Master's Dissertation

Temporary occupations as community infrastructures Investigation into the spatial tools of hospitality through the lens of commons

Iakovos Sierifis Supervisor: Philippe De Clerck Université Libre de Bruxelles Faculté d’Architecture La Cambre-Horta Academic year 2022 – 2023

1

Temporary occupations as community infrastructures: Investigation into the spatial tools of hospitality through the lens of commons Mémorant : Iakovos Sierifis Promoteur : Philippe De Clerck ULB Faculté d’Architecture La Cambre-Horta 2022 – 2023

Temporary occupations as community infrastructures: Investigation into the spatial tools of hospitality through the lens of commons

Iakovos Sierifis Supervisor : Philippe De Clerck Université Libre de Bruxelles Faculté d’Architecture La Cambre-Horta Academic year 2022 – 2023 Master thesis presented in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Architecture 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to Philippe de Clerck, my thesis supervisor, for guiding and supporting me throughout this research, as well as Nadia Casabella for helping me explore the general context of temporary occupation in Brussels.

I would also like to thank the team of Toestand at ADK, the team of La Serre, and the collective of Zonneklopper who gave me their time and provided me with information about their temporary occupations. I am equally thankful to all those individuals who engaged in open and enthusiastic discussions, sharing their perspectives and stories related to the case studies.

Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the endless support of my family and friends, who stood by me throughout this journey.

Additionally, I would like to acknowledge that English is not my native language, and writing this thesis has been a challenging yet valuable learning experience in improving my language proficiency.

3

4

ABSTRACT In the last few years, temporary occupations of empty urban buildings have gained increasing attention in the city of Brussels, implicating more and more actors. Concerned by the possible dangers of these spaces being commodified, this thesis aims to illuminate the ones that provide opportunities for residents to truly engage with their built environment and connect with fellow community members.

In such places, which can be defined as community infrastructures, ensuring hospitality is often seen as a vital aspect of urban life. As such, this thesis aims to spatially investigate their hospitality via two research angles: (1) the relations between the spatial practices of the initiators to the initial space, and (2) the spatial tools employed by the users to the already transformed space. This analytical interrelation between spaces and practices has facilitated a deeper understanding of the evolutions of hospitality within the spaces. In the first section, insights from the existing literature on the statusquo of Brussels’ temporary occupation scene are analysed, along with a literature review of the urban commons. The theory of commons, rooted in the perception of the space as an urban good, has offered a valuable framework to investigate the relationships between commons spaces and practices.

The second section analyses three case studies through a range of observations, graphic tools, and interviews. In general, the research showcases several reasons for the emergence of individual and collective actions of hospitality. On one hand, it shows that spatial tools which open a space to users’ appropriation tend to foster more hospitality, rather than just a physical openness to the broad public.

On the other hand, it demonstrates the significance of having versatile spaces with both flexible and fixed spatial interventions. Within such spatial arrangements, users often encounter a pre-existing sense of hospitality, which offers comfort, while they are also able to reimagine and sometimes even reconstruct it, by means of temporary or longer lasting processes of inhabitation. As such, this paper sheds light on Brussels’ temporary occupation landscape from the scope of both the space itself and the people involved in it.

KEY WORDS Temporary occupation, Vacant buildings, Community infrastructures, Hospitality, Theory of commons 5

Table of Contents 0. Introduction........................................................................................... 11 Table of Contents 0.1. Personal Approach.................................................................................................. 11 0. Introduction................................................................................................................7 0.2. Overall insight........................................................................................................12 0.1. Personal Approach........................................................................................................... 7

0.3 Intentions.................................................................................................................15 0.2. Overall insight.................................................................................................................. 9

0.4 Question of research and hypotheses.......................................................................16 0.3 Intentions........................................................................................................................ 12

0.4.1 The main question................................................................................................16 0.4 Question of research and hypotheses........................................................................... 14

0.4.2 Hypotheses...........................................................................................................16 0.4.1 The main question....................................................................................................................14 0.5 General methodology..............................................................................................17

0.6 The cases studies.....................................................................................................17 0.4.2 Hypotheses...............................................................................................................................15

Section 1: State of the art................................................... 20 1. 0.5 Temporary occupation........................................................................... 21 General methodology....................................................................................................

15 1.10.6 AnThe insight the temporary occupation in Bruxelles..............................................21 casesto studies............................................................................................................

16 1.2 Temporary as community infrastructures............................................24 Section 1: State occupations of the art...............................................................................................19 1.3 The importance in fostering hospitality...................................................................25 1. Temporary occupation. .............................................................................................20

2. 1.1 Between temporary occupation andinthe Commons............................... 27 An insight to the temporary occupation Bruxelles...................................................

20 3. 1.2 The Commons.......................................................................................

Temporary occupations as community infrastructures................................................28 25 3.11.3 Introduction to theintheory of hospitality. commons...................................................................28 The importance fostering ........................................................................ 26 3.2 History of Commons...............................................................................................29 2. Between temporary occupation and the Commons...............................................28 3.3 From the tragedy to the renaissance of commons...................................................30 3. The Commons...........................................................................................................29 3.43.1 The urban commons................................................................................................33 Introduction to the theory of commons........................................................................ 29 3.4.1 right (temporary) occupation.....................................................................35 3.2 The History of to Commons. ......................................................................................................

30 3.53.3 The on-going danger of enclosures.........................................................................36 From the tragedy to the renaissance of commons....................................................... 32 3.63.4 Commoning: a complex dynamic............................................................................38 The urban commons. ......................................................................................................

36 3.6.1 Common space.....................................................................................................39 3.4.1 The right to (temporary) occupation.......................................................................................39

3.6.1.1 What is common space and what is specific about it? .....................................39 3.5 The on-going danger of enclosures...............................................................................

41 3.6.1.2 Common space as Threshold ...........................................................................40 3.6 Commoning Commoning: practices a complexindynamic..................................................................................

44 3.6.2 relation to space............................................................41

3.6.2.1 Or maybe Inhabitation ...........................................................41 3.6.1Appropriation...

Common space.........................................................................................................................45 3.6.2.2 Observation – Translation ................................................................................43 3.6.2Commoning Commoning practices in relation topractice space..............................................................................49 3.6.2.3 (in) architectural ............................................................43

6

Section 2: Spatial investigation........................................................................................55 4. Before we delve into the case studies......................................................................56

Section 2: Spatial investigation........................................... 46 Recap............................................................................................................................... 56 4. 4.1 Before we delve into the case studies................................................... 47 4.2 Specific methodology.................................................................................................... 56

4.1 Recap.......................................................................................................................47 4.2.1 Plan methodology..............................................................................................47 views.................................................................................................................................58 4.2 Specific

4.2.1 Plan views.............................................................................................................48 4.2.2 Diagrammatic sketches............................................................................................................58

4.2.2 Diagrammatic sketches.........................................................................................49 4.34.3 Clarifications. ...........................................................................................................49 Clarifications................................................................................................................... 59

5.

Casestudies. studies. .......................................................................................... 50 5. Case ..............................................................................................................60 5.15.1La Serre............................................................................................... 50 La Serre............................................................................................................................ 60 5.1.1 First encounter......................................................................................................50

5.1.1 First encounter..........................................................................................................................60

5.1.2 Location................................................................................................................51

5.1.35.1.2 TheLocation....................................................................................................................................60 building complex...........................................................................................51 5.1.4 The initiators: Communa......................................................................................52 building complex. ..............................................................................................................61 5.1.55.1.3 TheThe occupants of La Serre....................................................................................53

5.1.6 The common space...............................................................................................55 5.1.4 The initiators: Communa..........................................................................................................61

5.1.7 A space to be appropriated....................................................................................55 5.1.8 First traces of interventions..................................................................................61

5.1.5 The occupants of La Serre........................................................................................................63

5.1.9 Later traces of interventions.................................................................................66

5.1.10 Some thoughts....................................................................................................71 5.1.6 The common space...................................................................................................................64

5.2 Allée du Kaai....................................................................................... 72 A space to be appropriated......................................................................................................65 5.2.15.1.7 First encounter......................................................................................................72

5.2.2 Location................................................................................................................73 5.1.8 First traces of interventions......................................................................................................68

5.2.3 The complex of buildings ....................................................................................74 5.2.4 The initiators: Toestand........................................................................................74

5.1.9 Later traces of interventions....................................................................................................70

5.2.5 The occupants of RAG and ADK.........................................................................76

5.2.6 The common space ..............................................................................................82 5.1.10 Some thoughts.......................................................................................................................74

5.2.7 A space to be appropriated....................................................................................84 5.2 Allée du Kaai................................................................................................................... 75 5.2.8 First traces of interventions..................................................................................90

5.2.95.2.1 Later of interventions.................................................................................94 Firsttraces encounter. .........................................................................................................................75 5.2.10 Some thoughts..................................................................................................103 7

5.2.2 Location....................................................................................................................................76

5.3 Zonneklopper..................................................................................... 106

5.2.4 The initiators: Toestand.............................................................................................................77

5.3.1 First encounter....................................................................................................106 5.3.2 Location..............................................................................................................106

5.2.5 The occupants of RAG and ADK...............................................................................................79

5.3.3 The building complex: from squat to Zonneklopper..........................................107 5.3.45.2.7 TheA space initiators. to be......................................................................................................109 appropriated......................................................................................................84 5.3.5 The occupants of Zonneklopper: the village...................................................... 110 traces of interventions......................................................................................................87 5.3.65.2.8 TheFirst common space............................................................................................. 114

5.3.7 A space to be appropriated.................................................................................. 118 5.2.9 Later traces of interventions....................................................................................................90

5.3.8 First traces of interventions................................................................................124 5.3.9 Later traces of interventions...............................................................................130

5.2.10 Some thoughts.......................................................................................................................96

5.3.10 Some thoughts..................................................................................................139 5.3 Zonneklopper.................................................................................................................

99 Section 3: Analysis and evaluation of the results......... 140

6. Comparative discussion. ..........................................................................................141 5.3.1 First encounter. .........................................................................................................................99 7. Conclusion..............................................................................................................145 5.3.2 Location..................................................................................................................................100 Bibliography .......................................................................... 148

8. List of references.....................................................................................................149

5.3.3 The building complex: from squat to Zonneklopper............................................................100

9 List of Figures...........................................................................................................154

5.3.4 The initiators...........................................................................................................................102

5.3.5 The occupants of Zonneklopper: the village.........................................................................104

5.3.6 The common space.................................................................................................................106

5.3.7 A space to be appropriated.................................................................................................... 110

5.3.8 First traces of interventions.................................................................................................... 112

5.3.9 Later traces of interventions.................................................................................................. 115

5.3.10 Some thoughts.....................................................................................................................120

Section 3: Analysis and evaluation of the results............................................................122 8

9

6. Comparative discussion..........................................................................................123 7. Conclusion..............................................................................................................128 Bibliography..................................................................................................................131 8. List of references.....................................................................................................131 9 List of Figures...........................................................................................................136

10

0. Introduction 0.1. Personal Approach I have always been fascinated by old, abandoned buildings – a feeling perhaps shared by many architects. Even before my academic path into architecture, I harboured a genuine interest in exploring and interacting with these types of spaces. This passion was then developed more and more through gaining knowledge in architectural theory and practice, as well as in tools of construction and engineering. However, despite this interest being longstanding, I recently started to see revitalisation projects of apparent inactive urban fabric through new perspectives.

This was kickstarted when I came to Brussels in the midst of the Covid-19 “health crisis”, when I began exploring diverse temporary uses of previously vacant buildings around the city. I noticed the variety of actors, the amount of people involved, as well as the diversity of social and cultural dynamics. I somehow started to recognise some particularities and similarities of the different temporary projects, also known as temporary occupations, which is how I will refer to them for the rest of this thesis. What attracted my curiosity was no longer just the space as an outcome, but more the practices which were put in place to make them both functional and hospitable. With my hitherto architectural lens, I started observing how people were appropriating these spaces, which I found increasingly fascinating. As such, the main question arising in me was: For whom and by whom were these temporary projects carried out?

This was the moment when I was choosing an architectural office to undertake the credited internship for my Master’s in Architecture at ULB, La Cambre Horta. Following the recommendation from an architect, I decided to spend my two-month internship with Toestand, a non-government organisation in Brussels. Their main practices involve the temporary use of vacant buildings to foster social and cultural cohesion. At first, I was slightly sceptical about it, with some fears about it not being so architectural. However, it then became apparent that a completely new door was being opened to me, despite me not realising it from the first glance. I started to truly get to know the vast, dynamic social and solidarity network of Brussels – a network of grassroots movements and citizens which was not hidden, but which I had previously not been in the position to properly understand, observe and evaluate.

At the same time, I had already started preparing the general approach and the possible questions of my Master’s thesis. Having had as feedback my experience from the internship and the guidance of my tutor, I got to know more about the history of the social networks in Brussels, the struggles of the grassroots movements vis-à-vis the housing crisis, as well as the general elements of the right to the city. For example, I understood more about how public and private state actors use often temporary tools to revitalise those places for the benefits of specific groups of people. While I was already starting to analyse and distinguish the relations that can be created in these occupations between users and physical space, it took me a while to understand which cases I was going to investigate. It was important for me to properly understand the main intentions of the thesis. How could the results be helpful for people – not only scholars – who require alternative workspaces, more 11

inclusive spaces of sociability, and a real shelter. Finally, I chose examples of temporary occupations that are characterised as community infrastructures – I will elaborate on this term at the beginning of the first section.

However, even though I had found the main subject and specific cases studies, I was not sure for a while how exactly I was going to analyse them. Nevertheless, thanks to my university’s seminar course Histoire Théorie Critique as well as the architectural project atelier Commun.e, I had found solid tools through the theory of commons. Once I got to know in detail the practices of commoning both in theory and practice, I realised how much in line they were with some temporary occupations in Brussels, from their governance to the broader political ideology. At first, it felt somehow logical to connect and define the vacant places as urban common-pool resources1; places that foster broader social justice and create community infrastructures through the dynamic and existing social and solidarity network. It seemed vital to me to try to understand temporary occupation projects in the urban fabric to broaden not only notions of the urban commons here in Brussels, but also to study in detail – as well as at the scale of human interactions – the spatial tools of transformation of these places used by the various people involved.

In this way, this research attempts to contribute to the wider literature that has been produced around the popular and apparently tempting subject of temporary occupations of previously vacant buildings in the European context.

0.2. Overall insight Temporary occupations, as urban practices for using empty buildings, have gained increasing attention in urban contexts by an array of actors over the past decade. In Brussels, Belgium’s capital city, temporary occupation initiatives have emerged as community infrastructures that not only repurpose neglected spaces but also foster conviviality and social interaction among users, as well as the broader neighbourhood. This thesis aims to analyse the role of temporary occupations in Brussels as a community infrastructure, as well as their significance in fostering hospitality. This will be done by utilising the analytical tool of the theory of commons to explore the relationship between common space, user appropriations, and convivial practices.

Temporary use of spaces allows for experimentation outside of norms, usually providing affordable although often precarious solutions for projects and needs. It can sometimes have positive impacts on neighbourhoods. In others, it can act as a financial incubator towards larger gentrification patterns or plans. However, some initiatives also actively resist such urban activation and gentrification, with citizens reclaiming their city through appropriation and inhabitation. In general, public powers and institutions play a significant role in shaping the temporary occupation scene, while numerous non-profit organisations and private actors are also involved. In parallel to this, squatting, once

1 Basourto, ‘Common-Pool Resource | Natural Resources, Sustainability & Conservation | Britannica’.

According to the online encyclopedia Britannica, “common-pool resource is a resource made available to all by consumption and to which access can be limited only at high cost. Some classic examples of common-pool resources are fisheries, forests, underwater basins, and irrigation systems”.

12

prevalent in the city, has been criminalised, leading to alternative hybrid occupation methods. Empty buildings have been used as urban common goods, addressing the persistent housing crisis. Grassroots movements advocate for these types of spaces, while formal occupations tend to commodify them more, while opening them more to different publics, who were often not initially involved.

The thesis explores three case studies as community infrastructures. The term community infrastructure is used here to specify the focus of this thesis. It plays a crucial role in urban environments, especially for marginalised populations for whom the conventional city market landscape does not always offer so many options for simply living in cities. Beyond this, it is embedded in the promotion of both social inclusion and affordable housing. These open (infra)structures are often characterised by a focus on fostering hospitality. In this thesis, hospitality is perceived as a vital aspect of urban life in inclusive spaces that are welcoming to different populations and interact with them socially and spatially. At the same time, temporary occupations provide opportunities for residents to engage with their built environment, connect with fellow community members, and foster a sense of belonging.

This research utilises the theory of commons, which examines the management and governance of shared resources. By doing so, it will explore how common spaces within temporary occupation projects are appropriated by users. As a result, it will reveal how these spaces contribute to convivial practices for the general right to city, and inclusivity of people with their “otherness”2 as a means of mutual exchange and experience.

The theory of commons, rooted in the understanding of resources held in common, offers a valuable framework to analyse the relationship between common space, user appropriations, and hospitality within temporary occupation initiatives. In the context of temporary occupations in Brussels, common spaces can be seen – and have been strongly seen by the populations initiating the occupations – as common-pool resources that are available to everybody. This includes those searching for solutions beyond the conventional market’s constraints, ones that can enable collective use and management by the community.

Contemporary urban commons can be understood as an action of citizen’s emancipation from the neoliberal forces which dominate cities. Originally, they were strongly inspired by common peasant lands in villages across medieval Western Europe, where there is evidence of rights for and of all. After centuries of processes of land enclosures as well as broad capitalisation tendencies, more and more new common-pool resources started to emerge throughout the last decades. Elinor

2 Otherness in this paper is understood mainly as the quality of being treated or perceived as different. The number of differences between oneself or group of people in comparison with another individual or group of people. It might be the process of selfidentification in comparison with the others, pointing out differences -sometimes negatively. One example, it can be the marginalised people in urban societies in relation to the dominant populations. In this paper, it is mainly used as the process of active cohabitation with other users and occupants in specific spaces as mutual exchange and collective experience. It is highly used by the scholar Stavros Stavrides. His academic work was highly consulted during this research. Even though, it is not the main research topic to understand the relations between the otherness of each person or group of people, it is important to include it in the commoning processes to better understand the spatial transformations in the making of inclusive places. A possible definition can be found in the following: “Otherness is due less to the difference of the Other than to the point of view and the discourse of the person who perceives the Other as such. Opposing Us, the Self, and Them, the Other, is to choose a criterion that allows humanity to be divided into two groups: one that embodies the norm and whose identity is valued and another that is defined by its faults, devalued and susceptible to discrimination.”

From the abstract of Staszak, ‘Other/Otherness’.

13

Ostrom3 undoubtedly contributed to this phenomenon by showing that communities are capable of successfully governing shared resources without resorting to either privatisation or state intervention, going against the tragedy of commons theory, which argues that personal interests overshadow common ones.

Through this lens, cities are to be understood as a common good. An accumulation of common-pool resources for everyone, including the marginalised ones, just as advocated by many of those involved in temporary occupations in Brussels. In general, urban commons can be defined as previously degraded spaces that are revitalised by user groups collectively through appropriation.

It can be understood as the process of their reintegration to the urban fabric, where city planners and public powers are incapable and/or uninterested in using some vacant urban spaces. Moreover, institutionalised temporary occupations can also support community infrastructures, aided by local authorities enabling collective action and overcoming management obstacles for commoners’ use, leading sometimes to hybrid governance systems. As such, commoning practices can be the means towards attaining the right to the city, thus fostering the emancipation of citizens. At the same time, there will be always the fear of (contemporary) enclosures, either by neoliberal forces, or even by the group of people who initiated the temporary occupation – in the latter case, it could be considered as a closed community.

The theory of commons can be visualised as a triangular interrelation between the commoners, the practices of commoning, and the common space. Each one affecting each other. In the dipole of common space and practices, space can be understood as the result of commoning practices, and the practices can be perceived as the ongoing translation, transformation, and inhabitation of the space. For Stavros Stavrides4, common space arises from collective inhabitation and differs from public spaces governed by authorities or private spaces controlled by closed groups. A threshold space, which emerges through a community’s collective participation in the process of commoning.

A space between public and private, between individual and collective that invites the commoners to transform it through inhabitation, or even to observe and translate the otherness of other citizens.

In the following sections, this thesis will delve into the theory of commons, examine specific case studies of temporary occupation projects in Brussels, analyse user appropriations and their role in fostering conviviality, while exploring various related challenges and opportunities. By doing so, this research hopes to contribute to the growing body of knowledge on temporary occupations and their implications for fostering inclusive hospitality in Brussels.

3 Elinor Ostrom in 1990 provided a comprehensive framework for understanding and improving the governance of commonpool resources through her book Governing the Commons.

4 Stavros Stavrides is architect and professor at the School of Architecture, NTUA. Some of his books, which investigate the meaning of urban space and the practices of its habitation are: Towards the City of Thresholds (2011). Stavrides critiques the prevailling neoliberal urban development paradigm, which prioritises profit-driven projects, privatization, and the exclusion of marginalised communities. Especially, in recent years, his work has focused on the theoretical approach to public space and the forms that the struggles for the right to the city take, while argues that the reclamation of public spaces and the creation of inclusive, accessible environments are crucial for the development of just and sustainable cities.

14

0.3 Intentions Gabu Heindl, an architect, but also urbanist and activist, managed to put into words some of my main intentions throughout this thesis by the following: The relationship of trust between an architect and the community is generated with the work one does before a project like this. I met one member of the group at a discussion about the value of formerly squatted places for the city [Vienna]. Generally, I have been supportive of nonprofit and activist groups with regards to their spatial claims long before and have been working on spatial justice theoretically and practically as much as is possible from within an architectural practice.5 Contemporary practitioners have the opportunity to actively participate in collaborative endeavours, shaping and utilising emerging common spaces. By applying architecture practices, they hold the power to contribute to broadening avenues for inclusion and fostering both individual and collective liberation.

Expanding on Stavros’ questions, “Can architecture study the characteristics of such spaces and propose forms of spatial arrangement that may contribute to their proliferation, making them at the same time more adjustable to the needs of urban commoners?”6, it appears vital to understand the significance of temporary occupation in fostering conviviality, especially in cases as community infrastructure. Essential for urban policymakers, planners, and community organizations. By studying the relationship between common space, user appropriations, and practices towards hospitality via the analytical tool of the theory of commons, this research aims to shed light on the potential of temporary occupation initiatives to create vibrant and socially cohesive community infrastructures in Brussels.

Analytically, in certain situations, temporary occupation can serve as a means for citizens to reclaim their city. It is important for policymakers and state actors to promote practices that encourage liberation, creativity, and inclusivity, transforming the space into a welcoming environment, which citizens can freely inhabit, and where the neighbourhood and broader communities are welcome. To make this vision a reality, our main focus should be on facilitating the preparation of the space for temporary occupation initiatives that foster inclusive processes and outcomes, rather than allowing it to drift towards commercialised ones. Therefore, it is crucial to comprehend the sense of hospitality in the scale of the space; evaluate successful approaches; recognise their limitations; and consider the specific spatial contexts in which these practices are implemented.

As overall, the main intention of this thesis is to describe real-world examples of temporary occupation projects through observation and desktop research, and theoretical analysis defined by the theory of commons, while offering valuable insights into the significance of collective action in community infrastructures. It encourages readers to reflect critically on the cities in which they live

5 Urban Commons Research Collective, Urban Common Handbook, 130.

6 Stavrides, ‘Toward an Architecture of Commoning’, 84.

15

and actively participate in shaping their urban future, while proposing them alternative and collective ways of imagination for urban spaces.

0.4 Question of research and hypotheses As already explained, my main focus is on the spatial tools of transformation and the commoning practices that can be found in some temporary occupations to better understand how the initiators make these spaces hospitable and usable for the different populations.

But also, it is important to understand whether these infrastructures are being used and transformed by the newcomers through the time, and in which extent. A sort of regeneration of common space as a sign of hospitality evolution. How do the various users tend to appropriate the space? How do they interact with the space? Which transformations do construct the space?

By examining distinct spatial configurations representative of specific community infrastructures, we can uncover not just the functions and interpretations of space, but also the principles behind establishing and maintaining such diverse social identities.

0.4.1 The main question Temporary occupation in previously vacant Brussels’ buildings as spaces of urban community infrastructure through the lens of commons: What are the spatial tools that make these places hospitable?

0.4.2 Hypotheses 1st hypothesis: The initiators usually have a general plan of transformation of these empty, inactive spaces into community infrastructure. There is strong evidence that not all spatial interventions and configurations are capable of welcoming people and, furthermore, of creating hospitable environments ready to be used and appropriated by the future users and communities.

These interventions are probably constrained by their relations with the rest of the buildings, the public street, or even the size, and spatial complexities.

Are there any common, basic spatial tools of transformation of the common space that foster hospitality? And what are the relations of the common space to the rest of the building? Are there any limitations to the spatial practices?

2nd hypothesis: In a later phase, the goal is to understand whether the initially transformed space is capable of being appropriated by the new waves of users, and how the given space is transformed.

There is strong evidence that these spaces are appropriated by physically interventions from the new wave of users and/or communities. Some of them just tend to use the space, but some others are capable of inhabiting it and willing to reconstruct it, either ephemerally or permanently. In this continuous process of interventions, the common space of these infrastructures is imagined as a space under constant transformation, always questioning the notion of hospitality.

16

Is the space transformed in the same way and amplitude in the different cases throughout their various temporalities by the new users? Can we identify the relations of these people with the space ?

And if yes, how the given space impact their practices of interventions?

0.5 General methodology In general, the methodology of this research, as was aforementioned, is the exploration of the contemporary landscape of temporary occupation field but also its understanding as a common space sculpted by commoning practices of the diverse users. A research approach through both, the existing literature combining temporary occupation documentation with seminal theories about the commons, and the in-situ investigation of three cases studies.

In the first part, this thesis will delve into the theory of commons, after a small exploration of the different actors and users of contemporary temporary occupations in Brussels’ scene. For that, desktop research was important, as well as attending of seminars, conferences, and festivals.

In addition, consultation of previous master’s theses was vital. The knowledge gained will be used mainly as a guideline and a lens for exploring the case studies, while enriching the vocabulary of how to describe and therefore analyse them.

In the second part, the paper proposes the investigation of three specific case studies. It analyses user appropriations and their role in fostering hospitality, both the group of initiators and the new wave of users and/or communities. It also explores the challenges and opportunities of the (common) space in close relation with the (commoning) practices. For that, I introduce a specific way of analysing for all the cases, by using graphic tools such as plans, and sketches. The graphic tools will be explored more in detail later. Precisely, more information can be found at the beginning of the second part (see page 45). In general, as main research tools were used the spatial analysis, semidirective interviews with the actors, initiators and users, and direct observations of the spaces.

In the third part, the research paper will try to analyse the results of every case study by comparing them by hypotheses. It wants to showcase as many as possible of their similarities, but most importantly their differences and singularities. The objective is to optimise the results for the conclusion, while expanding and enriching them.

In essence, this thesis aims to add to the expanding knowledge about temporary occupation’s role in nurturing hospitality in Brussels. It aspires to enrich the existing literature and archive diverse cases through various graphical mediums.

0.6 The cases studies The main focus of this thesis is on community infrastructures that emerge from the temporary occupation of previously vacant urban spaces in Brussels, which will be further elaborated in the first part – the notion of that and the reason of choice. Particularly, the three cases studies of temporary occupation as community infrastructures which will be analysed mainly in the second part of this thesis are the following: La Serre, Allée du Kaai, and Zonneklopper.

17

The selection was made with main criteria of the different location in relation to the urban tissue of the city of Brussels (urban context); the different populations (communities) approached and welcomed; the different actors (institutionalised or not) and initiators; the different percentage of housing offered in those spaces; the variation of size and arrangement of the common space in relation to the rest of the building; the different situations they are (already finished, old, recent); the accessibility to the information; and the physical accessibility.

At the beginning, Allée du Kaai (ADK) was selected as an initial inspiration to invest my thesis to the world of temporary occupation of empty buildings as urban community infrastructures.

It was a place where I knew the group of initiators (Toestand) and I had access to a lot of information – even though, during the writing of this paper, it is already over.

Afterward, I got to know more La Serre (LS). Actually, I knew this place even before I had to choose the subject of my thesis. LS to me has been a place to hang out time to time. And so, I found it very intriguing to re-explore that space for my thesis, and of course, because of the proximity to my university.

Having these two cases in my mind, ADK and LS, I wanted to add a third one. I wanted to avoid concluding that community infrastructures through temporary occupation fosters hospitality either through one way or another. On the contrary, I was eager to explore and investigate the variety of urban commons that these places can generate through their interventions, and thus their constant transformation. As a result, it was important to find a third case that somehow acts as complementarity between the possible gap that would have been created in-between LS and ADK – in the version of the thesis of having two cases studies. Considering not only its size and the urban context in which it is positioned, but also the actors who initiated the community infrastructure and those who use the space afterward.

And that is why I chose Zonneklopper (ZK) as the third case. Particularly, ZK is run by volunteers who formed an ASBL – or, in English, non-profit organisation (NPO). Both the initiators of LS (Communa) and ADK (Toestand) are asbl who now they are somehow institutionalised – or at least they standardise their practices of temporary occupation in applications of calls for public projects of temporary occupation of empty buildings. At the same time, LS is more on a local level due to its size, but ADK in a supra-local due to the same reason and its location. In addition, LS is more in an urban residential context, and ADK in a more post-industrial urban context.

So, it was important to my research project to have three cases studies who are appropriated in different urban contexts, by different actors and in different lengths and periods of time. The aim is to compare them as urban common spaces and practices, to showcase their particularities and limitations of these occupations as convivial spaces of transformation. With the main goal to enrich the results and conclusion.

In addition, the cases are chosen concerning the length of their lifetime. At least three years possibility of existence. In those cases, I feel, that the initial and the broader community can invest, imagine, explore and appropriate the spaces without plenty of barriers. An example of short duration, but still crucial to the sociocultural network in the city of Brussels, is the NPO L’accroche. At that 18

moment, I was between two occupations for choosing, L’accroche or ZK. Although, their history dates a few years now, their place in Avenue de Couronne (Cimmetière d’Ixelles) unfortunately lasted almost a year. As they have mentioned to me during one of my few personal observations, it is not enough for transforming the space and open up to the neighbourhood.

19

Returning to the interior street, we find ourselves in Zonnestraat’s covered area (Fig.52). Tables and chairs offer a threshold for occupants and visitors to interact and relax (Fig.47-C3). It’s a space where diverse individuals from caravans, apartments, and artists intersect. This space is also the first time that we see interventions that structure the common space, such as a mini charter – informing outsider for the interior safety and consent rules of ZK (Fig.53) – and a sign – guiding them through the different public spaces (Fig.52). In general, the overall ambience that Zonnestraat gives to its users, who either want to intervene and inhabit it or just pass by, is a feeling of a versatile entity: between a corridor of gentle mobility and different calm corners of relaxation.

The doors of openings on the interior corridor’s sides are always open. Moving into the other building, we reach the transformed bar area (Fig.47-D3), characterised by a wooden structure covered with colourful planks (Fig.57). Couches, a table, and a library define the space, creating a convivial atmosphere with carpets, books, plastic plants, and neon lights. A relatively small room surrounded by openings leading to the garbage room on the right and to the salon on the left, after passing through curtains. In general, this side of ZK’s common space was characterised by more permanent interventions and dedicated more to events organised for the general public and by the locals. Maybe that is no coincidence. It seems that ZK knew that people outside of the collective will feel less need to invest in the space and that these rooms have to be more defined and welcoming than the ones on the other side and the threshold space in the middle. Next to the bar is the salon, separated by a curtain (Fig.47-D4), featuring a wooden stage, kitchen, and couches (Fig.59). This room serves as a relaxing area and noise buffer from the adjacent small concert hall. The nearby garbage room also serves as a potential threshold space to the communal kitchen upstairs via a staircase (Fig.47-D2).

Exiting the last room, we return to Zonnestraat and find another chilling area (Fig.47-C4) that structures the space and allows furniture interaction (Fig.64b). Mainly used by ZK members, it’s transformed for their weekly forums. Ephemeral interventions like drawings, flags, and statues foster hospitality during events (Fig.64b). Nearby, a sign indicates public spaces/services, creating familiarity. This space connects various passages. Most of them were closed, except of the passage with the toilets and bike parking (Fig.47-C5) and occasionally of the big concert hall (special events).

In the left building’s third room is the kids’ area (Fig.47-B3). It is forbidden to parents (Fig.54).

Vincent and friends created the Zkids playground with leftover materials like pots and car wheels (Fig.63), fostering unique hospitality with colours and toys. Children play while parents relax at the nearby bar. Reflecting on La Serre’s unrealised playground, its hybrid governance limited initiator’s imagination and space transformation.

“In general, there is an entry protocol. But in principle, anyone can come. There are no restrictions. It’s a space that is really open to everyone”, Vincent argues.186 However, not all of the users felt the need to contribute to the maintenance and constant transformation of the threshold, evolving the sense of the hospitality. A lot of the ephemeral and temporary interventions were made

by ZK’s members and friends during their events organised there – such as the preparation for the

186 “Il y a un protocole d’entrée. Mais à priori, n’importe qui peut venir. Il n’y a pas de restrictions. C’est un espace vraiment ouvert à tous.te.s.” Based on the interview with Vincent.

120

zone C C5 B3

C4

D4 B2

C3

D3

D2

D1

B1

C2

C1

zone B

zone C

zone D

Fig. 47, Plan view of ZK’s ground floor from personal observations 121

Fig. 48, Main facade of ZK from the street Avenue de la Verrerie

Fig. 49. The main entrance: door - gate 122

Fig. 50. Posters on the gate

Fig. 51. Main entrance from the interior street

Fig. 52. The interior street called Zonnestraat

Fig. 53. Charter about ZK and its safety rules

Fig. 54. Zkids room prohibition sign 123

carnival sauvage, the Ball, the expo. Same materials have been seen to be reused in the common space in different ways. It is probably the beauty of informality… A hospitality which is more like homelike environment.

5.3.8 First traces of interventions End of April 2021. The initial collective of ZK, together with friends and some locals of the surrounding neighbourhoods started the first phase of occupation. Because they had an agreement of three years without any subsides and salary for their interventions, they had to act strategically, and to activate the building for everyone in need while keeping it as open to the public as possible.

Firstly, they divided the spaces: ateliers, housing area, common spaces, services for the neighbourhood – as it explained before. In the meantime, they improved the accommodation area for the transmigrants in order to have their rooms according to the public safety norms, such as electricity.

However, they had way more than that. The size of the complex, the diversity and the complexity of the different buildings had set necessary the division of the bigger community of ZK in different groups: one of them is Building Site (for building), another for the Occupation (for the definition of new places of the complex), and so on. Important to say that even today ZK is divided into different groups for taking decision-actions. This organisation model is similar to the logistic team of Toestand but in a self-managed form. Everyone participates in their own pace. One ZK member explained me that they use some of the space of ZK for their stock, and in return they helped to clean-up and organize the space for other projects.187 They also mentioned that they have been two movements at that beginning, during the first wave of interventions. One was to clean up the space while collecting materials of every kind. And second, having as a reference point those materials, they could start imagining and constructing the space as a future community infrastructure. That reminds me what Samuel said about how materials makes project. And all that, it is very energy demanding. And that was the reason that they had made a call for people from outside to join them during the constructions.

Here, we need to understand that the construction team was so big and diverse, without having necessarily any background of temporary occupation and/or construction. Amongst them, there were around four architects. They were the ones who made the drawings for the temporary occupation project call from the owner of the building complex, and they were the ones who tried to put the imaginary utopia of ZK down to paper. About the common spaces, they started from the collective kitchen and the communal zone for the transmigrants located at the first floor. They are considered as a buffer zone between their accommodation and the collective space of the occupation’s initiators. In addition, the transmigrants were not asked to help in the construction site – even today – because of their precariousness and the limited time that they might stay at ZK. The first traces of intervention at the public common space of the ground are not that visible.

By that, I pay attention to necessary cleaning of these spaces. They had to make sure that there is everywhere electricity, that there is no important water leakage, and of course to start realising slowly-slowly safety prevention for the public, such as fire protection. Another important step –

187 Based on an anonymous discussion with a member of ZK the 7th April 2023.

124

e on

C

z

iv

x

v

vi >A

vii

iv viii ix

>B

ix

zone D

ii

zone C

iii

zone B

iv

i

Fig. 55, Plan view of ZK’s ground floor main interventions 125

Fig. 56, The room of the bar before transformation

Fig. 57, The room of the bar after transformation 126

Fig. 58, The room of the salon before transformation

Fig. 59, The room of the salon after transformation 127

Fig. 60, The second multipurpose room before transformation

Fig. 61, The second multipurpose room after transformation 128

Fig. 62, The room of Zkids before transformation

Fig. 63, The room of Zkids before transformation 129

which in other cases was not that extensive because of the size and complexity of ZK – was to ensure that passages were accessible or not from the general public. They made new doors to prevent external users from entering the storage rooms, private artistic ateliers, and housing units (Fig.55-ix).

In other passages, it was a matter of optical disconnection by just hanging curtains during events, like the openings between the interior street and the salon, or the multipurpose rooms and the big hall (Fig.55-iv).

Similar to the other cases, once again the bar was one of the first things to make at ZK. It was an important step closer to the opening to the neighbourhood in order to offer an indoor space for the more vulnerable population, such as elderly and families (Fig.55-viii). The desire to show the place to the neighbours, intrigued by the activities that took place inside, also resided in the fact of reassuring them that it was not a group of people who were vandalising the building but that it was a future place of community infrastructure for both the occupants and the neighbourhoods around. As it was explained before, it was made completely by materials from their stock. Couches, sofas, all of them they were made in one period. The salon with the small kitchen followed (Fig.55-vii). At the same time, they install the new toilets at the end of the Zonnestraat with the bike parking infrastructure (Fig.55-x) in order to be able to invite bigger amount of people.

After they finished with the first wave of transformations of the spaces on the right of Zonnestraat, they decided to clean the big hall. They wanted to open it up to the neighbourhood as a possible skatepark. However, this plan is on hold since there are a lot of pigeons and rainwater leakage.

Maybe one reason could be that there is not a community/collective of skaters in the collective of ZK to initiate and maintain such a big space – like in the case of ADK. Contrary to the emptiness of the big hall, there is the space of Zkids, a playground for kids. Vincent with members of ZK and kids built it out of materials found in ZK (Fig.55-v). At the same building, the other two rooms decided to be multifunctional spaces – probably because ZK did not have the time and energy to invest also in them transforming into hospitable places with permanent interventions. However, they belong to the common space, which are activated mostly by temporary interventions during some events.

The exception to the spaces is the first multipurpose room where they have made a permanent wall (Fig.55-iii) for the participatory bike workshop – it will be analysed better later.

Zonnestraat, the interior street, has seen varied transformations – but not all as permanent ones.

Originally placed couches and a table at the crossroad (Fig.55-vi) initiated ZK’s project, structuring the common space and allowing expansion and interaction.

5.3.9 Later traces of interventions During my observations, ZK experienced a period of limited openness to the public, affecting hospitality maintenance. Newcomers used the space but often didn’t contribute to the commoning practices of its transformation. “It’s hard to create a link with the neighbourhood” Vincent adds.188 Despite reduced permanencies, some neighbours still engaged casually, asking for some materials from ZK’s stock, sitting a bit at the corridor and chatting. In addition, locals didn’t propose many 188 “C’est dur de créer du lien avec le quartier”. Based on the interview with Vincent.

130

events in ZK’s public spaces as initially imagined.

On top of that, when I arrived at ZK, it was unclear whether they can be open to the public affected mainly by external difficulties. Limitation to their practices and evolution of the transformation of the space was the public authorities (police, fire department). As ZK members explained to me the authorities were mentioning security regulation, like in case of fire scenario. That affected the whole pallet of possible social interventions and interactions. However, the dedication of ZK kept the place alive as much as they could. For example, they created more emergency exits and installed water mist as fire protection system. Although, it is never enough. Vincent argued: The rule for temporary projects is the process of the rule for everyone.

As if it were a permanent project. That’s the problem... I understand, but...

If we do things properly, we’ll already be gone. It’s taking too long! And it’s vital. We don’t have the budget to do that.189 However, space transformation persisted, with a focus on housing and artist studios.

Bigger permanent changes occurred elsewhere due to priority shifts. Temporary, ephemeral spatial interventions enhanced partial inhabitation in the common space, supported by the CollectiveConstruction-Site model, resembling ADK and LS logistic teams but driven by social economy and solidarity. A day of building, fixing, and taking care the community infrastructure. To whoever wants to join and help the construction team or the person who has the idea of a project. This approach, driven by the idea of a shared urban public good, motivated members to maintain the project despite limited subsidies. I remember once, I gave a hand to reorganise the space of La Donnerie with the idea of contributing to making the space a bit more hospitable – since La Donnerie had started to get out of control as explained before.

Significant changes included private access for transmigrant accommodations and a smaller door on the main gate. Recognising the need for separate entrances, the transmigrant housing now uses a different entrance than the public one. They had also changed the size of the main door gate.

Instead of using every time the full opening, they made a smaller one as door on the gate of the public entrance. So now, if you want to enter ZK as a visitor for an event, you just use the door and not the whole gate. As Vincent explained, this change did not affect the general mobility and popularity of the common place. These transformations, while impactful, don’t explicitly reflect commoning practices.

Zonnestraat (Fig.55-A) Even though, they have not been so many transformations from the newcomers outside the collective of ZK, I find important to analyse one part of the common space at the ground floor – and more precisely Zonnestraat. It serves not only as a site of varied individual engagements but also facilitates the observation and interpretation of diverse populations present over time. ZK intentionally left this space loosely defined, encouraging adaptable inhabitation and interactions with the furniture.

189 “La règle pour des projets temporaires est le processus de la règle de tout le monde. Comme si c’était un projet permanent.

C’est ça le problème… Je comprends, mais… Si on fait les choses comme il faut, on sera déjà parti. C’est trop long ! Et c’est très important. On a pas les budgets pour faire ça.” Based on an interview with Vincent.

131

Zonnestraat remains dynamic, offering people the opportunity to engage at their own pace and even to establish a form of habitation. “Ahh, yeah, and the corridor is a funny place, because you come back and sometimes there are a lot of different people, sitting around the table.”, someone, who used to live temporarily at ZK in their caravan, mentioned.

There was a colourful brick wall that caught my eye (Fig.64b). After I have asked a ZK member the origins of that and intentions behind it in relation with hospitality, I got an answer which I did not really expect. “In fact, painting is a bit anecdotal compared to other work.”190 They argued that the paint on the walls was nothing to compare to other works that they did to activate the building complex of Zonneklopper, including, housing units, atelier for artists, rooms for concerts and events.

It is interesting to think about the different definitions and senses of hospitality from various people.

Contrary to that statement, they had also added some colourful flags, and a coloured sign mentioning the different public spaces.

As we can see through the diagrammatic sketches, since then, they have not been any essential interventions that can be easily traced. As a passage and a crossroad of different backgrounds of users and occupants, it feels that this space has to be somehow semi-defined (couches that structures the space along and closer to the brick wall) and semi-flexible (with all the small details that make the space enough hospitable for a certain amount of time – mainly from ZK members, though). In addition, the fact that it was an exterior space had obvious impact on the amount of time that people

190 “En fait, la peinture, c’est un peu anecdotique à comparer aux autres travaux”. Based on an anonymous discussion with a member of ZK the 7th April 2023.

Fig. 64c, ZK space 1 time 3 132

Fig. 64a, ZK space 1 time 1

Fig. 64b, ZK space 1 time 2 133

were using the space.

Multipurpose room (Fig.55-B) A space that it has relatively a history of transformations is the of the multipurpose room with the participatory bike workshop – even though, it had quite difficult time maintaining hospitality.

I met Marie-Emilie, one of the members of the NPO of Cyklopper. Back then, ZK demanded the creation of a space for participatory bike workshops. Not only for the neighbourhood, but also for the people of ZK and the transmigrants in order to be more autonomous in their mobility. As she explained me, for them, it was important where to put their atelier and how to arrange the space so people they are not scared to enter and use it.

In details, the choice of this space was driven not just by its proximity to the entrance for easy accessibility, but also its direct link to a storage area crucial for securing their supplies. Yet, negotiations with ZK’s larger community, specifically the “Strategies and Occupation” team, were necessary. Before Cyklopper, the room served as a gardening and gathering spot during ZK’s initial transformation (Fig. 65b). It still remains a shared space for gardening. Marie-Emilie noted that they initially created a small atelier using metal panels (Fig. 65c), leaving some couches outdoors as a relaxation zone. In addition, a hanging bike marked the workshop’s location at the entrance. As the workshop gained popularity, they expanded, improving insulation for comfort against the cold (Fig. 65d). As a result, couches moved inside, establishing a clear division between private and public areas, reflecting the complexities under analysis. Interestingly, Cyklopper invested heavily in their workshop, resulting in relatively less attachment and collective interest to the nearby multipurpose space among the community, leading to its partial decline over time.

A resident who lived on the ground floor in a caravan shared insights about the multipurpose room and public space in general. Interestingly, before her arrival at ZK, she was staying for a couple of weeks at ADK (the second case study), and they told her that ZK is closer to what she is searching for, offering her both collaborative opportunities and longer housing periods. During her time, the ground floor hosted 4-5 caravans, especially in winter. She described the multipurpose room as an ever-changing space. It shifted from chaotic to a cleaned space for ZK’s Ball event as lounge area (Fig. 65e), then transformed into an exhibition area for ZK’s expo. This room has seen so many faces she adds. The last time I have seen this space, it was always between permanent use (Cyklopper) and temporary one. At the end, of my research, they have added in front of the gardening equipment, a DIY ping pong table provided diversion for those waiting for the concert hall’ performances (Fig. 65f).

However, even nowadays, Marie-Emilie feels that there are some barriers for the people to enter and arrive at that space, such as the entrance which sometimes is not that wide open as it is supposed to be; and the multifunctional room next to them which is sometimes not so welcoming looking like a garbage area. “We tell people to come to the bike workshops. The space in the workshop is pretty

134

Fig. 65a, ZK space 2 time 1

Fig. 65b, ZK space 2 time 2 135

Fig. 65c, ZK space 2 time 3

Fig. 65d, ZK space 2 time 4 136

Fig. 65e, ZK space 2 time 5

Fig. 65f, ZK space 2 time 6 137

nice. But there’s all the surrounding area, which is a bit of a garbage dumpsite” she underlined.191 She also argued that sometimes people think that the space of the entrance is abandoned. Similar to this room, the small bar downstairs had also some difficulties in maintaining its hospitality. The reason for that is the absence of volunteers to run the bar like it happens at La Serre.

Here, I would like to add that one day, by surprise, I saw Marie-Émile at La Serre while she was preparing meals for La Fourchette Solidaire. I did not know that she was part of the collective there too. She expressed her preference to frequent more at ZK. As she said, even though LS is smaller with a heating system and maybe more convivial at first sight than ZK, for her ZK was more hospitable.

So, I supposed, it was not a result of personal attachment to a house (housing need) since she lives neither at ZK, nor at LS. But, maybe more, as a place that she could invest more, and imagined bigger dreams of utopia – as a lot of people at ZK referred to. She added that when she thinks about ZK, it is more about the people rather than the physical space.

Future projects Someone, who used to live temporary at ZK in their caravan, mentioned: I came here in September, and it took me so long to understand the vibe because like… it is everchanging, like nothing stays the same. Every day is different. Even now, I still discover rooms and spaces where I’ve never been, and I live here nearly like more than like half a year. I swear I’ve never experienced something like this, but here’s an abundance of everything. Yeah, you have everything you want to. Think about something that you wish to be built. I don’t know… If you want something, you imagine it, and it will appear in some corner. I feel like in a dream. Yeah, really, there’s an abundance of everything.192 ZK, a community infrastructure is often described as a space full of complexity, richness, insane size, and diverse audience. Its lifetime of two and a half years does not seem a lot to realise the utopia that the initial ZK collective wanted and still wants to. “It is progressing. Fast, and not so fast. There are lots of things being done, but as it is very big you see. You do not realize how big it is.” Vincent argues.193 As Julien explained – another member of ZK from the beginning who lives also there – that they still have vital projects to realize, such as the big hall, the staircase to the first floor, and the empty space on the right of the main entrance. It seems that limited finances and time forced them to shift from accomplishing the activation of ground floor as shared public space to expanding upstairs for housing and workspaces. With growing experience and community understanding, they gained

191 “On dit aux gens de venir aux ateliers de vélos. Dans l’atelier l’espace est plutôt chouette. Mais, il y a tous les alentours qui sont là et qui rassemblent un peu à une décharge”. Based on the interview with Marie-Emilie the 16th March 2023.

192 Based on an anonymous discussion with someone that used to live temporarily at ZK in their caravan. The discussion was the 20 June 2023.

193 “Ça avance. Rapide et pas rapide quoi. Il y a plein de choses qui se font, mais comme c›est très grand tu vois. Tu ne le rends pas comptes bien”. Based on the interview with Vincent.

138

confidence to reinvest in the ground floor, creating new urban common goods.

Specifically, their aim is to convert a significant part of the large hall into a skatepark and sports area in general, inviting local youth and hopefully displacing pigeons. This transformation is meant to make the building more welcoming, fostering a sense of belonging and encouraging ongoing use. They’re also considering their initial idea of creating a staircase connecting Zonnestraat to the first-floor public area room for dance classes and jam sessions), expanding public accessibility and possibly the threshold space of the ground floor. Additionally, they’ve begun activating the groundfloor indoor space (on the left of Zonnestraat) where La Donnerie used to be. They envision it as a centre for recycling construction materials and a local wood workshop.

5.3.10 Some thoughts In overall, we have seen limitations faced by the broader community of ZK in opening up the ground floor transforming into a threshold space of otherness of different users, and into a vibrant place full of cultural events and practices. However, we have experienced different results of what common space can be imagined, perceived, and materialized. More precisely, different socio-spatial configurations – than the other case studies – in relation to the sense of hospitality showcased the significance of a diverse actor network in Brussels’ temporary occupation landscape. But also, we have observed different commoning practices – especially through the process of commoning architectural practices and appropriation – and how they structure the space in a versatile way. It attracts different populations than the other case studies since the common space is activated more during the weekends or when there is event. Someone can think that it might be a form of internal enclosure, but ZK proves that their community is open to interact with other people outside of their collective’s residents and people that use the ateliers. They are open to offer part of the temporary occupation for inhabitation and why not proposal of transformations from locals, and beyond. However, sometimes, the human factor is more important than the physical interventions. They expanded the notion of hospitality, enriching the relationship between initiators and their temporary occupation vision.

139

Section 3: A nalysis and

evaluation of the results

140

6. Comparative discussion It is now important to discuss the findings of the different case studies before moving towards the conclusion. This chapter aims to compare the spatial tools found within the different temporary occupations – put in place by both the initiators and the newcomers – in order to better understand and reveal their significance in fostering hospitality, as well as their possible limitations. As shown in the previous section, some spatial transformation tools were observed to be common among the three case studies. However, in different contexts, these tools have proven to have mostly differing results, which underlines the unique nature and singularities of each space and group of users.

Since the main question of this research – “What are the spatial tools that make these places hospitable?” – has been broken down into two hypotheses, this analytical comparison will take a similar structure, which should enable a clear understanding. The first one delves into the results from the spatial transformations made by the initiators, and in relation with the rest of the initial space. The second investigates the way newcomers interact with the already transformed space and whether they contributed to its evolution, and if so, to which extent.

Reflections on the initiators’ interventions In each of the cases, the initiators used certain spatial tools to activate the common spaces, which sometimes encouraged openness and hospitality. For example, all three of them, from their beginning, constructed a café or bar. This appeared to be important as one of the main first steps in order to open up the space and bring people inside. Another tool was the implementation of a heating system, which two out of the three cases had. This was proven to be an important factor, especially for approaching and catering to more vulnerable populations, including children and families. The absence of insulation had a significant impact on the comfort of the users at ZK and on their duration of stay, resulting in less possibilities of inhabiting and appropriating the space. Moreover, the collection of materials with a form of rapid decision-action making was crucial in the construction processes of all three cases. This led to the spaces having DIY furniture, which had an effect of fostering a sense of home-like hospitality. As previously mentioned, the materials make the projects. This played a role in the observations of ADK and ZK, where people tended to materially appropriate the spaces more permanently than LS. In addition, in all three cases, the common spaces had both zones of interventions destined for predefined usages as well as zones without any fixed interventions, as multipurpose areas (with tables and chairs). As a consequence, this helped bring people together and interact collectively with the space, either more passively in the more defined space, or more actively in the more fluid spaces. Furthermore, all of the case studies had occasionally utilised the power of collective construction sites, calling for locals to help out. This was not necessarily done because they were lacking the logistical manpower, but more to give people the chance to feel that they somehow own the space. In addition, this also helped in the sharing of knowledge on the production of space, which is itself another commoning spatial practice.

In the case studies, the common space was initially transformed in relation with the rest of the 141

building, to ensure a better maintenance and sense of hospitality. In particular, doors were installed for better control of the area destined for the public. They also decided on ultimately creating special accesses for different services. Having the common space on the ground floor and its main area close to the main entrance is something found in all cases. In addition, attaining visibility between different zones of the common space proved to be important, to a different extent in the cases. For this reason, ADK moved the bar in front of the kitchen. In contrast, ZK had maintenance issues in different areas because the zones of its common space were scattered in different rooms. Specifically, the example of the two multipurpose rooms at ZK revealed that the second multipurpose area tends to be frequented more than the other, due to its proximity to the main zone – the interior street – of ZK. Moreover, the relation to the public street played a significant role, affecting the levels of accessibility to these spaces. While LS had a large gate that was left wide open in good weather, the other occupations preferred medium-size doors. That might be associated with the fact that LS had only one entrance and the space was relatively small. To go further, both LS and ADK had initial plans of opening up a public street crossing the whole building complex. However, this never materialised in either case, due to safety reasons for the potential occupants. They thus opted to be open, but not too open. In this vein, achieving hospitality in community infrastructure has shown to not necessarily be about physical openness, but instead mainly to be open for appropriation in a safe and familiar context for the users. Strong relational traces were also observed in the decorations of the facades at ADK and LS, demonstrating their services to passers-by in a context-sensitive way, such as signs, panels with their programs and political quotes. Interestingly, LS chose the interior street domain to do that, where a safety-rule panel was put just after the entrance.

The levels of hospitality fostered by the spatial practices of the initiators were met with some limitations for various reasons. Maintenance seemed to be an important factor here. For instance, as previously mentioned, all three cases had made a bar at the very first stages of transformation. However, LS had a quite difficult time sustaining the conviviality of that space due to a lack of maintenance.

Even though this is not necessarily associated with spatial practices – which is the main topic of this section’s investigation – it did prove to be crucial for the overall hospitality. This maintenance issue was also the case at the “Donnerie” – a place of exchange for clothes or materials – in both LS and ZK. As mentioned before, hospitality is not necessarily about having a wide-open space, but more about being open to people’s interpretations and interventions. The vastness of public space of LS together with its physical openness from all directions had an impact on its maintenance too.

Moreover, two other limitations transcending mere spatial tools were noted, the first being the hybrid governance of LS restructuring their imagination of how to spatially intervene. The second was the complex diversity for users at ADK whereby conflicts sometimes emerged between different users.

The latter established an area of well-defined limits, while having other spaces around for possible evolution and expansion. In the other extreme, LS was overly limited, restricting the imagination of how people could inhabit it. Moreover, not all fixed interventions were successful, especially the ones who were proposed to be used by specific users without having them in the first place, such as the library in LS and the skate park at ZK. On the contrary, the skate park at ADK was created following propositions from the occupants.

142

Reflections on the newcomers’ interventions In the different cases, the space was not always transformed by the new users in the same way and amplitude throughout their various temporalities. In all three cases, there was at least one versatile space, mostly containing tables and chairs: the main zone of ADK, the interior street domain of ZK, and the central area of LS. All of them had a zone free of fixed interventions that led to a “construction site-like” process of inhabitation-translation of the space on a daily or weekly basis, where people were called and/or free to redefine the common space and its sense of hospitality in an individual or collective level. Interestingly, in all of them, they were supposed to leave that space as it was before, for the new/next users (if there were different ones). On the contrary, a space which sometimes did not work so well was the multipurpose room, where the people of “Cyklopper” (the bicycle atelier) felt that their space was negatively impacted by its surroundings. This serves to underline the importance of leaving the space as it was before, from the previous sentence. In addition, both initiators and users tended to appropriate the borders of the zones – or of the space in general – with more permanent spatial tools, keeping the more temporary, ephemeral ones for the middle, as undefined zones, often also serving as passages. Another potent example of interventions was the graffities and drawings, serving to transform the given space without really affecting its functionality. Nevertheless, this impacted the sense of hospitality in various ways, as was showcased in the different cases. While after a while they were prohibited in LS, in ADK there were simply no limits.

It was also important to deeply understand the relations of these people with the space they used and, to an extent, inhabit. People who tended to intervene with the space more permanently – such as the aforementioned “Donnerie” at LS, the skate park at ADK, and the multipurpose room at ZK – were the ones who felt the most attached to the space, sometimes even as an enclave group of users. Generally, these people were using the space for a specific project or service. It underlines the importance of these spaces to them, knowing that they can have access to the space as an urban good.

Beyond this, it was showcased that successful interventions are not necessarily the ones with the most vibrant colours or aesthetically pleasing. It is critical instead for elements to considered and discussed between and among those proposing the interventions and those who will use them. This covers mainly the spatial tools of permanent interventions. Unsuccessful ones – such as the “Donnerie” and Library at LS – were not constructed by the end users and ended up as something that was not so usable, which took ample space, and therefore somehow reduced the hospitality.

During this research, the idea was also present that a space has an impact on the (commoning) practices throughout the various temporalities. In other words, the ways that people feel welcome to come and use the space impacts how other newcomers use the constantly transformed space. In practice, ADK’s size appeared to be large enough to have coexisting sub-areas of different scales of interventions by diverse users (individual inhabitation, translation, and observation among different users) without interrupting or constraining the hospitality of each other. Even though the commons space of LS seemed broadly hospitable enough for its users, LS had not given many opportunities of imagination to the newcomers for future spatial evolutions, who could have evolved and constructed the space during its occupation thus far, just as it happened in the other two cases. As such, more permanent interventions are less likely to happen. Moreover, there is often a fear of enclosure from 143

internal forces of permanent interventions by a group of users, which can affect the hospitality of others. An example of this is the concerns of the aforementioned “Cyklopper” at ZK, or, to a much lesser extent, the kitchen at ADK. In the latter, once they had changed the arrangement of the kitchen, the way people used the surrounding area had also changed, improving the overall idea of common space. Furthermore, a great example proving that permanent interventions can transform the space and still constitute a threshold between people’s “otherness”, was the skate park at ADK. It had a transitional versatile character inviting different users to interact with that space while evolving the sense of hospitality through constantly changing groups of users. The semi-flexibility of that zone gave enough sense of a right to the newcomers to use the space as a common good, and even imagine it in the way that they would like to. As a result, the final permanent outcome was a mosaic of different interventions – ones that did not necessarily erase the previous ones.

Global reflections Overall, the implementations and effects of spatial tools have been shown to be characterised by a range of factors. These factors include: their duration (permanent, temporary, or ephemeral); the building complex where the common space is located (size, accessibility, arrangement of different rooms and/or buildings, and visibility); the actors involved (dedicated initiators, spontaneous users, and newcomers); the coexistence of users and/or services (inhabitation, translation and observation – as explored by Stavros); the constantly transformed given space; the provided materials as commonpool resources; as well as several other factors (such as governance, maintenance, and enclosures by internal or external forces). Even though there are some spatial tools that were found in all three cases, their outcomes have been shown to be heavily influenced by the individual, unique socio-spatial contexts of each case. This therefore plays a fundamental role. Importantly, it should be once again stressed that the initiators’ specific vision of how they imagine hospitality has an enormous effect on the way people intervene and use these community infrastructures as a common public good.

144

7. Conclusion This thesis originally set out as an investigation into the spatial tools of hospitality in previously vacant, activated buildings of Brussels. Aware of the increasing accumulation of enclosures pushed by the neoliberal market, this research aimed to shed light on the potential of temporary occupation initiatives that create vibrant and socially cohesive community infrastructures for citizens who want to reclaim their city. The broad inquiry was broken down into two main research angles: the first being the relations between the spatial practices of the initiators vis-à-vis the initial space, and the second being the spatial tools adopted by newcomers to the already transformed space. This correlation facilitated an understanding of the manifold types and phases of hospitality evolving from changes of occupants, time and space. Moreover, due to prominent theoretical affinities, the unfolding analysis became tightly accompanied by the theory of commons. This turn inspired the research to adopt the urban commons as an analytical tool, utilising its theory and documentations from various scholars and activists, most notably Stavros Stavrides. This helped to delve into the relation between the (common) space and the (commoning) practices from both the initiators and the newcomers. The overall investigation went hand in hand with empirical investigation into three case studies, accompanied by personally developed graphic tools and a broad series of interviews, while building upon diverse insights into existing critique and literature of the current temporary occupation landscape in Brussels. Rather than discerning whether certain temporary occupations initiatives can be perceived as urban commons, the research focused on understanding the reasons behind the emergence of individual and collective actions of hospitality. As a result, it encourages readers to reflect critically on the cities in which they live, as well as to actively participate in shaping alternative and collective ways of imagining urban spaces.

The use of three case studies, with their differing socio-spatial context, location, size, and complexity, enabled an expansion beyond a binary view of whether some spatial tools foster hospitality or not. One of the main findings of this thesis is that, even though there are spatial tools utilised in all three cases – and which are responsible for their transformation into convivial spaces – their final results are influenced by the socio-spatial context in which they are embedded. It has been shown that hospitality is not necessarily achieved by having the most physically open buildings to the neighbourhood or to the broader public, but mainly, to enable spaces to be appropriated and inhabited. The initiators’ visions of how they imagine hospitality thus also have a significant impact on the way people intervene and use the public space in every community infrastructure as a common public good. Moreover, it has been a common phenomenon that people arriving at a space after the first transformation have intervened with it, sometimes even transforming its hospitality, both individually and/or actively. However, the way and level of doing so is strongly affected by the given space (the specific conditions of the space they encounter for the first time), their relation to the whole occupation, and their social status.

Another finding was the significance of having versatile, multipurpose spaces, which are structured by a balance of both fixed and flexible spatial interventions. This was a common feature observed in specific spaces in each case study, with these places tending to be perceived as the most 145

convivial. In such configurations, people can find existing, familiar hospitalities that make them feel comfortable, while also knowing that they can intervene, interpret, and thus reimagine it. This dynamism fits with Stavros’ argument that the vital processes of observation, translation, and interaction with one another’s otherness is a constantly evolving threshold. Moreover, this investigation has underlined that, beyond the obvious necessity of material resources to regenerate a space, commoning practices with a sense of belonging to the space are essential for its maintenance, often creating a collective construction-site-like process. In this vein, it has showcased the imagination and motivation of several groups of people to use a space, or in some cases reconstruct it, either temporarily, or permanently.

And by doing so, the surrounding spaces or users also become influenced, in one way or another.

During the research, one substantial challenge encountered was the hitherto short occupation lifetime of Zonneklopper. It has a lifetime duration of a minimum of three years, a factor that I purposely predefined in my methodology when deciding on the case studies. Yet, it has been proven that merely three years was not enough to observe traces of appropriation from the newcomers. As already recognised, it takes time to create a community infrastructure, to open it to the neighbourhood, and thus to gain the trust of the populations using these spaces. While the main thesis focus was neither the institutionalisation of temporary occupations, nor the urban commons in Brussels per se, the paper has brought knowledge to the existing literature about the temporary occupations in Brussels, specifically from the micro-scale of their publicly accessible spaces. Nevertheless, due to the extent of the analysis – from the large to the small scale, including their different temporalities – there was unfortunately not enough space to conclude the spatial tools together with other complementary means of information, such as tables or diagrams. For the same reason, and also due to limitation of my academic background, this research has specifically used the theories of urban commons in analysing the correlations between space and practices. A more in-depth understanding of the interrelation between different users (commoners), and spaces or their practices, could be analysed by other scholars from other fields for gathering complementary information – such as the relation between private and public life in the realm of housing.

I hereby call for other researchers, architects, planners and activists who are enthusiastic about vacant buildings and temporary occupations to utilise these research findings to more deeply understand Brussels’ occupation network from the micro-scale, i.e., from the perspective of the space and its users. I truly believe it to be a useful tool in showcasing the potency of certain spatial tools in these places, also as a means of proliferation and imagination towards more inclusive urban places in the future. Moreover, I also call for policymakers and community organisations to take action in embracing practices that facilitate more diverse temporary occupations, with at least four years of lifetime, thus enabling community infrastructures to show their true colours. I would like also to remind the concerned actors of the spaces that they should pay as much attention as possible to the acts of maintenance, rather than just the initial transformations, as well as fostering a sense of hospitality and the right to access the space as an urban good, instead of being separate enclosures, enticed by internal and external forces. Together, let us move towards an accumulation of (temporary) community infrastructures.

146

147

Bibliography 148

8. List of references

AA School of Architecture, “Radical Daily Practices - Cristina Gamboa”, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABqO6QWqkao.

‘About Entrakt | Entrakt’. Accessed 10 May 2023. https://www.entrakt.be/en/about-entrakt.

AWB. ‘Canal Plan Brussels – Projects – Architecture Workroom Brussels’. Accessed 15 June 2023. https://www.architectureworkroom.eu/en/projects/168/canal-plan-brussels.

Basourto, Havier. ‘Common-Pool Resource | Natural Resources, Sustainability & Conservation | Britannica’. Britannica, Accessed 12 March 2023. https://www.britannica.com/science/common-pool-resource. beliris. ‘Een Nieuw Park Op de Materialenkaai’. Accessed 15 June 2023. https://www.beliris.be/nl/ projecten/becopark.html.

Berger, Mathieu, Benoit Moritz, Louise Carlier, and Marco Ranzato. Designing Urban Inclusion: Metrolab Brussels Masterclass I. Brussels: Metrolab, 2018.

Berlant, Lauren. ‘The Commons: Infrastructures for Troubling Times*’. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 34, no. 3 (June 2016): 393–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775816645989.

BMA. ‘CANAL PLAN’, Accessed 20 June 2023. https://bma.brussels/en/canal-plan/.

Boie, Gideon. ‘The Activist Commons and How It Changes the City (Cases from Brussels)’. In The Rise of the Common City: On the Culture of Commoning, by Louis Volont and Thijs Lijster.

Urban Notebooks/Stadsschriften/Cahiers Urbains. Brussels: ASP editions - Academic and Scientific Publishers, 2022. https://doi.org/10.46944/9789461173492.

Bollier, David. ‘About | David Bollier’. David Bollier. New and perspectives on the commons. Accessed 25 May 2023. https://www.bollier.org/about.

———. ‘New to the Commons? | David Bollier’. David Bollier. New and perspectives on the commons. Accessed 25 May 2023. https://www.bollier.org/new-to-the-commons.

Boniburini, I., Luisa Moretto, H. Smith, and Judith le Maire de Romsée. La Ville comme bien commun: Planification urbaine et droit à la ville. Vol. 9. Bruxelles: La Lettre Volée, 2013.

Bourdon, Valentin. Les occurences du commun : Vers de nouvelles homogénéités urbaines. Les occurences du commun : Vers de nouvelles homogénéités urbaines. VuesDensemble. Genève: Métis Presses, 2021.

Bruno, Alessandra. ‘Le Cas de Marie Moskou : Projets Temporaires En Voie d’institutionalisation’.

Master’s thesis, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 2018.

149