Introduction
In
the last decade, the contribution of citizens and civic society
actors to urban development has become integrated into the spatial
policies of many industrialised cities. This
essay gives a broad overview of the means by which these informal
urban actors can finance their projects in the context of
industrialised countries. The
concept of informality in the region is identified, as well as the
role the built environment professionals (architects, urbanists)
play within it. Then a brief overview of funding categories through
project examples is presented. These different funding categories are
further discussed in terms of the level of formalisation they demand
and conditions they impose on the informal urban actors and their
projects. While traditional government funding has a lot more
conditions attached to it, new less-restrictive forms of foundation
and civil-society funding are now increasingly becoming
available to
more recognised urban actors.
Informal
urban development in industrialised nations
According
to (Oswalt
et al., 2013: 8) the
classical discussion and interest in urban informality can be traced
back to writings of 1960s and 1970s.
For example Learning
form Las Vegas
by Robert Ventury and Denise Scott Brown (1972), or Delirious
New York
by Rem Koolhaas (1978) and others. These studies
are 'based on examination of unplanned and unconscious processes of
aspects of urban development that where repressed, went unnoticed, or
marginalised whose potential for future planning practices was opened
up. […] the investigation of the real-life city also served as a
critique of the prevailing orthodoxies of urban planning and
architects.' (Oswalt
et al., 2013: 8)
The
concept of urban informality has a rich background in development
studies, with many scholars even questioning the term itself and its
various meanings (see for example Herle & Fokdal, 2011). In the
context of 'old industrial nations' (Urban Catalyst: 9) the
concept of informality can be understood as having to do 'less with
slums and informal economies' but defined as a 'process of
informalisation' meaning a tendency towards deregulation of planning
and structural shifts in governance, where informal civic-society
based actors (citizen groups, co-operatives) have more of a say in
physical development' (Matthiesen et al., 2014: 86,
author's translation).
It could be argued what this shift also changes the physical aspects
of urban development.
Porter (2011) notes that 'actually existing informality might
include self-build housing; the 'illegality' of traveller
settlements in European cities; illegal housing in contexts of rapid
urbanisation; street vendors who operate without the structure and
protection of legal systems; unregulated labour markets; squatters
rights'.
Municipalities,
especially those in weak financial situation, have understood the
importance of these projects and have supported a number of
publications. For example Senate Department for Urban Development and
the Environment in Berlin has part-funded such publications exploring
the subjects as 'Urban Pioneers' (Overmeyer, 2007)
which explored informal appropriation of space in Berlin in and
'Self-Made City' (Ring
et al., 2013)
which looked at citizen-made housing. Most recently a special issue
of 'Trends in Urban Development Series' by Federal office for
Building and Regional Planning' (BBSR in Germany) in 2014, has shown
that informality has also become an essential part of a mainstream
urban planning discourse in Germany. The situation is similar in
other EU countries.
In
many cases this academic discourse and research went hand in hand
with financial support for so called informal activities and actors.
EU and National governments funded a number of physical pilot project
which explore further the findings of the discourses above, for
example, 'Gangsviertel' (Derwanz and Vollmer, 2015),
as well a number of state-funded meanwhile use agencies like ZZZ in
Bremen
(ZZZ
Bremen, 2016)
and Zwischennutzung Agentur Wuppertal (BBSR,
2011).
Within
these projects the architect plays
the
role of a facilitator/mediator,
where he or she spend far less time designing and far more working
alongside various community actors to develop not just physical, but
technical, legal, and financial aspects of the project (Laberenne
and Minnery, 2015)
as well as fund-raising for the project and liaising with
municipality and other stakeholders.
In
these kinds of projects it has become more problematic to rely on
governmental funding alone, as support programmes and funding levels
vary across the countries. In order to fund citizen-led development
new models and streams of funding have become available.
Funding
streams
By
looking at the variety of informal or bottom up urban projects across
Europe three broad categories of funding support were identified –
fundings from State, Market and Civil Society. In reality most
projects are funded through the combination of all of these
categories, with some of the funding streams like Charitable
Foundations being attributed to more than one category. Examples of
each type are presented below.
State
funding
Although
there is not many funds which specifically fund informal urban
development, there are many cases of bottom-up projects receiving a
number of small funding grants for parts of their activities. e.g
educational activities which provide organisation with cash flow. For
example, the municipality of Hamburg pays for a number “most
responsible and time-consuming” (Derwanz
& Vollmer, 2015: 233) positions in
Geangeviertel, a “non-commercial urban space” (Derwanz &
Vollmer, 2015: 241) comprising of offices, event locations &
workshops, as well as supports a number of galleries there. This is
made in return for “activists’ high amount of voluntary work in
the process” (Derwanz & Vollmer, 2015: 241).
1. Geangeviertel, Hamburg
Besides
general funding, government can support informal actors in other
ways, for example, by allowing the use of their assets at reduced
rate, e.g empty sites and vacant buildings given for temporary use
for free. Financial reliefs, incl. tax reduction. For example, in
Prinzessinnengarten project in Berlin
the city municipality has given a site on a short-term lease to the
local community at the minimal rent rate to be developed into an
urban garden.
To
receive this support actors have to have a certain level of
formalisation depending on the size and conditions of the project. In
case of Prinzessinnengarten
for example, the
group of activists have formed a non-for profit company. This also
allowed to legalise business activities of the group, like food-sales
and events.
Initial
lease conditions for the Prinzessinnengarten
only allowed a temporary lease for one-year at a time, thus the
garden has been growing in mobile planting containers, to be able to
move to a different site if required. Here the legal contract in many
ways effected the physical appearance of the development. (Nomadisch
Grün, 2016)
2. Prinzessinnengarten, Berlin
Market
funding
One
of the most common examples of corporate funding of informal urban
projects relates to developers funding kick-starter activities on
their sites to raise land value of their land and reduce the runnings
costs while it stands empty. In most cases supported programmes on
site are temporary, and citizens involved in the process of enhancing
the neighbourhood are never envisioned as part of the long-term
structure.
One
of the examples of this is Spitalfield's Market, London. During the
real estate collapse in the 1990's developers allowed and financed
temporary use in their property in order to prevent vandalism on
empty building, reduce maintenance costs, but most importantly to
increase acceptance of the planned office district in at that point
very deprived parts of London.
They organised a market, sports facilities, event venues, cafe's and
bars as well as subsidised not economically viable uses like artist
studios and events.
For
about five years temporary projects, with their great atmosphere,
worked as magnet for the site weekly attracting thousands of
visitors. Local community organisations formed a citizen's
initiative to prevent further re-development. However when the
construction of the offices became economically viable for the
developers, the group was not strong enough to win a legal fight.
Despite the loss, temporary use allowed to bring into the area more
varied development, which now also included community centres and
social housing, as developers had to do more to convince local
population and city's administration with positive affects of their
redevelopment and the eviction of its temporary tenants. (Oswalt
et al., 2013: 264
- 271)
This
support always has an end goal – which is benefiting the future
development and increasing its market value, which in most cases does
not include informal actors.
Private
Charitable funds and Foundations
Foundations
are nonprofit organisations supporting others for charitable purposes
- it could be argued that these are non-commercial forms of funding.
Although Foundations
have a long track records, their more recent activities are of bigger
interest, having ever increasing role in urban development. This has
been particularly noticeable in Germany, with many highly publicised
projects being funding through this way in Berlin in particular.
Stiftung
Abendrot foundation, together with local co-operative Holzmarkt eG,
has bought a wasteland in Berlin on the Spree in 2012, to help
realise a mixed use development that includes an incubator with
affordable spaces for creative start-ups, artist village, urban
garden, day-care centre and much more. In a highly competitive
situation and paying the highest bid for the land, the scheme
resisted the development of corporate office space and luxury
apartments. (Abendrot, 2016)
Another
example shows Edith Maryon foundation saving one of the last
remaining 'alternative living and cultural centres' - Schokolden eV,
in Mitte area, Berlin. Former chocolate factory occupied by artists
since 1990s – offering varied cultural programme including theatre
and music events, artists and rehearsal studios. The
group has been forced into eviction continuously since the beginning.
In 2012 the foundation have purchased the building, and secured long
term lease with tenants.
So the
group is there now - still keeping the ticket prices low, emphasising
its social aims in one of the most expensive parts of Berlin. (Edith
Maryon, 2016)
3. Schokolden, Berlin
In
these examples Foundations are helping to secure position to the
newly formed or already established groups without restricting their
aims. Without putting strict conditions on the development, or
depoliticising the group.
Some
foundations are found with charitable aims related to socially-driven
urban regeneration aspirations, like Edith Maryon. Others are just
looking for more social places to invest their money, like Stiftung
Abendrot, which is a pension fund.
Civil
society funding
In
the context of this discussion we refer to Civic Society as a 'third
sector' - meaning not belonging to 'governmental' or 'business
sphere'. Thus, under this term we can arguably categorise forms of
funding support that presents non-market forms of investment and
exchange. These can include: co-operative models of ownership;
peer-to-peer lending – lending without intermediary financial
institutions; time banking – exchange of services with a
'time-value'; venture funding - seed funding for growth;
crowd-funding - raising small amounts from large number of people;
community shares and many more.
(Tonkiss,
2014)
Social-media
plays essential role here in helping to reach out for public support,
and innovative
design and development practices are already creating online
communities of clients.
A
350 meter temporary wooden pedestrian bridge build in Rotterdam
through the crowd funding initiative launched by urban/architecture
collective ZUS in 2011 and completed in 2013. Organised in response
to city official's announcements that a permanent bridge can be only
build in 30 years. Crowd-funders were able to fund sections of the
bridge, or even just a plank in exchange for the name. The campaign
raised 100,000 euros out of 140,000 projects budget. This modest
example of crowd funding shows citizens becoming directly involved in
urban transformation process on a small scale, using web and digital
applications, in the context of less strict planning permits for
temporary buildings. (Ferguson, 2014)
Another
example, crowd-funding of a whole new building – Glyncoch Community
Centre in Wales, raising 792,433 pounds in 2012 through 'Spacehive'
crowd funding platform – especially dedicated to funding
environment and building projects. With municipal budget's being cut
the activists launching the campaign were hoping to reverse a cycle
of deprivation in the neighbourhood. (Michael
and Goodinson, 2014)
4. Glyncoch Community Centre, Glyncoch
Or
community garden '123rd
Street Garden' in Harlem, New York, was destroyed by a building
collapse in 2012. Community has banded together to raise funds to
rebuild it, using the crowdfunding site IOBY-
especially dedicated to neighbourhood improvement projects, claiming
the that neighbours know better what their neighbourhood needs.
20 dollars /year Membership scheme and a volunteers effort helps to
run the space now. (IOBY, 2013)(123rd Street Block Association, 2015)
It
can be argued these form of support lead to less bureaucratic or
formalised outcomes, without much restriction to the proposals of the
campaigners, really relying on big numbers of public approval.
(Ferguson, 2014)
Discussion
All
funding streams have their own objectives and reasons why they give
out money. In order to receive this support, a certain level of
formalisation is required from informal actors like for example
having a formal company structure and, strict governance &
financial arrangements. This sometimes leads to changes in the aims
of the group, greater pursuit of financial return and perhaps letting
go of more social, but less profitable uses (UC: 324). However,
different streams force different levels of formalisation.
Any
contribution in the business sector has to be a business investment,
thus involvement of business sponsorship in many cases 'comes with
the price' for the group, as in 'Spitalfield's Market' example.
Corporate sponsorship is often dictated through personal preference
when choosing a certain project to other, requiring negotiation
skills from the group and extensive network of interest in the
project.
As
in the business funding, government can also use the civic projects
as a tool to increase certain area-land values without considering
the long-term involvement of the group in process. In
Prinzessinnengarten
project tenants were given the site on a yearly renewable lease
agreement. In 2012, however they have managed to avoid the eviction
when the land was about to be sold – an open letter to the Senate
and support campaign of 30,000 people has allowed to renew the lease
to another 5 years. A small victory considering the popularity of the
site and campaign effort.
Foundations
and crowd-funding
seem to have less stringent
demands and conditions from the formal actors, which can be argued
makes the outcome of the physical projects more varied and exciting.
Conclusion
As
informal urban practices have become part of the mainstream urban
discourse, informal urban actors are having a greater say in urban
development in the context of deregulation of planning and structural
shifts towards governance.
Today
informal actors don't have to rely solely on the government to obtain
financial support for their projects – with the funding available
from state, market and civil society sources. As the number of
examples have shown, these sources have different aims and objectives
and demand various levels of formalisation from the actors.
While
more traditional sources like government funding require more
stringent levels of formalisation and the majority of market funding
being given with aims which don't include those of the actual actors,
new forms of funding from foundations and decentralised civil
society, like crowd funding, offer informal urban actors ways to
develop their social projects with far less constraints.
Bibliography
Abendrot,
Stiftung (2016), Abendrot – Die Nachhaltige Pensionskasse.
available at
http://www.abendrot.ch/deutsch/aktuell/neue-geldanlagen.php [10
January 2016].
BBSR (2011),
Wuppertal „Zwischennutzungsagentur“. available at
http://www.werkstatt-stadt.de/de/projekte/228/ [10 January 2016].
Derwanz, Heike and
Vollmer, Hans (2015), Grassroots Initiatives as Pioneers of
Low-Budget Practices: An Activists’ Roundtabl. Ephemera,
15(1): 229–247.
Edith Maryon,
Stiftung (2016), Schokoladen, Berlin (D). available at
http://www.maryon.ch/foundation/en/schokoladen/#.VpJtu8ArK2w [10
January 2016].
Ferguson,
Francesca (Ed.) (2014), Make_Shift City: Renegotiating the
Urban Commons. Jovis.
IOBY (2013), The New
123rd Street Community Garden. available at
https://www.ioby.org/project/new-123rd-street-community-garden [10
January 2016].
Laberenne,
Rebecca and Minnery, Rachel (2015), How Today’s Architects
Contribute to Resilient Cities. GreenBiz.
available at
http://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-todays-architects-contribute-resilient-cities
[10 January 2016].
Matthiesen,
Ulf, Misselwitz, Philipp and Kaltenbrunner, Robert (2014), Zur
Bedeutung Des Informellen in Der Stadtentwicklung. Informationen
zur Raumentwicklung, 2.
Michael,
Chris and Goodinson, Elena (2014), We Built This City: The Smartest
Urban Crowdfunding Projects. The Guardian.
available at
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2014/apr/28/crowdfunding-we-built-this-city-the-smartest-urban-projects-in-pictures
[10 January 2016].
Muessigmann,
Lena (2014), Basler Wertekanon an Der Spree. die
Tageszeitung. available at
http://www.taz.de/1/archiv/digitaz/artikel/?ressort=bt&dig=2014%2F02%2F08%2Fa0208&cHash=c22af19eefd2e4a87254eaa8118a1a33
[10 January 2016].
Nomadisch Grün
(2016), About Prinzessinnengarten. available at
http://prinzessinnengarten.net/about/ [10 January 2016].
Oswalt,
Philipp, Overmeyer, Klaus and Misselwitz, Philipp (2013), Urban
Catalyst: The Power of Temporary Use.
Berlin: DOM Publishers.
Overmeyer,
Klaus (Ed.) (2007), Urban Pioneers: Temporary Use and Urban
Development in Berlin. Berlin:
Jovis.
Ring,
Kristien, PROJECTS, AA and Berlin, Senatsverw f Stadtentw /Umwelt
(2013), Selfmade City Berlin: Stadtgestaltung Und
Wohnprojekte in Eigeninitiative.
Berlin: Jovis Berlin.
Tagesspiel (2007),
Rotaprint Bleibt Künstlerland. available at
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/ehemaliges-firmengelaende-rotaprint-bleibt-kuenstlerland/1034924.html
[5 January 2016].
Tonkiss,
Fran (2014), From Austerity to Audacity: Make – Shift Urbanism and
the Post-Crisis City, , in: Make_Shift City.
Jovis.
ZZZ Bremen (2016),
ZwischenZeitZentrale Bremen. available at
http://www.zzz-bremen.de/blog/ [10 January 2016].
Image
reference
1.Sanierungsgebiet
Neustadt SU2, Gängeviertel/Valentinskamp [Photograph]
available at
http://www.steg-hamburg.de/stadterneuerung-stadtentwicklung/gaengeviertel-neustadt-SU2.html [10 January 2016].
2.
Doch noch Zukunft für den Schokoladen? [Photograph] available at
http://static.bz-berlin.de/data/uploads/multimedia/archive/00344/Schokoladen_344243a-1024x576.jpg
[10 January 2016].
3.
About
Prinzessinnengarten [Photograph]
avaialable
at thtp://prinzessinnengarten.net/about/ [10 January 2016].
4.
Glyncoch Community Centre [Photograph]
available
at https://spacehive.com/glyncochcc [10 January 2016].
No comments:
Post a Comment