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
Introduc)on
The main research subject • Hopsitality in cases of temporary occupa3on as community infrastructures
The main ques1on
The overall objec1ves were:
• What are the spa3al tools that make these places hospitable?
•to showcase the evolu3on of hospitality •to illuminate the spa3al tools that provide opportuni3es for residents to truly engage with their built environment and connect with fellow community members.
The importance to the architecture field • broadening the scope for urban inclusion with a view to individual and collec3ve libera3on of the users.
Temporary occupa)ons
Where is the focus? • Community infrastructures of previously vacant buildings
Which case studies? • La Serre (LS) • Allée du Kaai (ADK) • Zonneklopper (ZK)
What’s new?
Literature:
• From the scope of the space itself
• Joan Stavo-Debauge , “The quali3es of hospitality and the concept of ‘inclusive city’”, Designing Urban Inclusion: Metrolab Brussels Mastercalss I, 2018 • Henri Lefebvre, “The right to the city”. 1996
The Theory of Commons
Urban commons and Temporary occupa1ons
• Vacant buildings as common-pool ressources • Towards the emancipa3on from neoliberal forces • Cases of hybrid governance • Collec3ve ac3on to overcome problems • Transforma3on through appropria3on • The right of par3cipa3on in shaping the city
Literature
• Elinor Ostrom, Governing the commons, 2015 • Stavros Stavrides, Towards the city of threholds, 2019 • Foster Sheila, ‘Collec3ve ac3ons and the urban commons’, 2011 • Urban Common Research Collec3ve, Urban Common Handbook, 2022 • Lauren Berlant, ‘The commons: Infrastructures for troubling 3mes*’, 2016
Between common space and prac)ces
Space
Common space • Urban common good • Result of processes of commoning • Open to newcomers and neighbours • Threshold space
Prac1ces
People
Commoning prac1ces • Expanding the no3on of spa3al tools • Permanent and ephemeral interven3ons • Transforma3on through inhabita3on • Observa3on – Transla3on • Commoning architectural prac3ces
The main ques)on from two research angles
Ini1ators’ interven1ons and the ini1al space
Newcomers’ interven1ons and the given space
Methodology Desktop research
Personal observa1ons
Semi-structured interviews
Graphic tools • Plan views • Sketches
The three case studies
ADK
LS ZK
Loca)on - The building complex LS
ADK
850 m2 240 m2
11000 m2 960 m2
ZK
10000 m2 2300 m2
The ini)ators - The occupants LS
ADK
ZK
Communa
Toestand
Zonneklopper
Bouche à Oreille (kitchen)
Hope Forever (kitchen)
Members of ZK (housing, arCsts)
Singa (bazar)
Singa (ping pong)
Transmigrants
Neighbours (elderly)
Undocumented, Homeless, Youngsters
Neighbours (families)
Atelier de la rue Voot
Skate Café
People from events
Common space… with the main interven)ons LS
ADK
ZK
Old covered hangar as mul3purpose area
Old two-storey building (RAG)
Interior street
Separated entrances to the other buildings
Separated entrances to the other buildings
Separated entrances to the other buildings
One main big entrance
Two public entrances
One public entrance
Secondary uses in perpendicular rooms
Division of the same space
Rooms on either side of the main area
Kitchen / Bar
Kitchen / Bar
Kitchen / Bar
La Donnerie
Local for permanencies
La Donnerie
Library
Skate
Playground “Zkids”
Mul3purpose area
Mul3purpose area
Mul3-purposes rooms
Ini)ator’s interven)ons LS
ADK
ZK
Bar
✔
✔ (maintenance problems)
Hea3ng system
✔
Material collec3on
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Delineate the spa3al limits
✔
Difficul3es (vast space)
Visibility from the main area
✔
Scamered in various rooms
The biggest entrance
In3al plans for a public sreet (not realised)
✔ (not realised)
Decora3on of façade
✔
✔ (but more in the interior street)
One flexible zone and one with more predefined usages Collec3ve construc3on site – Knowledge sharing Ground floor – proximity to the entrance
Newcomer’s interven)ons LS
ADK
Ephemeral inhabita3on of the mul3purpose area in the center (mostly with chairs, tables, and sofas)
✔
Permanent interven3ons along the borders of the common space (“Donnerie”, Library)
ZK ✔ (maintenance problems – “Cyklopper”)
(Skate)
✔ (various rooms, ac3vated more during events)
✔
Drawing on the walls (prohibited aner a while)
✔
✔
(almost no limits)
(bricks)
Limited physical space
Coexistense of different interven3ons in sub-areas
✔ (vast and scamered space, enclosures from internal forces, “Cyklopper”)
Conclusion
Sum-Up
Main findings
Limita1ons
• Focus on temporary occupa3ons as community infrastructures • From the perspec3ve of the rela3on between space and prac3ces • For a bemer understanding of individual and collec3ve ac3ons of hospitality
• Space not only physically open… but mainly open to be appropriated. • Unique socio-spa3al contexts affect similar spa3al tools, e.g., the maintenance of hospitality. • The feeling of belonging as a source of mo3va3on to contribute to the evolu3on of hospitality. • Mul3purpose spaces with fixed and flexible spa3al interven3ons, ac3ng as threshold spaces.
• 3-year lifespan of case studies as a predefined selec3on criterion (case of ZK) • Precariousness of temporary occupa3ons, and onen of the people involved • Lack of sufficient knowledge of interdiscipliary inves3ga3on
More food for thought…
Future research
Recommenda1ons / Open ques1ons
• This thesis brought knowledge from the micro-scale of the publicly accessible spaces of temporary occupa3ons • Need for researchers from other fields to carry out complementary research, such as in cases where housing plays a key role.
• It is essen3al not only to create lively, welcoming places, but also to pay amen3on to the way they are maintained outside any enclosure. • Can these spa8al tools overcome the precariousness of temporary occupa8ons? • Is hybrid governance a possible solu8on for maintaining (hospitality of) temporary occupa8ons?
Thank you! :)