in population, resulting in the abandonment of several vacant apartment buildings.

As neighborhoods experience economic decline and population outmigration, property values decrease, making it less financially viable for owners to invest in maintenance or renovations.

This downward spiral can create a cycle of neglect and deterioration, further exacerbating the issue of abandoned buildings.

THE UNCLEAR OWNERSHIP

THE CRISIS OF 2008

In many cases properties may have unclear ownership or lack proper documentation due to historical factors, such as inheritance laws or changes in property ownership during political transitions. When properties are inherited or passed down through generations without clear documentation, it can lead to disputes or uncertainty about who holds legal ownership and, consequently, who is responsible for property maintenance and upkeep.

The economic crisis of 2008 had significant impacts on vacancy and housing in Latvia. As the crisis unfolded, Latvia experienced a sharp decline in economic activity, leading to job losses, wage cuts, and increased financial hardship for many households.

Consequently, the demand for housing decreased, resulting in higher vacancy rates across the country. Many construction projects were put on hold or abandoned altogether, exacerbating the problem of vacant properties.

This ambiguity creates significant challenges for efforts to address maintenance issues and revitalize blighted areas. Without a clear understanding of ownership rights and responsibilities, it's difficult for government agencies, developers, or community organizations to initiate rehabilitation projects or secure funding for property improvements. Property owners may be hesitant to invest in renovations or repairs if they are uncertain about their legal rights or potential liabilities.

Moreover, the lack of clear ownership can hinder coordination and collaboration between stakeholders involved in revitalization efforts. Different parties may have competing interests or conflicting claims to the same property, leading to delays or deadlock in decision-making processes. This impasse can stall efforts to mobilize resources, secure permits, or implement redevelopment plans, prolonging the blight and decay of abandoned buildings.

Addressing the issue of unclear property ownership requires proactive measures to clarify legal rights, resolve disputes, and streamline administrative processes.

Governments may need to establish mechanisms for property registration and documentation, facilitate legal assistance for property owners, or implement policies to incentivize property rehabilitation.

By promoting transparency and certainty in property ownership, stakeholders can overcome barriers to revitalization and unlock the potential of abandoned buildings for urban renewal and community development.

Additionally, the economic downturn constrained access to credit, making it difficult for individuals and developers to finance housing projects. As a result, the construction sector contracted, leading to a slowdown in new housing construction and further contributing to the surplus of vacant properties.

Furthermore, the crisis had a ripple effect on the real estate market, causing property prices to plummet. Many homeowners found themselves underwater on their mortgages, owing more than their properties were worth, which led to an increase in foreclosures and distressed property sales.

POVERTY AND GENTRIFICATION In addition to economic and regulatory challenges, social factors play a significant role in perpetuating "slum" conditions in Riga. Poverty, unemployment, and social exclusion create a cycle of disadvantage that affects both individuals and communities.

Many residents of these areas lack the financial means to invest in property maintenance or renovations. Without stable employment or access to social services, they struggle to keep up with basic living expenses, let alone invest in property improvements.

Furthermore, social exclusion and marginalization exacerbate the challenges faced by residents of such neighborhoods.

The stigma associated with living in impoverished areas can have profound effects on individuals' self-esteem and social mobility. It can also deter investment and redevelopment efforts from outside investors or government agencies. The perception of these areas as undesirable or unsafe can further entrench their marginalization, making it difficult to attract resources or support for revitalization projects.

Possible solution to this problem could be the attraction of funding and investments for the development of these neighborhoods. Yes, but no. If it is done improperly, this could lead to other issues.

Gentrification adds another layer of complexity to the dynamics of urban development, particularly in the context of impoverished neighborhoods.

While gentrification can bring investment, revitalization, and improved amenities to neglected areas, it often comes at the expense of long-time residents, exacerbating social inequalities and displacing vulnerable communities.

Gentrification can manifest as the influx of affluent residents, businesses, and developers into low-income neighborhoods, leading to rising property values, rents, and living costs. As property prices soar,

longstanding residents, including lowincome families and small businesses, may be priced out of their neighborhoods, forced to relocate to more affordable areas. This process of displacement can disrupt social networks, erode community cohesion, and contribute to the loss of cultural identity and heritage.

Moreover, gentrification can perpetuate cycles of poverty and exclusion by further marginalizing already vulnerable populations. As affluent newcomers move in, they may demand changes in neighborhood aesthetics, amenities, and services to better suit their preferences, often at the expense of existing residents. This can lead to the displacement of local businesses, cultural institutions, and affordable housing options, further marginalizing low-income residents and exacerbating social inequalities.

However, it's important to acknowledge that gentrification is not inherently negative and can bring positive changes to neglected neighborhoods, such as improved infrastructure, safety, and economic opportunities. The challenge lies in ensuring that the benefits of gentrification are shared equitably and that vulnerable communities are not left behind or displaced in the process.

Addressing the social factors contributing to "slum" conditions requires a comprehensive approach that goes beyond physical infrastructure. It involves investing in social welfare programs, education, job training, and community development initiatives to empower residents and create pathways out of poverty. It also requires challenging stereotypes and stigmas associated with impoverished neighborhoods, promoting inclusivity and social cohesion within communities. By addressing both the economic and social dimensions of urban poverty, cities like Riga can work towards creating more equitable and sustainable urban environments for all residents.

BUREAUCRACY AND LACK OF FUNDING In addition to financial constraints, several common issues contribute to the neglect of properties, particularly in areas designated as "slums" in Riga. One challenge is the imposition of a 3% real estate tax and penalties for noncompliance with regulations set by the National Cultural Heritage Board (NCHB). While these measures are intended to encourage building restoration, their effectiveness is debatable. Some property owners perceive the penalties as inadequate or as further exacerbating their financial burdens, thus diminishing the incentive to invest in property upkeep.

Moreover, owners of properties deemed cultural heritage sites must engage with the NCHB, which provides guidelines for building preservation.

However, this collaboration can be burdensome due to bureaucratic complexities and timeconsuming approval processes for repairs or alterations. The requirements set by the NCHB may deter property owners from undertaking necessary maintenance, especially if they perceive the process as arduous or financially prohibitive.

Additionally, the privatization of properties has resulted in complex dynamics among co-owners, particularly concerning differing perspectives on property usage and management.

This complexity can impede decision-making processes, especially when one owner prioritizes the property as a long-term investment over immediate maintenance needs. As a result, maintenance issues may remain unaddressed, contributing to the deterioration of properties in slum areas of Riga.

SCAN ME!

chapter: 5

The benefits of commons Urban landscapes have undergone significant transformations over the past few centuries, particularly accelerated in recent decades. Economic shifts and social changes across the city have left many buildings and spaces abandoned, ranging from former industrial sites to vacant lots, unused factories, and neglected infrastructure.

However, amidst these under-used areas lies untapped potential, offering opportunities for urban innovation, revitalization, and community development.

At first glance, these under-used spaces may appear as merely rots on the urban fabric.

Yet, they hold promise as testbeds for new city developments, presenting opportunities to maximize existing resources and infrastructure. Through initiatives led by citizens, private enterprises, universities, and public authorities, these spaces can be transformed into vibrant hubs that breathe life into neighborhoods, foster creativity, and incubate the cities of tomorrow.

Commons initiatives provide benefits for individuals and entrepreneurs, creating a supportive ecosystem that fosters collaboration, innovation, and economic opportunity.

CITY BENEFITS OF COMMONS INITIATIVES Transforming vacant areas into community hubs is a cornerstone of urban revitalization efforts. These initiatives breathe new life into neglected spaces, turning them from eyesores into vibrant focal points of activity.

By repurposing under-used spaces, cities create opportunities for residents, visitors, and businesses to gather, interact, and thrive. Community hubs offer spaces for cultural events, markets, recreational activities, and social gatherings, bringing vitality into neighborhoods and stimulating economic activity.

Moreover, these revitalized areas often become magnets for investment, leading to further development and improvement of surrounding areas.

Commons often incorporate principles of sustainable design, resource conservation, and green infrastructure, such as community gardens. These initiatives help mitigate urban heat island effects, improve air and water quality, and enhance biodiversity in urban areas. Additionally, by promoting sustainable transportation options and reducing reliance on cars, commons contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and promote a healthier, more sustainable urban lifestyle.

Commons play a vital role in fostering social cohesion by bringing communities together and strengthening bonds among residents.

By providing spaces for collective activities, commons initiatives create opportunities for community engagement, collaboration, and co-creation.

Residents from diverse backgrounds participate in shared activities, exchange ideas, and build relationships, fostering a sense of belonging and solidarity.

Moreover, commons often involve participatory decision-making processes, empowering community members to shape the development of their neighborhoods and contribute to the common good.

Inclusivity is promoted as these initiatives aim to serve the needs and interests of all residents, regardless of socio-economic status or background.

The word commons comes from the Latin root communis, which means both "in common, shared by all, or general," and also "common property."

Prioritizing sustainable practices in commons initiatives is essential for promoting environmental awareness and resilience to climate change. By repurposing under-used spaces in environmentally friendly ways, cities can reduce their ecological footprint and contribute to a more sustainable future.

INDIVIDUAL AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP BENEFITS One of the fundamental benefits of commons initiatives is the accessibility to shared resources.

These resources encompass various facets, including physical spaces like co-working areas or community workshops, along with shared tools, equipment, and facilities. Through the collective pooling of resources, individuals gain access to amenities that might otherwise be financially out of reach or inaccessible independently. This shared infrastructure not only reduces costs for individuals but also fosters efficient resource utilization and minimizes waste. Particularly for entrepreneurs, this shared access to resources lowers the barriers to entry for initiating and expanding businesses.

Participation in commons initiatives fosters a profound sense of belonging and community among individuals. By actively engaging in collaborations and collective decision-making processes, participants forge meaningful connections with likeminded individuals who share similar interests and values. This sense of belonging not only enhances social well-being but also strengthens the social fabric of the community. For entrepreneurs, this sense of belonging is particularly valuable, as it cultivates a support network comprising individuals who can offer valuable insights, encouragement, and assistance when needed.

Moreover, commons initiatives serve as fertile ground for skill sharing and continuous learning within the community.

Through workshops, training sessions, and collaborative projects, individuals cultivate new skills, broaden their knowledge base, and accumulate valuable experience. This culture of ongoing learning and knowledge exchange is especially advantageous for entrepreneurs, who can acquire the necessary skills and expertise to navigate the complexities of their ventures. Leveraging the collective wisdom of the community, entrepreneurs can overcome challenges, refine their concepts, and tap into mentorship and guidance from other professionals.

Entrepreneurs within commons initiatives benefit from unparalleled access to innovation opportunities and extensive networking channels. Collaborating with fellow community members enables entrepreneurs to explore ideas, prototype innovations, and co-create solutions to the challenges. Furthermore, active participation in commons initiatives facilitates networking and relationship-building with potential collaborators, investors, and clientele, thereby opening new avenues for growth and expansion.

Lastly, commons initiatives provide indispensable economic support for entrepreneurs, stimulating job creation and economic prosperity within the community.

Through avenues such as grants, funding opportunities, and market access, entrepreneurs can procure the essential resources required to launch and scale their enterprises. Additionally, by attracting talent and investment to the community, commons projects stimulate economic activity and generate employment opportunities for local residents.

As businesses thrive within this ecosystem, they contribute to the overall wealth and wellbeing of the community, fostering sustainable economic development.

Commons initiatives serve as catalysts for transformative change, offering individuals and entrepreneurs a myriad of benefits, including access to shared resources, opportunities for skill sharing and learning, a profound sense of community, innovation opportunities, extensive networking capabilities, economic support, and job creation.

By fostering collaboration, creativity, and entrepreneurship, commons play an indispensable role in building resilient communities and cities.

SCAN ME!

chapter: 6

History of Free Riga WHO IS FREE RIGA?

THE HUMBLE BEGINNINGS

Free Riga serves as a dynamic platform uniting creative and social initiatives with a shared goal of revitalizing abandoned buildings and territories to foster cultural expression and social innovation. Established in 2013 by cultural and urban enthusiasts, Free Riga initially focused on opening up unused buildings in Riga and providing spaces for social activities, cultural endeavors, and innovative projects aimed at assisting marginalized groups and fostering community development.

The birth of Free Riga wasn't a coincidence but a response to the unique circumstances of its time. It emerged organically in 2014, driven by several key factors. First, Latvia's entry into the EU and subsequent economic growth from 2004 to 2008 led to significant shifts in property ownership. However, this optimism was shattered by the 2008 economic crash, leaving many properties vacant.

Operating under the model of temporary space usage, Free Riga has successfully activated over 40,000 square meters of empty premises, engaging residents in collaborative building projects and creative endeavors. Together with its residents, Free Riga transforms vacant spaces into socially significant venues accessible to the public, revitalizing neighborhoods and fostering community engagement.

Supported by residents, the Riga City Council, and professionals from diverse fields, Free Riga strives to effect positive changes in the city that cater to the needs of all its inhabitants. Their initiatives focus on creating a better urban environment that not only resonates with residents but also addresses the broader societal needs.

During this economic downturn, there was a noticeable shift in societal attitudes. Many individuals, disappointed with traditional career paths, sought alternative avenues for creative expression. This gave rise to a prosperous creative industry, with initiatives like bike repair shops and underground venues, reflecting a subtle rejection of mainstream capitalist values in favor of a more meaningful way of life.

A third factor was the practical need for spaces to promote cultural expression.

Despite being named the Cultural Capital of Europe in 2014, Riga lacked venues to fully showcase its cultural richness. The city was dotted with empty buildings, perfect for repurposing. Natural question arose – “How come that we have so many empty buildings, but no space for culture?” It was within this context that Free Riga began to take shape, bringing together various collectives and urban activists with a shared vision of revitalizing neglected spaces.

The founding members of Free Riga (previously Occupy me), drawn from diverse backgrounds, each brought their unique perspectives to the table. They included pioneers of co-working spaces, such as the Kaņepes Kultūras centrs, which transformed an abandoned building into a vibrant cultural hub. Additionally, the Contemporary Arts Center which organizes the annual Survival Kit festival, celebrating contemporary art in abandoned spaces.

Urban activists also played a crucial role, advocating for the revitalization of neglected urban areas.

Inspired by successful initiatives abroad and supported by the Goethe Institute, Free Riga started to address publicly the pressing issue of abandoned buildings. The journey began with small yet impactful actions, such as distributing "Occupy Me" stickers during the 2013 Baltā nakts (White night) festival, highlighting the stark contrast between the abundance of empty buildings and the lack of spaces for art and culture. Thus, the Free Riga movement emerged, driven by a shared commitment to reclaiming the city's cultural heritage and fostering a more inclusive urban landscape.

THE JOURNEY OF FREEDOM After the initial initiative of "Occupy Me," the organization rebranded itself as Free Riga in 2014. One of the founders of Free Riga, Mārcis Rubenis, outlines four phases that the NGO has gone through.

The first phase was the movement phase, during which the organization organized various cultural events and social gatherings, conducted mapping of empty buildings, and facilitated excursions and other activities.

In the second phase, Free Riga adopted the Wächterhäuser model, originating from Germany, where the organization acts as guardians of empty buildings. By providing guardian services, it is possible to prevent vandalism and degradation of the premises, with guardians potentially covering property taxes. The first such project was located at Līksnas street 26, where Free Riga organized numerous social activities, cleaned the area, and took steps to revitalize the space.

However, issues arose between the property owner and creative initiatives, leading to the project's collapse.

The third phase saw Free Riga transitioning to solely providing services. Acting as mediators, Free Riga worked to establish stable contracts, supported creative endeavors, and collectively maintained the properties.

In the current phase, Free Riga focuses on adding value to properties by leveraging social and creative capital for a return on investment. This shift entails moving from temporary occupancy to long-term tenure, aiming for sustainable revitalization of the properties.

SCAN ME!

CURRENT PLACES AND SPACES One of Free Riga's flagship projects is the Lastādija cultural quarter, established in 2015. Lastādija serves as a collaborative platform for various public and creative urban cultural initiatives. Participants and guests contribute to the development of Lastādija, fostering an environment encouraging to self-realization and community building. This is also the home for the animals of this info material. The tuxedo kitty, named Tvaiks (eng. steam), is the gang leader.

😈

Another notable project is Alksnājs cultural center, situated at Alksnāja Street 16 in Old Riga. Despite being Free Riga's smallest project in terms of space, Alksnājs holds historical significance as one of the oldest buildings in the area. It serves as a hub for residencies, projects, and events, fostering research and engagement with local history.

In August 2020, Free Riga signed a 25-year lease agreement with Riga Technical University for the V36 building complex, also known as Viskaļi, located at Viskaļu Street 36a. With 15,000 square meters of available space, V36 represents Free Riga's largest facility to date. The building, formerly the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Transport, and Aeronautics, offers diverse spaces for workshops, offices, classes, events, and more.

INSTITUTE FOR DESIGN OF QUALITY OF LIFE - THE VALUES ON NEW EUROPEAN BAUHAUS The New European Bauhaus (NEB) framework sets out three main values to be achieved within our living spaces sustainability, aesthetics or quality of experience and inclusion. Back in 2023 Free Riga residency Viskaļi was nominated for the NEB award, thus underlining the embodiment of these values within the space and community. But, let's dig a bit deeper and discover how these are to translate in day-to-day life at Viskaļi.

Sustainability is first and foremost present in the fact of taking over a vacant building, thus reducing the building of new square meters and staying sufficient with facilities the city offers. Furthermore, the renovation is happening in the manner of slow architecture, allowing space for experimentation, co-creation and use of sustainable materials, all while staying affordable to the inhabitants. But the aspects of sustainability go also beyond the topic of construction. The overall lifestyle promoted by the community focuses on degrowth, such as, use of what's already created (freeshop), direct food supply from farmers or community cooking.

Being located in a district that is in decline, the space at Viskaļi focuses on meaningful design and positive experiences. Through co-creation initiatives both the building and the surrounding territory is being cleaned up and receives new community-use functions.

The complex also has various cultural events and exhibitions, thus generating a lively atmosphere all-year around.

The fact of being located in a soviet-period building comes along with the difficulties of access, from general surrounding territory, to the entry on the ground level of a building that is half-floor elevated. However, the aspects of inclusion are strongly present in all activities that Free Riga takes on. From searching solutions to the practicalities of access, to giving space to various NGO's from

LGBTQ community, economically marginalized groups etc. All this with the aim to increase the quality of life, general wellbeing and sense of belonging.

Overall, the interest of Viskaļi, named also “Institute for Design of Quality of Life”, is to explore and promote in a research-based manner the aspects that are relevant for a good quality of life. This may include, but is not limited to socio-anthropological research, non-formal education and learning by doing, placemaking and many others.

This is enriched by diverse cooperations which Free Riga enters, from municipal bodies, to community networks and partnerships with formal education institutions, thus challenging also the approach in these.

“Imagine yourself, looking for the answer - how to make your life worth living? Or improve it. To gain a skill, a knowhow. Or take part in discussions, practices. To be who you are, to be accepted, to be heard. To learn, to create.”

🔥 🔥

REFERENCES BY CHAPTERS CHAPTER: 2 - MAIN HISTORICAL EVENTS THAT SHAPED RIGA Latvijas valsts prezidents. Kārlis Ulmanis kā Valsts prezidenta amata izpildītājs 1936–1940. // https://www.president.lv/lv/karlis-ulmanis-ka-valsts-prezidentaamata-izpilditajs-1936-1940?utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

Kārlis Sils. (2023) Kārļa Ulmaņa autoritārais režīms Latvijā 1934.–1940. gadā. // https://enciklopedija.lv/skirklis/62580-K%C4%81r%C4%BCa-Ulma%C5%86aautorit%C4%81rais-re%C5%BE%C4%ABms-Latvij%C4%81-1934.%E2%80%931940.gad%C4%81 (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

Artis Buks. (2014) Vācbaltieši un vācieši Krievijas impērijā Pirmā pasaules kara laikā. // https://vesture.eu/V%C4%81cbaltie%C5%A1i_un_v%C4%81cie%C5%A1i_Krievijas_im p%C4%93rij%C4%81_Pirm%C4%81_pasaules_kara_laik%C4%81 (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

Daina Bleiere. (2024) Padomju okupācija Latvijā, 1940.–1941. gads // https://enciklopedija.lv/skirklis/22214-padomju-okup%C4%81cijaLatvij%C4%81,-1940%E2%80%931941-gads (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

Edīte Brikmane. (2024) Latvijas okupācija nenotika vienā dienā. 1940. gada 17. jūniju pieminot. // https://lvportals.lv/norises/288072-latvijas-okupacija-nenotikaviena-diena-1940-gada-17-juniju-pieminot-2020 (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

Guntis Zemītis, Gustavs Strenga, Gvido Straube. (2016) Ieskats Latvijas vēstures svarīgākajos jautājumos. // https://www.mk.gov.lv/lv/media/76/download? attachment (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

CHAPTER: 3 - THE PERIOD OF PRIVATIZATION Ekonomikas ministrija. Privatizācijas process. // https://www.em.gov.lv/lv/privatizacijas-process (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

Ekonomikas ministrija. Privatizācijas sertifikāti. // https://www.em.gov.lv/lv/privatizacijas-sertifikati (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

Ekonomikas ministrija. Sertifikātu tirdzniecība. // https://www.em.gov.lv/lv/sertifikatu-tirdznieciba (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

Raidījums Atslēgas, 11.sērija. Privatizācija. Pieejams: https://youtu.be/CxwdrhXc0rk (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

CHAPTER: 4 - WHY ARE THERE SO MANY RUINS? Informācija vidi degradējošu būvju īpašniekiem. (2023) // https://grausti.riga.lv/noderigi/informacija-graustu-ipasniekiem/ (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

Rīgas Domes Īpašuma departaments. Vidi degradējošās būves Rīgā – kā to novērš? // https://www.lps.lv/uploads/docs_module/1.Ipasuma%20departamenta_konferenc e_1.pdf (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

Grausti pilsētā. (2015) // https://abc.lv/raksts/grausti-pilseta (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

Latvijas nekustamā īpašuma tirgus pārskats (2008) // https://www.arcoreal.lv/files/201102251702251637532674.pdf (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

Latvijas finanšu un pārvaldes krīze (2008—2010). https://lv.wikipedia.org/wikiLatvijas_finan%C5%A1u_un_p%C4%81rvaldes_kr%C4% ABze_(2008%E2%80%942010) (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

Elvis Picardo. (2022) Gentrification: Definition, Causes, Pros & Cons // https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gentrification.asp (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

Aisma Orupe (2014). Kuprava: mazākais Latvijas pagasts izdziest. // https://nra.lv/latvija/114144-kuprava-mazakais-latvijas-pagasts-izdziest.htm (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

CHAPTER: 5 - THE BENEFITS OF COMMONS Žanete Eglīte (2021). Radošās industrijas un ilgtspēja – nākotnes iespējas attīstībai // https://ir.lv/2021/08/18/radosas-industrijas-un-ilgtspeja-nakotnes-iespejasattistibai/ (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

Tombroeks (2017). Temporary Use for maintenance and co-development of private property. // https://refillthecity.wordpress.com/2017/12/04/temporary-usefor-maintenance-and-co-development-of-private-property/ (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

Marcelline Bonneau. (2021) How under-used space and infrastructure can become testbeds for new cities. (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

How do public spaces strengthen local economies? // https://medium.com/reimagining-the-civic-commons/how-do-public-spacesstrengthen-local-economies-here-are-4-ways-b0c4dd8eff49 (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

CHAPTER: 6 - HISTORY OF FREE RIGA Free Riga. About us // https://www.freeriga.lv/about (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

Marija Katrīna Dambe. (2024) Intervija ar Mārci Rubeni par Free Riga vēsturi.

European Union. (n.d.). New European Bauhaus: beautiful, sustainable, together. // https://new-european-bauhaus.europa.eu/index_en (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

FreeRiga. (2023). Application for New European Bauhaus Prizes 2023. // https://2023.prizes.new-european-bauhaus.eu/application/31060 (skatīts 20.04.2024.)

BASICC: Building Alternative Skills for Creativities and Commons purposes