Funding the Cooperative City-Preview.pdf

funding the cooperative city community finance and the economy of civic spaces Funding the Cooperative City Community Finance and the Economy of Civic Spaces editors Daniela Patti and Levente Polyak copy editing design Stefano Patti cover image printer Eutropian OOK Press, Veszprém, Hungary publisher isbn Josephine O’Neill and Yilmaz Vurucu Cooperative City Books, Vienna, 2017 978-3-9504409-0-4 contact Eutropian email web Research & Action [email protected] http://cooperativecity.org a pdf of this publication can be downloaded at join the eutropian / cooperative cooperativecity.org city mailing list at eutropian.org This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) Table of contents 7 13 Preface Funding the Cooperative City Daniela Patti & Levente Polyak 22 Introduction From top-down planning through speculative developments to community economy Daniela Patti & Levente Polyak 28 37 PIGS From crisis to self-organisation Tiago Mota Saraiva Caught between the public and the private Urban cooperative solutions in Central Europe Hanna Szemző From consensus to conflict and back New actors and frameworks for civic spaces in Northwest Europe Levente Polyak Accessing capital 45 51 55 59 69 76 81 With capital against speculation New institutions and cooperative inance in times of austerity Christian Grauvogel Banca Etica Savings with a social impact Massimo Marinacci Coop57 Financing projects in the social and solidarity economy Miguel Ángel Martínez Foundations for affordable space A Swiss case study Laurence Beuchat Stiftung trias Taking properties out of the speculation market Rolf Novy-Huy Stiftung Edith Maryon Buildings for socially relevant uses Ulrich Kriese ExRotaprint Community ownership against speculation Daniela Brahm & Les Schliesser 90 98 102 108 114 116 119 126 Regulating crowdfunding and crowdinvesting International resources for local communities? Jan Mazur Brickstarter Crowdfunding for the provision of urban services Bryan Boyer Bulb in Town Crowdfunding for local enterprises Alexandre Laing Goteo Crowdsourcing for open communities Carmen Lozano Bright LaFabrika detodalavida New resources for rural areas Carlos Muñoz Sánchez Shuffle Festival Crowdfunding for legitimacy Lizzy Daish Complementary currencies Citizens’ money for a commons-based economy Michał Augustyn Paralelní Polis Virtual economy for community spaces Martin Leskovjan Organising communities 131 139 145 148 151 158 160 169 171 Müszi Public functions for private spaces Júlia Bársony 200 206 213 Carrozzerie n.o.t Where the theatrical workspace is ours Maura Teoili & Francesco Montagna NOD makerspace Where people and competences bind together Tamina Lolev 217 Afrikaanderwijk Coöperatie Reactivating the local economy Annet van Otterloo 222 Community Land Trusts A model to secure community access to land Lizzy Daish 225 Granby Four Streets Community Land Trust From demolition to regeneration Michael Simon 228 Framing the Cooperative City Public policies in support of civic initiatives Mauro Baioni BIP/ZIP Promoting community partnerships in priority areas Miguel Brito Largo Residências Urban regeneration through local jobs Tiago Mota Saraiva Locality Supporting self-organisation in local communities Elly Townsend Peissnitzhaus Community shares for culture Ulrich Möbius Cascina Roccafranca The public-civic governance of space Stefania De Masi Vivero de Iniciativas Ciudadanas Mapping and co-producing citizen initiatives Mauro Gil-Fournier Homebaked Anchoring the community through small businesses Sam Jones De Besturing From tenancy to ownership Martine Zoeteman Jurányi Incubator House A home for performance arts Viktória Kulcsár Stará Trznica New purpose for a public building Jan Mazur 232 Conclusions Relections on the urban impact of civic spaces and economy Daniela Patti & Levente Polyak < 174 Innovative funding and organisational models in the housing sector Lessons from community-led housing for city-makers across Europe Bea Varnai Working with institutions 181 186 192 Stad in de Maak From the crisis to new property models Marc Neelen ZOHO Development with a hundred investors Hans Karssenberg & Jeroen Laven 238 Glossary Chapito circus school in Lisbon. cc Eutropian Photo O 1 3 4 5 206 213 Los Santos de Maimona La Fabrika detodalavida 114 Madrid VIC Coop57 228 53 Barcelona Goteo 108 Liverpool Granby Four Streets CLT Homebaked 160 167 12 13 14 15 16 17 6 7 8 9 10 11 London Shufle Festival Locality National CLT Network 116 217 158 Paris Bulb in Town 102 Rotterdam Afrikaanderwijk Coop ZoHo Stad in de Maak 151 192 186 Den Hague De Besturing 171 Basel Stiftung Edith Maryon 74 Turin Cascina Roccafranca 225 18 Rome Banca Etica Carrozzerie n.o.t 49 145 Halle/Saale Peißnitzhaus 222 Berlin Stiftung trias ExRotaprint 67 79 Prague Paralelní Polis 126 Bratislava Stará Tržnica 181 Budapest Művelődési Szint Jurányi 139 174 Bucharest Nod 148 C 2 Lisbon Bip/Zip Largo Residencias C Preface Funding the Cooperative City: Community Finance and the Economy of Civic Spaces Europe is going through turbulent times. As the traditional political setup of leftwing-rightwing parliamentary democracy is giving place to conlicts between neoliberal globalism and populist nationalism, civic society plays an increasing role in creating inclusive and wellinformed systems of decisionmaking. Whether having accessed power in some countries (Spain, Portugal), or targets of large-scale witch hunting operations in others (Hungary, Poland), local-based community initiatives and NGOs are a leading force of experimentation in governance, welfare provision and the collaborative economy. A key dimension – and condition – of these experiments is access to space. This book shares the ambition of mapping spaces in terms of access and use. Civic spaces, as presented and deined in this book, might look exactly like commercial or publicly managed spaces, but they function differently with respect to access, community support, inancial arrangements and economic model. Civic spaces – venues that operate outside the mainstream public or commercial sectors, reinvest revenues and proit into their activities, accommodate communities and create signiicant social or cultural value in the city – often seem as odd islands or archipelagos in the urban tissue dominated by the inancialised real estate market or state capture. Nevertheless, their impact is beyond their size: they act as spaces of aggregation, social welfare and knowledge exchange, illing the gaps left behind from the withdrawal of public services and the commercialisation of urban culture. This book is born from our recognition that civic spaces are often fragile from an economic and organisational viewpoint; this acknowledgment developed into curiosity to look behind the facade and aesthetics of these spaces, to explore the underlying inancial, economic, real estate and community structures that enable of hinder their activities, to study their partnerships and conlicts with other actors, and to understand what gives them economic stability, organisational strength, resource-awareness and community support. Our indings then gave birth to a desire to help other initiatives learn from these experiences and apply some of the elements in their own contexts. c DANIELA PATTI LEVENTE POLYAK In 1748, Giambattista Nolli published Pianta Grande di Roma, an ichnographic plan of Rome documenting every building in the city and their adjacent spaces. The speciicity of the Nolli Map is that unlike other city maps of the time, it also depicted publicly accessible spaces inside buildings as parts of the urban realm. By making public elements of the urban fabric visible, the Nolli Map has become famous in the history of urbanism, not only because it rendered the built environment as perceived in its detailed physical appearance, but also because it interpreted how different spaces function in terms of access. 7 Bottega Artistico Musicale in Sapri, Italy. Photo © Lucia de Pascale Funding the Cooperative City is a research and advocacy project initiated by the RomeVienna-Budapest-based organisation Eutropian. Exploring experiments in community-led urban development in European cities, the project also aimed at establishing a model of “responsible research,” where knowledge is not extracted but shared and ampliied and further developed within the communities contributing to the project. Therefore, in a series of workshops, public events and matchmaking situations, we brought together protagonists from the participating initiatives, in order to make their achievements more visible, and connect them with European and local networks of relevant actors. The research and the connected events also aimed at highlighting the potentials of the new community-based logics of urban development, inspiring new commitments and frameworks that enable similar experiments to unfold, and helping shape a new European culture of urban development based on communitydriven initiatives, cooperative ownership and civic economic models. Funding the Cooperative City was largely inspired by our previous work in Budapest and Rome. In c 8 u Budapest, some of us were involved in the creation of civic spaces, as part of the collective build up of the cultural centre Tűzraktár, and later as members of the KÉK - Hungarian Contemporary Architecture Centre (1). While the Tűzraktár experiment was endangered by a commercial takeover that gradually pushed cultural activities out of the reactivated industrial complex, KÉK’s 10-year contract was cancelled after two years by the neighbouring museum that originally hosted the initiative in a long-time unused warehouse. Both experiences highlighted the fragility of civic initiatives in precarious agreements with private and public actors, and brought us to understand that there needed to be less dependence on both public and commercial actors in creating spaces for communities. A few years later, with KÉK, we worked on elaborating the Lakatlan programme (2), a framework for NGOs to access unused spaces in Budapest: this process helped us realise the limitations of public administrations in recognising social and community values, 1 http://kek.org.hu/en/ 2 http://lakatlan.kek.org.hu/eng/ market halls across Rome. Through the workshops we organised in various neighbourhoods of the city, we recognised that existing but underused public infrastructure such as markets can serve multiple needs and connect different types of actors and communities. The Mercato al centro (5) project also revealed the incapacity of regulations to accommodate innovation and experimentation, especially in the case of public properties. u and in particular, the needs of civic initiatives for long-term arrangements, access to capital for initial investments, and more stable models for organisational and economic sustainability. In Rome, we initiated a knowledge transfer network between various European municipalities, in order to create a temporary use framework for the Rome municipality that can facilitate and accelerate citizen access to unused public properties. In the course of the Temporary Use as a Tool for Urban Regeneration (3) project funded by the EU’s URBACT programme (4), we learned about the importance of fair public-civic partnerships that give a more important role to communities that are able to maintain long-term processes – unlike public administrations whose operations can be paralysed by political changes. Building on the community engagement process within the TUTUR project, we also began to work on revitalising food 3 http://tutur.eu/ 4 http://urbact.eu/ The focus on community inance and civic economy came from a series of encounters and three events we contributed to. In April 2014, we were invited by Markus Richter to participate in a discussion in 0047, a gallery in Oslo. Here, we met with Daniela Brahm and Les Schliesser for the irst time, initiators of the ExRotaprint that proved to be a key inspiration for this project. A few months later, when preparing for Flows & Funding (6), an offevent of the International Architecture Biennale of Rotterdam organised by Pamphlet Architecture, we were building on our encounter with ExRotaprint and conducted a series interviews with citizen initiatives, crowdfunding platforms and inancial organisations that created innovative processes for communities to access spaces and funding. These cases served as a basis for Funding Urbanism (7), a workshop we organised later that year, in the frame of the Wonderland Platform for European Architecture’s Project Space series (8), together 5 http://eutropian.org/rethinking-markets/ 6 http://ndvr.be/ndvr-blog/2014/9/17/ pamlet- -lows-fund5ng 2ttp://www.daz.de/en/ wonderlab-berl5n-fund5ng-urban5sm/ 2ttps://wonderland.cx/project-space t Street Gallery, Belgrade. Photo © Ministry of Space c Funding the Cooperative City open call. cc Eutropian Image O 9 with the Deutsches Architektur Zentrum (9). Based on an open call, Funding Urbanism brought together initiatives from 15 countries for three days of site visits, workshop activities and public presentations, with a focus on analysing initiatives from Berlin and the international transferability of new models of community inance. The event was revelatory in many respects: it was very rewarding for us to see how the ideas explored and elaborated through the workshop found their ways into the practices of the participants, inspiring new partnerships and ways of working, such as in the case of Das Packhaus, Largo Residências, or Mares Madrid. A few months later, we returned to the theme when we organised a workshop in 6B, Saint-Denis, as part of the annual meeting of Banlieues d’Europe, raising many issues about the role of citizen initiatives in the provision of welfare and culture. and additional research gave birth to a series of articles and interviews, both published as articles on CooperativeCity.org, as videos on the corresponding video channel (11) and as chapters of this book. The experiences of Budapest, Rome, Oslo, Rotterdam, Berlin and Paris fed into the process of Funding the Cooperative City. In order to maximise the access of initiatives to the event series to be organised, we launched an open call for stories by civic initiatives from all across Europe. The response to the call was encouraging: we received over 80 stories from various parts of the continent, representing very different contexts, organisational structures and individual motivations. The feedback from these initiatives also helped us understand their need to exchange their experiences, learn from others and tell their stories to an international audience. This need for platforms for storytelling and for the exchange of experiences gave us the motivation to launch the Cooperative City magazine (10). Many of the cases introduced in the book have already been presented in various platforms. However, most of those platforms represented In the course of Funding the Cooperative City, we organised a series of workshops in Budapest, Madrid, Rome, Bratislava, Prague, Warsaw and Rotterdam, where we invited participants selected through the open call and visited others to discover the eco-system of civic spaces in these cities. These workshops, other travels 2ttp://www.daz.de/de/ T2e Cooperat5ve C5ty magaz5ne 5s ava5lable at www.cooperat5vec5ty.org. Cooperat5ve C5ty 2ere does not only stand for cooperat5ve as a legal form; 5nstead, 5t refers to a a c5ty created by a mult5pl5c5ty of actors, formal and 5nformal, from ne5g2bour2ood 5n5t5at5ves and c5t5zen movements to pr5vate and publ5c development projects, pol5cy frameworks and 5nternat5onal fund5ng sc2emes t2roug2 a set of negot5ated processes, 5nclud5ng conl5cts and cooperations. c 10 The structure of the book follows the indings of the research. In Accessing Capital, we explore new inancial actors, ethical banks, anti-speculation foundations and crowdfunding platforms that help citizen initiatives access the capital necessary for purchasing, renovating or upgrading their spaces. In Organising Communities, we look into the experiences of civic spaces, from their inception to realisation, with special focus on their use of inancial resources and economic models. In Working with Institutions, we present a selection of initiatives where public administrations or intermediary structures supported by the public sector play a crucial role. 11 2ttps://goo.gl/2ta wu Gängeviertel in Hamburg, Germany. Photo © Franziska Holz i This book aims at being a resource for civic initiatives, public administrations and inancial organisations: it offers guidance for planning and designing partnerships, funding schemes, community mobilisation and participation processes towards stronger civic spaces and more resilient local social and economic tissues around them. Similarly, we sought to apply some of the INstabile Portazza in Turin, Italy. Photo © INstabile Portazza principles explored in the book, and to mobilise the network organised around it, in help of various initiatives in Rome, Budapest and other European cities. On the other hand, while we have been promoting many of the initiatives we encountered during this research, we have also been relying on many of the cases collected in the book to explain certain methodologies or principles to civic organisations, social enterprises and municipalities from across the continent, as well as to EU institutions. In this sense, this book also serves as a tool to connect various actors across Europe, and to sensibilise them towards the social innovation emerging around civic spaces, giving them a role in helping the multiplication and scaling up of these experiences, and helping them think differently about real estate, investment and value creation. This research would have not been achievable without the generous support of the Advocate Europe program that made possible the organisation of workshops and the publication of this book. The Central European dimension of the research was extended through support from the International Visegrad Fund and the i c a perspective that was either geographically unbalanced or limited to single initiatives within local and international ecosystems where cooperation between various actors is of key importance. To add to existing research, we set ourselves out to create a panorama of inancial, economic and organisational innovation in the realm of citizen and community initiatives, related to the establishment, regeneration and maintenance of civic spaces, giving due credits to NGOs and social enterprises as well as public administrations and EU institutions. In the meanwhile, as the book’s introductory texts focusing on certain regions demonstrate, we also aim at looking at the regional speciicities, dynamisms and obstacles of creating civic spaces in different parts of Europe. 11 u online platform was created with the help of the Departure program of Vienna’s Wirtschaftsagentur. The collaboration with Wonderland Platform for European Architecture allowed the irst Funding Urbanism workshop to take place in Berlin as well as ensured support for the distribution and promotion of this book. The Budapest workshop was accommodated and accompanied by the KÉK - Hungarian Contemporary Architecture Centre, while our Madrid partners were Vivero Iniciativas Map of contributions to the Funding the Cooperative City open call. cc Eutropian Image O c 12 y C Ideas Hub in Chelmsford, United Kingdom. Photo © Ideas Hub Ciudadanas. The workshops received additional support from the re:Kreators network, the Dutch Creative Industries Fund, the Seismic program, the Austrian Cultural Forum and Polish Institute of Budapest, as well as the Goethe Institute and the Embassy of the Netherlands in Budapest, Madrid and Rome. We thank them all for making this project happen. Our gratitude goes to the many local partners that contributed to the workshops in Budapest, Madrid and Rome by showing their projects and sharing their experience with us. Finally, we must thank all our collaborators that contributed to the book in different ways through their diverse competences: Stefano Patti for the graphic design; Yilmaz Vurucu and Josephine O’Neill for proofreading; Emese Polyak, Andrea Francesco, Zsóia Bod, Klára Murányi, Aida Miron, Bálint Pinczés and Sára Szabó for the transcriptions and translations; Kultúrgorilla for the communication campaign; Das Packhaus in Vienna and Oficine Zero in Rome for hosting us during the elaboration of the book; Eleonora Rugiero, Cosima Malandrino, Andrea Messina, Isaac Guzman Estrada and Giulia Sandrini, for supporting the process during their internships. C Introduction From top-down planning through speculative developments to community economy In recent years, cultural, social, community and educational spaces have become laboratories of new forms of living, working, learning and collective exchange. However, these civic spaces face many dificulties in establishing stable economic structures, or lack inancial buffers to secure their long-term operations and relative autonomy. This book brings together a variety of actors, practices, models, mechanisms and opinions that address these dificulties: our intention is to use these experiences to help and inspire civic space initiatives in accessing community capital, building stable inancial models, strengthening local economies by keeping proits in neighbourhoods and ensuring spaces against public oppression or the extraction economy. In the context of increasing pressure on public administrations to become entrepreneurial, inancial capital has had a growing role in shaping cities across the world. Easier access to mortgages provided by the relatively unrestrained inancial markets prompted a boom in constructions in and around European cities, resulting in vast areas of new housing and ofice units, conceived more as investment opportunities than as places to live or to work. In the inancialised city, buildings are “no longer something to use, but to own (with Harvey, D. . The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism. London: Proile books, p. Water2out, B., Ot2engrafen, F. and Sykes, O. . Neo-l5beral5zat5on Processes and Spat5al Plann5ng 5n France, Germany, and t2e Net2erlands: An Explorat5on. Planning Practice & Research, , p. c DANIELA PATTI LEVENTE POLYAK For centuries, urban planning and development, had been an exclusively top-down process: the hegemony of modern state planning in organising environments according to pre-established principles, and the non-recognition of non-governmental contribution to shaping space has often provoked conlicts between public, private and civic actors. The increasing role of capital in the production of space gradually turned urban development into a lucrative enterprise, often with the close cooperation of a central power and private developers and inanciers, such as in the case of Haussmann’s reconstruction of Paris in the second half of the 19th century: the production of space and urbanisation have become “one of the key ways in which the capital surplus is absorbed.“(1) With the crises of the 1970s including deindustrialisation and the growth of unemployment, and as a consequence of national policies forcing decentralisation and reduction of the welfare state, municipal administrations, traditionally the main clients and managers of major urban works, have gradually lost their leading role in planning and developing cities. This transformation, often described as neoliberalisation, brought along a shift from “distributive policies, welfare considerations, and direct service provision towards more market-oriented and market-dependent approaches.”(2) 13 the hope of increased asset-value, rather than use-value, over time).”(3) When the exchangevalue of buildings gains prominence over their use-value, they lose all relationship with actual needs and become acting “similarly to how inancial products are being created and sold that have lost any connection with real production or a real economy.”(4) Becoming targets of speculation, many former sites of welfare and cultural services (hospitals, schools, parks, theatres, cinemas) have become endangered species, calculated as potential buildable square meters instead of potential contributions to life quality. As a result, entire neighbourhoods in cities like London have become completely inaccessible for lower and middle classes, not only due to the rising rents but also because of the disappearing public amenities. De Graaf, R. . Arc25tecture 5s now a tool of cap5tal, compl5c5t 5n a purpose antithetical to its social mission. In Architectural Review. Retr5eved from 2ttps:// goo.gl/ktd2rq Vanst5p2out, W. . T2e H5stor5an of t2e Present. In Future Practice. Conversations from t2e Edge of Pract5ce ed5ted by Rory Hyde. New York and London: Routledge, p. cc Eutropian Officine Zero in Rome. Photo O c 14 i In this process, many urban functions have lost their status as a “social good, part of the commonalities a society agrees to share or to provide to those with fewer resources: a means to distribute wealth.”(5) Fed by pension funds, private equity and hedge funds, large sections of the real estate stock (including housing) have become “ictitious commodities,” in a movement that has “transformed a ‘sleeping beauty’ — an asset owned by traditional means — into a ‘fantastic ballet,’ with assets changing hands through constant and rapid transactions.”(6) Under pressure from inancial actors, many public bodies also began venturing out in affairs often unrelated to their responsibilities and capacities. Municipal departments and public companies began to perform as if they were inancial actors themselves: Dutch housing associations began Roln5k, R. . Late Neol5beral5sm: T2e F5nanc5al5zat5on of Homeowners25p and Hous5ng R5g2ts. Internat5onal Journal of Urban and Reg5onal Researc2 , pp. – , p. Roln5k, R., 5b5d. p. t ECONOMIC CRISES AND THE DOWNSCALING OF URBAN GOVERNANCE The social costs of the inancialisation of cities, most tangible in the lack of affordable housing and the cutback of social services, became even more ampliied with the 2008 economic crisis and the public bailout of banks. While the millennium’s real estate crisis made its appearance at diverse segments of the cities across the world, touching housing, ofice buildings, retail spaces, community venues and public buildings, the austerity measures introduced after the eruption of the crisis by national governments and European institutions sought to reduce budget deicits by spending cuts, minimising labour costs, privatisation, downsizing local administrations and the reconiguration of public services. Facing declining revenues and not allowed to run deicits, therefore struggling with signiicantly reduced operative budgets, many municipalities were forced to make budget cuts disproportionally impacting „the poor, the young, racialised communities and the elderly leading to the intensiication of social–spatial segregation at See page See page the neighbourhood, city and inter-city levels.”(9) The crisis also brought many speculative urban development projects to insolvency, turning buildings and entire complexes obsolete before they were even inished, leading to mass abandonment and vacancy. In the context of the crisis, many local and cultural communities witnessed their spatial and economic resources diminishing with the drainage of funding and the withdrawal of institutional support. Communities in disadvantaged and deprived neighbourhoods across Europe were particularly affected by austerity measures and the suspension or abandonment of key local services such as social care, childcare, education, health and the maintenance of communal spaces and infrastructures (10); as a response, many of these communities set themselves to create spaces and services on their own. Giving up on expecting help or cooperation from municipalities in some cases, or establishing new frameworks for cooperation with local administrations in others, these initiatives became proactive forces in shaping European cities by creating new community spaces and launching new social services through the Donald, B., Glasme5er, A., Gray, M. and Lobao, L. . Auster5ty 5n t2e c5ty: economic crisis and urban service decline? Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, , p. For 5nstance, t2e c5ty of Rome lost about € m5ll5on of State subs5d5es between 2010 and 2013. This cut corresponded to a % decrease of cultural budgets, a € m5ll5on cut of t2e 2ealt2care budget, and consequent5ally, a % pr5ce 5ncrease of publ5c k5ndergartens Comune d5 Roma, . c investing their capital at the stock exchange (7), while Berlin’s Bankgesellschaft got involved in speculative real estate investments (8). On the other hand, the complete domination of the public sector over economic life in Hungary led to real estate privatisation processes serving a small circle of oligarchs situated close to the government and local administrations. Bologna Urban Center. cc Eutropian Photo O 15 establishment of a parallel civic infrastructure, addressing local needs with local solutions. While in many cities in Southern and Eastern Europe that struggled to maintain even some of their most basic infrastructures as the crisis hit national and local economies, community actors set themselves to ill the vacuum left by municipalities and states, many cities in Northwest Europe managed to weather the recession relatively well and “share” their services with communities in more coordinated, contractual forms of “governancebeyond-the-state.”(11) These new forms of governance contributed to the formal or informal extension of the ield of actors in urban development and to the outsourcing of “former public tasks and services to volunteer organisations, community associations, non-proit corporations, foundations, and private irms.”(12) This process supplied “individuals and collectives with the possibility of actively participating in the solution of speciic matters and problems,” through the “down-scaling of governance to ‘local’ practices and arrangements”(13) and the consequent responsibilisation of these individuals and collectives who set themselves to organise their own services and venues, often in formerly vacant buildings, underused areas and neglected neighbourhoods. The engagement of non-institutional and non-proit actors in renovating, operating and managing civic spaces brought participation to a new level: instead of expressing consent or dissent related to a planned development project, or even contributing to the Purcell, M. . Res5st5ng neol5beral5zat5on: Commun5cat5ve plann5ng or counter-hegemonic movements? Planning T2eory, , p. Swyngedouw, E., Ib5d., p. 11 Swyngedouw, E. . Governance Innovat5on and t2e C5t5zen: T2e Janus Face of Governance-beyond-t2e-State. Urban Stud5es, , pp. – cc Eutropian Casa di Quartiere of Via Aglie in Turin. Photo O c 16 i t THE FINANCIAL CONSOLIDATION OF CIVIC SPACES One of the key dimensions of down-scaled governance is the community-led development and management of urban spaces. While in many countries, the economic recession culminated in a devastating foreclosure crisis (14), the corresponding escalation of non-residential property vacancy created possibilities in many European cities for alternative models of user-generated, communityled urban development processes, often through the adaptive reuse of empty buildings, spaces or land. In cities where a strong alliance of various actors created the right conditions and assurances, long-lasting structures and opportunities were created. In others, user-generated regeneration projects were instrumentalised and incorporated in institutional or for-proit development processes. Yet in others, in the absence of credible public actors, the non-proit private and civic sectors became guardians of public values, functions and services. As space is a crucial component of community organising, social cohesion and cultural exchange, civic spaces accommodating gatherings and events of socialisation, activities of education, T2e foreclosure cr5s5s provoked s5gn5icant pol5t5cal movements l5ke PAH 5n Barcelona that gave the city’s mayor in 2015 sport or work are key ingredients, “foundational institutions”(15) of the public city. The buildings reclaimed for community functions vary in their proiles from “free spaces”(16) through “houses of culture”(17) to “co-working spaces,”(18) and differ from each other in their organisational and management principles, accessibility, inancial sustainability and political dimension. Certainly, it is not evident how to deine “civic spaces” and to combine empty ofice buildings turned into incubators, theatres, school buildings, cinemas, gyms, social kitchen in a single framework, and to identify spaces that are situated between public and private, between spaces of living and spaces of work, without losing the critical perspective on the emergence and establishment of these spaces. What links them is that they all address the lack of existing facilities for social activities, welfare services, independent work and cultural exchange; participate in the discourse about reusing urban space for community purposes; acquire skills related to the renovation, management and governance of spaces; generate processes of cooperation and conlict with public and private property owners; and share their practices, models and tools through the multifaceted movement of “space pioneers,” “spatial entrepreneurs,” “city makers” or “commoners.” Ross5, U. . On L5fe as a F5ct5t5ous Commod5ty: C5t5es and t2e B5opol5t5cs of Late Neoliberalism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, pp. – See page 17 See page See page c program or design of a new urban area, many communities took the initiative into their own hands and became developers – urban pioneers, spatial entrepreneurs or city makers – themselves. Das Packhaus in Vienna. cc Eutropian Photo O 17 The self-organisation of new spaces of work, culture and social welfare was made possible by various socio-economic circumstances: unemployment, solidarity networks, changing real estate prices, and ownership patters created opportunities for stepping out of the regular dynamics of real estate development – as many cases in this book demonstrate. However, despite the growing institutional and public recognition of citizen-led urbanism and the values created by civic spaces in terms of social cohesion, welfare services and local employment, many community initiatives struggle to establish inancial, economic and organisational models that would enable them to operate on a stable, sustainable, longterm basis. The many attempts across Europe to establish civic spaces through the occupation or the temporary use of vacant properties, for instance, face the challenges of eviction, instrumentalisation by institutional development processes, or exhausted resources and human capacities. This book aims at offering a variety of paths and models for those in search for solutions to these challenges. cc Eutropian Aurora community space in Budapest. Photo O c 18 Seeking to consolidate their presence in the regenerated spaces, many initiatives are increasingly looking into the power of the local community, the dispersed crowd and new inancial actors to invest in their activities. In some cases, shared and cooperative ownership structures exclude the possibility of real estate speculation (19), in others, new welfare services are integrated in local economic tissues, relying on unused resources and capacities (20). The new cooperative development processes also witnessed the emergence of new types of investors, operating along principles of ethics or sustainability, or working on moving properties off the market (21). While, in some cases, the public sector plays an important role in strengthening civil society in some European cities, by orchestrating emerging public-civic cooperation and providing start-up or See page See page See page i Incentives for temporary uses ADMINISTRATION Tax and advertisement support Contract / Agreement Tackling urban problem PRIVATE OWNERS SPACE Maintenance costs payment Experimental uses CITIZENS USERS Improvement of space Financial support NGOs Involvement of potential users cc Eutropian Multistakeholder systems in temporary uses. Image O match funding to community initiatives (22), many other cities witnessed the emergence of new welfare services provided by the civic economy, often without any help by the public sector(23). In some occasions, community contribution appears in the form of philanthropist donation to support the construction, renovation or acquisition of playgrounds, parks, stores, pubs or community spaces (24). In others, community members act as creditors or investors in an initiative that needs capital, in exchange for interest, shares or the community ownership of local assets, for instance, shops in economically challenged neighbourhoods (25). MODELS TO SHARE, THE DILEMMAS OF BIG SOCIETY AND QUESTIONS OF ACCOUNTABILITY The civic spaces emerging across Europe that use experimental resources, structures and mechanisms to inance and sustain their operations, vary greatly in their positions to embrace or reject market dynamics, various See page See page See page See page u forms of ownership or cooperation with political actors. However, there are many attempts to connect these dispersed sites to larger tissues of urban self-organisation: a great variety of events, discourses, cooperations, joint actions, policies and solidarity funds shape the emerging networks that increasingly challenge the status quo of urban governance and real estate development. Funding the Cooperative City is one of them. Within these networks, some experiences proved to be particularly inspiring. First implemented in 2009 by ExRotaprint, an organisation successfully purchasing the compounds its members rented before (26), the model of ownership shared with anti-speculation organisations offered responses to dilemmas of gentriication, speculation and precariousness and has since been replicated by many other organisations, becoming an inspiration for initiatives aiming at changing the general policies of privatisation. The strategy to turn privatisation into an advantage for a civic space has proven a feasible path for many initiatives in Berlin as they were facing similar threats from the side of the municipality’s real estate policy and large institutional investors and developers. See page c Proposals for alternatives uses 19 By the time the ExRotaprint model became internationally known and began inspiring citizen initiatives across Europe, the possibilities opened in the real estate market through the crisis began to close. With the end of the crisis, at least concerning the availability of inancial capital, real estate markets began to return to their precrisis dynamics. While this recovery signalled the end of a missed opportunity in some cities to exploit weaker demand and lower prices to build a more accessible property system, the return of investment capital brought about a housing crisis in Berlin and a return to the classic, investor-driven development mechanisms in many other cities. With less need for city makers who invested their energies during the crisis when vacant buildings were mushrooming, the much hailed extended governance of the crisis-time that included citizen initiatives as legitimate players in planning and development processes was partially dropped. Although the real estate market’s return to “normal” endangered many civic initiatives, many of them were equipped with tools and skills that enabled them to take the next step towards stability. The end of the crisis in Dutch cities and the Berlin real estate boom brought up the question of autonomy and ownership even stronger: how can initiatives without much capital move beyond the vulnerability of short-term tenancies and changing prices? In contrast with the ethos of urban living in Berlin or Dutch cities in the last decades of the 20th century, where renting enjoyed higher popularity, many initiatives found the answer in ownership or very long-term leasehold, but excluding private proit. Although following the example of ExRotaprint, many civic initiatives across Europe began to contemplate cooperation with anti-speculation foundations and ethical inance organisations in order to buy their buildings, the model cannot simple be implemented anywhere: its adaptability depends on the ideal combination of low real estate prices, relatively transparent public real estate management, stable and suitable legal environment and high purchasing power. In addition, scaling up the work of ethical and community inance organisations, by extending solidarity fund networks to an international level might compromise the very principles of these organisations: personal connection with and overview of supported initiatives. Furthermore, the intervention of these foundations in privatisation processes at the invitation of various public administrations in Germany raises additional dilemmas: what are the accountability criteria for c 20 private organisations that act in defence of public values, services and non-marketable spaces but operate outside of democratic processes and public rules of transparency? What gives them legitimacy as safeguards of civic spaces against private and public pressure? What makes their properties civic spaces and how can they, in cooperation with other actors, ensure the longterm sustainability of public values and spaces? These questions inevitably generated important discussions about the role of various sectors in the “public city,” that is, a disposition that offers similar opportunities to all social groups: can civic actors or communities better manage spaces and services that traditionally belonged to the public domain? Or is the involvement of civic actors in providing public services just another way of privatising services and dismantling the public domain and its welfare services according to the “Big Society”(27) model of the UK Tory government? Are civic spaces a competition for public spaces or an extension to them? For principles of accountability, the extension of the public realm towards speculation-free spaces provided by private-civic cooperation should be joined by, but not overwhelmed by public administrations and public funds. If regulations of public-civic cooperation in the context of traditionally strong public administrations have been limited to right of use and have not yet created applicable shared ownership models, shared administration, as a way to share public responsibilities and resources with community organisations, citizen groups and public-minded private developers may prove to be an important model in creating community co-ownership over local assets and keeping proits to beneit local residents and services to ensure more resilient neighbourhoods and more autonomous civic spaces. There are also converging aspirations at the European level. In the 2014-2020 period of European funding, new inancial instruments and policies have been put in place to improve how EU funds may respond to societal needs on the ground. Because most of the population in Europe currently lives in cities, part of this attempt has been the increasing connection of the European Commission with urban areas, as B5g Soc5ety was a slogan by former UK pr5me m5n5ster Dav5d Cameron w5t2 w25c2 2e suggested that civil organisations take many soc5al respons5b5l5t5es of t2e s2oulders of t2e state cc Eutropian Self-managed park at the ExSnia lake in Rome. Photo O European Reg5onal Development Fund Regulat5ons ava5lable onl5ne: 2ttp://ec.europa. eu/reg5onal_pol5cy/en/5nformat5on/ legislation/regulations/ See page program: an example for this is the way the Turin Municipality works together with Cascina Roccafranca and the rest of the Rete delle Case di Quartiere (30). Although there is still a strong limitation in the adoption of such programs in many cities across Europe, their existence and the increasing awareness of stakeholders could provide an opportunity for their further spreading and effectiveness towards societal needs. See page c the EU Urban Agenda seeks to do. The 2014-2020 ERDF Regulations (28) identify the so-called articles 7 and 8, foreseeing forms of direct funding to cities, which should be co-managed with local stakeholders. With article 7, the EC has foreseen direct European funding coming to cities and no longer being managed by Regional intermediary authorities. For the shared administration of urban spaces and services, particularly relevant is Community-Led Local Development, an instrument foreseeing the co-management of European funding amongst a wide range of stakeholders, from public to private and civic, as it is currently being tested in the city of Lisbon (29). Another opportunity is provided by cities applying for grants to co-create activities amongst many stakeholders under the Urban Innovative Actions u 21 C Conclusions: Reflections on the urban impact of civic spaces and economy DANIELA PATTI LEVENTE POLYAK This book is an attempt to capture the current tendencies of financial and economic arrangements around civic spaces across Europe, with the ambition of offering inspiration and recommendations to the various stakeholders potentially involved in the creation or operation of these spaces. Although these stories are in constant evolution and differ from each other because of their history, context and community, we have detected some recurring trends that are relevant for the very future of civic spaces. c 232 In the irst place, the emergence of ethical inancial institutions signiicantly augment the ability of civic organisations to access funding for their initiatives, although this access is limited to certain regions of Europe. Secondly, we see that there are policy-related contrasts between the actual operation of civic organisations on the ground, and the envisioned functioning of the social economy sector according to existing legal frameworks that create artiicial boundaries between civil society and the social and solidarity economy. Thirdly, civic organisations maintain a variety of attitudes towards money and inance because of their political and cultural preconditions, which shape the way in which they conceive the business plan of their activities. During this research, we had the opportunity to test and apply our indings in a variety of contexts, through advising initiatives across Europe, some facing eviction, others looking into establishing their presence, yet others planning extensions. Working on knowledge transfer between the initiatives presented in the book and on the establishment of Europewide networks of cooperation and exchange, we could not avoid acknowledging the contrasts between different regional contexts within Europe in terms of community access to inancial services, cooperation with public administrations and civic entrepreneurialism. In Southern Europe, many civic spaces are closely connected to political movements and ideological claims. This is a condition that can often hinder their activities because of preconceptions that limit their willingness of embracing different kinds of social innovation and being broadly inclusive towards different segments of society. Furthermore, in many countries, regulations artiicially separate NGOs from actors of the social and solidarity economy: NGOs are often excessively restricted in paying their employees, and are similarly deprived of many revenue sources that would allow civic initiatives to sustain themselves through socially-oriented activities. In the meanwhile, many Southern initiatives operate with a strong recognition and integration of non-monetary values in their social activities, often seen as a way to avoid corruption In Central-Eastern Europe on the other hand, capacities to run civic spaces were often developed within the context of entertainment, most often in theatre or nightlife, scenes that helped people acquire skills related to the organisation of economic lows, people and spaces. At the same time though, these initiatives, in many cases, have dificulties creating non-proit and non-commercialised proiles because of the limited options of legal forms available. The format of cooperatives, for instance, is still stigmatised because it is mentally associated with Socialism; there is therefore a need to develop new legal forms that enable civic organisations to be legally recognised and run their spaces within the realm of social economy. The recent governmental attacks on the civic societies of Hungary and Poland, and the subsequent legal pressure to disrupt the revenue streams of NGOs in these countries makes the creation of more established community inance infrastructures and international solidarity frameworks all the more urgent. North-west Europe, in contrast, has experienced a revival of existing but often forgotten legal frameworks such as the German Erbbaurecht or the Anglo-Saxon Community Land Trust. These frameworks provided a fundamental condition for the development of more stable civic-run spaces: long-term perspectives and the corresponding guarantees allow initiatives to plan in the long term, with more options to inance their investments and to experiment with new revenue streams. Depending on cultures of cooperation, different models of shared administration or public support create different degrees of dependence on public administrations, limiting the autonomy and resilience of these initiatives. The space for civic spaces to manoeuvre in different regions is largely shaped by the political, economic and religious histories of these regions that partially deine how organisations relate to money and inance, how they organise their communities, and how they work together with institutions. In terms of accessing capital, the presence or absence of ethical inancial institutions and community inance platforms has a great impact on the investment capacity of civic initiatives. Cross-border access to community inance could balance this situation but the difference between legal environments makes transnational transactions more complicated, where local counterparts are needed for “legal translation,” to clarify local inancial, real estate and planning regulations. Furthermore, national laws may drastically limit the use of innovative inancial instruments: in Hungary, the inancial law that prohibits non-banks from offering any kind of loan service practically eliminated the possibility of peer-to-peer lending. Furthermore, civic initiatives and public administrations both have a limited awareness of the potential help by various inancial actors like equity-based crowdfunding platforms or inancial cooperatives for instance, and this limits their scope of funding. This raises the issue of the necessity for civic initiatives to improve their economic and inancial knowledge and organisational capacities in order to beneit from innovative partnerships. In terms of how communities can structure themselves to secure spaces and activities in the long term, housing initiatives have offered relevant know-how to organisations operating in other domains: this indicates the importance of improving learning across different disciplines. Civic initiatives need to ind new organisational forms that allow them to distribute decisionmaking power, resources and beneits in a shared manner, overcoming more traditional individualist and hierarchic models. To do so, civic initiatives must learn how to adequately engage local communities, in order to really respond to societal needs and ensure community support that can, when needed, create political pressure or economic support, and improve the resilience of these initiatives in times of crisis. Overall, we have identiied that weak points for civic initiatives can be the capacity of designing solid business plans, especially identifying the stable and variable assets at the disposal of the organisations in question. For example, many initiatives were able to develop their social work thanks to low rent, but when this rose, the activities became increasingly commercialised to the point of changing the very identity of the hosting organisation. For this reason, many organisations have decided that even though more commercial activities may inancially support more social ones, these must nevertheless have some form of economic independence. Many examples show how civic spaces can be developed in cooperation with public administrations, using kickstarting funds or available public properties for free or reduced rent. On the basis of such experiences, some initiatives were able to scale-up their activities by integrating new European funds and inancial instruments. This is the case of Cascina Roccafranca in Turin c and to show how these civic organisations offer a different perspective on the management of resources. 233 c 234 with the URBAN programme, or of MARES in Madrid with the Urban Innovative Actions scheme. Regarding European policies and funding, it is essential to recognise the speciicities of local contexts across Europe, as there cannot be one policy itting all needs across Europe. On the contrary, in order for policies addressing civic engagement to be effective, especially at the urban level, it is necessary to respond to local needs and conditions. As a matter of fact, the poor engagement of cities from certain geographical areas in European initiatives, such as the Urban Agenda, can be explained because of these local differences. This is even more evident when it comes to innovative European inancial instruments, such as the Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) scheme that allows public administrations and civil society to co-manage European structural funds in Member State Countries that agreed to adopt such legislation. should not hinder the capacity of administrations to cooperate with local communities. To develop systems of shared administration or co-creation, municipalities need to have local antennas, neighbourhood-level agencies to be in a daily contact with activities on the ground, and to be aware of local needs. In fact, public administrations can provide support in a variety of ways: aside from inancial support, they can provide spaces, contacts with other stakeholders, different kinds of trainings, commissions or guarantees with inancial institutions. To make public-civic cooperation eficient and accountable, solid and transparent anti-corruption measures need to be established; yet the fear of illegality This book has aspired to depict a landscape in constant evolution, which cannot be comprehensive of all the innovative features civic spaces represent around Europe, yet we hope it will contribute to a growing discourse about them, improving the stability of existing spaces and inspiring the creation of new ones. Based on all these observations, we composed a list of recommendations and a few concrete steps that may open the way to more impactful civic spaces, as well as to stronger and more resilient social, cultural and economic ecosystems around them. To proceed with these steps, we call public administrations, inancial institutions, civic organisations and the European Union to join the following Agenda for Cooperative Cities. In order to assess the signiicance of civic spaces and their role in urban social, cultural and economic tissues, we need to develop methods to evaluate their impact. Understanding impact can also help in creating stronger links between civic spaces and regulatory processes, potentially including civic spaces in zoning plans as parts of public provision – an attempt currently under way by the Naples Municipality with the recognition of community spaces as urban commons. For this, it is important that public administrations and regulations focus not only on the modalities of accessing spaces but also on the conditions of operating them. In fact, in times of reduced public budgets, the management costs of public facilities may be a limitation to their very existence but this is where, under suitable conditions on both sides, public-civic cooperation may be developed. Fear of corruption should not hinder w cooperation, new ways to monitor collaboration results must be found. RECOMMENDATIONS FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS Create programs to support civic initiatives, w because if adequately supported in the start-up phase, these investments can be more secure and resilient than many commercial operations. Establish joint programs with public w administrations in order to co-inance civic projects with a relevant social impact. Recognise civic and cooperative actors and w ensure investment of European funds to be truly embedded in local communities. With the cooperation of ethical inancial w institutions, develop a solidarity fund at the European level that enables civic initiatives to access funding and loans. Offer help to national and local governments w in overcoming regulatory differences that hinder the access of certain regions to ethical funds and community inance NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIONS Create legal frameworks that recognise the w way NGOs, cooperatives, social enterprises and Create an international network enabling w knowledge transfer and cross-border access to ethical funds. Help the training of civic initiatives to improve w their inancial and economic skills. CIVIC ORGANISATIONS Keep in mind the long term: develop a vision w and work consciously on the business model and organisational structure. Be aware of the value you create and make w sure you capture a part of this value. Secure your position in the space you w use, through co-ownership schemes or other guarantees. non-proit companies work. Reduce your dependence on public w administrations or private owners: in case inancial Facilitate the emergence of the civic inance w sector, with guarantees, favourable loans and conditions should change, your activities might be greatly damaged. suitable regulations. Create local and international networks, w consider collaborating with other organisations to Develop incentives to encourage the civic w use of unused public and private assets, through taxation or other means. w Adopt European regulations that foster civic engagement, such as CLLD. CITY ADMINISTRATIONS Develop regulations that facilitate community w access to public and private properties. In case of temporary uses, think of policies in an incremental way. Allow for public-civic cooperation with w suitable conditions, especially in terms of covering maintenance by various potential revenue streams in civic spaces. w Develop match funding for crowdfunding campaigns of relevance to the city. access joint funding. Discuss with your City Council about available w European or national funding to support a joint project. CITIZENS Be a conscious consumer: be aware of where w you keep your money and how you spend it. Explore civic initiatives in your neighbourhood w and help them with your feedback. Put pressure on your local politicians to w support civic spaces with favourable cooperation schemes. Make use of your skills and unused assets to w contribute to the civic tissue of your neighbourhood, city or region. c EUROPEAN UNION 235 PROPOSALS THAT NEED YOUR SUPPORT Based on the needs and the suggestions of the actors involved in civic spaces we mapped throughout the Funding the Cooperative City series, four key elements were identiied and would require further development. Such proposals can be combined together or pursued independently from one another, nevertheless they require a join effort. For this reason we invite any reader in-terested in supporting with their knowledge, skills, contacts or inancial resources to get in contact with Cooperative City(1). 1 . Cooperative Fund The dificulties encountered by many civic organisations in accessing funding and developing a sustainable business model for their activities have raised in many of the Funding the Cooperative City workshops the possibility of setting up a Cooperative Fund. Such a fund would help civic initiatives in need of a loan or contribution for their setup or upscaling of activities. The Cooperative Fund would summon the inancial contribution of members and coinanced projects would pay a reasonable interest rate, which would increase the Fund’s capital and allow to support new initiatives. The model is clearly inspired on the experience of Foundations such as trias or Edith Maryon, but would aim at creating a system that could operate at the European scale. The development of such Cooperative Fund clearly raises issues concerning governance of stakeholders across Europe, the capacity of evaluating the real social embeddedness of the civic initiatives, the need for inancial knowledge to run such a Fund and ultimately the policy framework applying differently to European countries. Nevertheless, such challenges may be overcome by the engagement of strategic stakeholders with the necessary competences, knowledge and skills. Contact Cooperat5ve C5ty at [email protected] c 236 2 . European Civic Investment Bank It would be relevant for a public bank as the European Investment Bank, to set up programs with relevant inancial backup for civic investments to have a stronger impact on their environment. As a matter of fact, the European Investment Bank has recently started up a collaboration with Banca Etica through an agreement that foresees 50 million euros to setup microloans of 25.000 euros that will support social enterprises in Italy and Spain (2). Such a direction is highly welcome from civil society and further projects in this direction would be of great support, yet the inancial volume with which such projects operate are not yet relevant for real estate operations being carried out by civic stakeholders. T2e European Investment Bank and Banca Et5ca s5gned an agreement on June to to allocate m5ll5on euro fund to support soc5al enterpr5ses. Webl5nk: 2ttps://goo.gl/ A X last accessed on . . 3 . Social Impact Assessment With public administration and inancial players being key partners in the pooling of resources for civic spaces, the development of a Social Impact Assessment Toolkit is necessary in order to measure the effects of civic spaces on their environments in terms of economic development, so-cial inclusion, environmental protection and cultural offer. The combination of qualitative and quantitive data of both monetary and non-monetary resources are essential for potential investors to understand the role of civic spaces as well as for civic spaces to assess the value they create and ensure they also beneit from it. 4 . Cooperative Fund Civic Finance Academy c There is a need to improve the knowledge of civic stakeholders related to inancial mechanisms that could impact the development of their projects. In order to provide knowledge to civic organisations throughout Europe, a series of trainings and educational programs should be organised through a Civic Finance Academy. As some programs are already existing at national level, it would be most beneicial to connect up such experiences at the European level and beyond. 237 GLOSSARY Community Land Trusts (CLTs) are non-proit organisations set up and controlled by local communities to provide charitable activities and develop community assets. Developed since the 1980s in the US and the UK, CLTs usually acquire multiple properties or parcels of land in an area in order to transform them for the designated use, or lease them to a non-proit developer. Through long-term leases, CLTs can encourage the development of affordable housing, community gardens or civic spaces, and as owners of the land beneath the buildings developed by the leaseholders, they remain continuously interested in their designation. Cooperatives are non-proit legal entities owned and democratically controlled by its members. Although cooperatives can operate in many ields, in Europe the largest number of cooperative enterprises are predominantly involved in agriculture, housing and industry, while the largest number of members take part in the banking and consumer services . During the economic crisis, cooperatives have proven to be very resilient in many European countries, giving them increasing public attention . Because cooperative legal formats vary from one country to another, in Europe, the European Cooperative Society was setup as an optional legal form for cooperatives to operate cross-border. Crowdfunding is a practice of funding projects by raising monetary contributions from a large number of people. It can be of two types: either donation-based or equity-based. The irst implies that individuals philanthropically donate amounts of money with no inancial return, whilst the second one works by exchanging investors’ capital either for a percentage of the project’s ownership or for a return on the investment. Crowdfunding platforms also foresee reward-based operations, for which donors do not receive in exchange inancial contributions, but a service or a product, and lending operations, which function as peer-to-peer lending, to be eventually paid back with an interest rate. Ethical banks are banks concerned with the social and environmental impacts of their investments and loans. They aim at operating ethically, both in terms of their internal and external functioning, by functioning in the interest of their local communities, providing inancial services to projects such as affordable housing, education or culture. Heritable Building Right (Erbbaurecht in German) is a form of transferable and heritable long-term lease popular in Germany, that allows the rightholder to build or develop the land. Generally granted for 30-99 years, the heritable building right makes development possible without buying the land that would normally require an upfront payment of large sums. This framework makes it possible to separate the ownership of a building and the land underneath, a preferred choice of ethical investors, municipalities, churches and local communities, creating revenue through the annual lease but keeping the ownership of the land with a designated use. c 238 c 239 1 6 2 7 3 8 4 9 5 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 c 240 Public event at Packhuis de Zwijger, Amsterdam. Photo © Pakhuis de Zwijger Public event in Budapest. Photo © Daniel Dorkó Workshop in Primavalle Market, Rome. Photo © Agnese Sama’ Public event at Rotterdam Biennale. Photo © Alexandru Matei cc Eutropian Site visit to Ex-Snia, Rome. Photo O cc Eutropian Site visit at Nyitva Festival, Budapest. Photo O cc Eutopian Workshop in Madrid. Photo O Public event in Rome. Photo © Agnese Sama’ cc Eutropian Workshop in Plovdiv. Photo O cc Eutropian Site visit to Atrium, Budapest. Photo O 16 12 17 13 18 14 19 15 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 cc Eutropian Worhshop in Rome. Photo O Workshop in Budapest. Photo © Daniel Dorkó cc Eutropian Site visit to Muszi, Budapest. Photo O cc Eutropian Site visit to Matadero in Madrid. Photo O Workshop at Packhuis de Zwijger, Amsterdam. Photo © Pakhuis de Zwijger cc Eutropian Site visit to Holzmarkt, Berlin. Photo O cc Eutropian Site visit to ExRotaprint, Berlin. Photo O cc Eutropian Site visit to Esta es una Plaza, Madrid. Photo O cc Eutropian Workshop in Prague. Photo O cc Eutropian Workshop in Berlin with Wonderland. Photo O c 11 241 DANIELA PATTI is an Italian-British architect and urban planner. She has studied in Rome, London, Porto and holds a Ph.D. in urbanism from the Technical University of Vienna. Specialised in urban regeneration and environmental planning with a particular focus on metropolitan governance and collaborative planning, her recent research and projects’ interest has been on the governance of peri-urban landscape, the revitalisation of local food markets and new economic models for community-based urban development. She is co-founder and director of Eutropian Research&Action both in Rome and Vienna, an organisation supporting collaborative planning processes between public administrations and civic groups. She worked for the Rome Municipality in 2014-15, coordinating European projects such as the URBACT “Temporary Use as a Tool for Urban Regeneration” and since 2012 she is board member of the Wonderland Platform for European Architecture, running its collaborative planning series. She was a researcher at the Central European Institute of Technology in 201014, managing European projects related to urban regeneration and smart development. She has been guest lecturer in the University of Roma Tre, Tor Vergata and Universidad de Buenos Aires. LEVENTE POLYAK is activist, urban planner, researcher and policy adviser. He studied architecture, urbanism and sociology in Budapest and Paris and he was visiting lecturer at the Moholy-Nagy University of Art and Design, the Budapest University of Technology and TU Wien. He was visiting fellow at Columbia University and the École nationale supérieure d’architecture Paris-Malaquais and holds a PhD in sociology from the Central European University. He has worked on urban regeneration projects for the New York, Paris, Rome, Vienna and Budapest municipalities. He is editor of Cooperative City, cofounder of Eutropian Research & Action (ViennaRome) and board member of the KÉK - Hungarian Contemporary Architecture Centre (Budapest). In the past years, he has been researching new organisational and economic models of community-led urban development projects, including the temporary use of vacant properties and community-run social services. He has been coordinating international knowledge exchange projects between municipalities in various countries of Europe. Based on these activities, he has been supporting public administrations and NGOs of various sizes and geographic locations across Europe in creating spatial development projects and new governance models. EUTROPIAN is an advocacy, research and policy organisation supporting inclusive urban processes. We help community groups, citizen initiatives, municipalities and EU institutions in participation, fundraising and policy development, as well as in designing cooperation and communication within local and international ecosystems. We are specialised in urban regeneration, cultural development, community participation, local economic development and social innovation, with a special focus on building development scenarios on existing resources. We offer international know-how for inclusive and sustainable urban regeneration projects. Thanks to our multi-disciplinary and participatory approach, we connect various stakeholders around urban planning and regenerations issues, supporting local development through sustainable economic, environmental and social models. Eutropian consists of two legal entities: Eutropian GmbH is a Vienna-based company offering advisory services to municipalities and international organisations, in policy development, project management, participatory planning, cooperation design, fundraising and communication. Associazione Eutropian is a Rome-based non-proit organisation, with a focus on conducting research and organising participatory processes, professional workshops as well as public events. In the past years, Eutropian has been initiating various international projects including Temporary Use as a Tool for urban Development, Mercato al centro and Funding the Cooperative City. More information at http://eutropian.org/ c 242 c 243 Surrey Docks Farm in London. cc Eutropian Photo O