Presentation of 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

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! :)