Reuse mechanisms: Transitional Praxis in Berlin's liminal spaces by Elliott Andrew

I owe a huge thank you to everyone that was patient enough to bear with me over the past year. Lucia, who I am sure never wants to hear the word liminal ever again. To my tutor Cristina Cerulli for her insight and enthusiasm, not to mention the midnight tutorial in Berlin, and of course my family for their invaluable help and encouragement. A special thank you to Diego Cardenas, Theresa Jocham and Catherine Ricoul for helping me with my research and answering my questions. For Edd, youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll always be my best friend

Contents Preface Methodology Research Map Research & Inspiration

1. Re-usable

Introduction We’re all Commoners Squatting the Capital City for Sale Spaces of Resilience

2. Berlin

vii viii x xxii

19 20 22 24 27

Images of Berlin Using vague space

32 41

Case Studies: Tempelhofer Feld Flughafen Tempelhof NUK Cuvrybrache Data & Summary

44 48 52 56

3. Mechanisms

No Crystal Vision

Case Studies: Rés do Chão Recetas Urbanas Granby Four Streets Conclusions

68 70 72 74

Preface I regularly explored deserted factories around the Midlands in England where I grew up. Old Victorian potteries and grand mills, the industrial hinterlands of Derby and Sheffield, all entertained my curious fascination with these crumbling reminders of the past. I moved to Berlin some months ago and immediately noticed many similarities between abandoned spaces here and those back home. There are physical similarities of course, but it is the social contexts that seem to surround disused spaces and how they are sometimes re-used, that intrigued me more. The preconditions for spaces falling into disuse are often localised to the city or country, whereas instances whereby people instigate re-use of these spaces, seem to be part of a much wider socio-spatial phenomenon. My research is concerned with mechanisms of re-use; transitional praxis in spaces that are caught in the lurch between disuse, and something more permanent.

vii

Methodology The first section of this study will provide the context of Berlin in 2016, a city amid an escalating immigration crisis, rapidly increasing demand for (affordable) housing and rising rent prices. An undercurrent of tension between citizens and city authorities frames the contemporary urban struggle, something that the city is no stranger to. While keeping an eye on the present we take a foray into Berlin’s past, the counter-culture movements and the post-reunification conditions that have led us to where we are today. I recount my interpreted-historical research on the city’s urban and subcultural history over the past two decades, through the insights of some of the foremost intellects thereof: Andrej Holm,1 Alex Vasudevan and Geronimo.2 In the second section I take a closer look at the area of Berlin in which I have been living for the past months. A photographic journal of disused and reused spaces from around the districts of Kreuzberg and Neukölln establishes the arena for my research. Next we take an even sharper focus on Kreuzberg and Neukölln, by studying several liminal spaces in the districts. These case-studies will be instrumental to my theory of liminal spaces and liminality, that will be explored over the course of this section. The case-studies function as exploratory, qualitative and correlational research. The qualitative investigation will be conducted auto-ethnographically and represented primarily through diagram and analysis. The correlational element will comprise quantitative data analytics, represented graphically, that will present necessarily limited but none-the-less useful tools for case-study comparison. The third section will draw on the exploratory theoretical themes developed in the previous section, in order to develop an explanatory 1 Bernt, Matthias, Britta Grell, and Andrej Holm. The Berlin Reader: A Compendium on Urban Change and Activism. Beilefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2014. 2 Steen, Bart Van Der, Ask Katzeff, and Leendert Van Hoogenhuijze. The City Is Ours. Oakland: PM, 2014.

viii

theory based on the combined research strategies in Berlin. Although the research is based in one city, this section will add insight from my own experiences of liminal spaces and selected examples of reuse mechanisms from other parts of the world. The aim is to assemble a compelling insight in to the characteristics of liminal spaces in Berlin, but also to form a more broadly applicable conclusion based on the outcomes. I hope that reading this study might inspire you to employ similar techniques wherever you live, to take a look at the liminal spaces in your own city, village or town.

Fig.1

friedrichshain-kreuzerg

tempelhof

a tempelhofer feld b flughafen tempelhof c neukรถlln

cuvrybrache

d my house e

gorlitzer park

d 1km Fig.2

Research & Inspiration 02/14 I visited Berlin for the first time and stumbled upon the homeless camp on Cuvrystraße a year or so before it’s eviction. I spoke to a few of the residents at the time and took a few photos to their disapproval. 07/14 Friedman, Yona. Pro Domo. Barcelona: Actar, 2006. Yona Friedman catalogues the myriad theoretical imaginings of his illustrious, lifetime’s work. In no particular order he covers topics from his original manifestos for “l’Architecture Mobile” and “la Ville Spatiale”, to the concept of all of Europe as a single vast, connected metropolis. His thinkings are as far reaching as they are radical and while many stem from a bygone era of limitless, utopian possibility, they present a great deal of relevant commentary on the current state of architecture. Friedman’s outright rejection of the notion that architecture needs more buildings was the very starting point of my research, and I regularly revisit this book for new ideas. 11/14 OPERA: a lived in experiment set up by Studio Polpo during the Festival of the Mind 2014 in Sheffield. OPERA occupied a restricted internal space in an abandoned department store for 10 days, we built compact living quarters, beds, a kitchen; private and public space. The installation re-purposed materials found in the building itself and left-overs from CNC cutting, it was a fun and exciting project that fuelled my intrigue for self-building and autonomy. Shoshan, Malkit. Village: One Land Two Systems and Platform Paradise. Bologna: Damiani, 2014. A selection of artists and architects (including Yona Friedman) accompany Malkit Shoshan on a community building and empowering project in a persecuted and displaced Palestinian village on the border with Isreal. The research methodology and representation of the outcomes through image, info-graphic and narrative are

xii

particularly effective in communicating the journey experienced by the community and the researchers alike. The stories told of this village are representative of a much bigger picture in the social context of war, where interesting parallels might be drawn with the current conflicts in Syria and the resulting displacement of many millions of people in to Europe. 01/15 Harvey, David. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. New York: Verso, 2012. A manifesto for revolution and an exhaustive breakdown of how the perverted systems of capital manifest themselves in the production of the city. David Harvey details the failings of capitalism in an urban context but also the potential for the positive outcomes of urban “commoning”. This text is relevant in framing the current crises as the context for my research, not to mention the urgency for communal action. Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961. Jane Jacob’s seminal work in street-level town planning that takes a conversational tone in observing and explaining the social functions of cities. Although written in the sixties, this book seems eternally relevant and much can be drawn from the methodical assessment of social space. I aspire to Jacob’s accessible writing style in my own work and similarly to the way she manages to expand her polemic at a distinctly human-scale. Steen, Bart Van Der, Ask Katzeff, and Leendert Van Hoogenhuijze. The City Is Ours. Oakland: PM, 2014. A series of accounts written by squatters from all over Europe, detailing the many varied histories of counter-culture, informal inhabitance through the prominent years of the sixties and nineties up to modern day. The City is Ours narrates the sequential eras of squatting in respect to the cultural and political motivations of its protagonists

xiii

03/15 Ahrensbach, Timothy, Joost Beunderman, and Indy Johar. Compendium for the Civic Economy. London: 00:/, 2011. A series of case studies specific to civic autonomy in the real world, that demonstrate great resourcefulness at a grass-roots level and the possibilities that these projects can have. The case studies are accompanied by focused yet layman analyses that allows for depth in understanding among a broad spectrum of readers. This book presents a good precedent for compiling case studies within my own study, in such a manner that breaks down the theory into relevant, pragmatic segments and appeals to a wide audience. 04/15 A design project in Hunslet, Leeds drew my attention to the social and economic hardships felt by communities on the perimeter of ex-industrial English cities such as Leeds and Sheffield. Unsworth, Rachael. “Building Resilience and Wellbeing in the Margins within the City.” City 15.2 (2011). This paper studies the micro and macro social structures that permeate Richmond Hill, a marginalised district of Leeds that lies some miles down the river to the south of the city centre. The sharp decline of the manufacturing industry in Leeds characterises much of the socio-economic context for this area. The loss of jobs and subsequent hollowing out of a once strong community has left Richmond Hill with a fractured population of long-standing residents and new immigrants. The team of researchers spend a year in the company of this community, building a detailed picture of its internal and external social ties. Their findings are indicative of marginalised territories in cities across the world, while the terminological insight and methodological rigour would be effective in unpicking the acute circumstances of liminal space in Berlin. 06/15 Parvin, Alastair. “A Right to Build.” 00:/, 2012. A detailed analysis of the polarised and commodified house-building industry in the UK and the extreme lack of self-building that leaves a gaping hole in the supply

xiv

of affordable housing stock. This paper examines housing from political, economic and environmental viewpoints and argues the case for a self-provided masshousebuilding industry. The focus is primarily on the UK in contrast to the rest of Europe however the themes and reasoning remain applicable to my research in Berlin. 07/15 Hallam, Paul, Cristina Cerulli, Victor Buchli, Andrea Luka. Zimmerman, and Lasse Johansson. Estate. London: Myrdle Court, 2010. Estate is a personal ode to the much ridiculed council estates of England. Told in pictures and essays from the perspective of estate residents and architectural theorists, the book supplies a human angle to a conversation that all to often forgets to mention the lives and livelihoods of the residents. A series of photographs catalogue the abandoned rooms of a recently evicted estate in London, capturing a detached yet oddly intimate view of how people bring life and vibrancy to their otherwise rigid surroundings. Estate strings a narrative through these images, a similar approach would be effective in my catalogue of liminal spaces in Berlin. 11/15 My second time in Berlin, this time with a real interest in the squatting and subculture of the city. I find myself more intrigued by the “indeterminate territories” after noting similarities between industrial hinterlands, in the German capital and those back home in Derby, Sheffield and Leeds (UK). Sheridan, Dougal. “The Space of Subculture in the City.” Field Journal 1 (2007). A study of indeterminate space in Berlin, that which is not defined by or included in the understanding of the city, and thus enjoys an absence of the usual limits associated with architectural norms. Sheridan theorises that these spaces present unique opportunities to subvert the urban status-quo, through activities such as squatting that bring new ideas and ways of doing, to the fore. This definition of indeterminate territory leads to a host of ideas and possibilities, it gives me an excellent starting point from which I can begin to develop an intimate understanding of these spaces, in Berlin, and beyond.

1 RE-USABLE

Fig.3

Fig.4

Introduction “Berlin is a pioneer in re-using buildings that were left over after the division of the city”1 The necessary starting point for this study is with the disused spaces that find themselves marooned – for whatever reason – in the centre of the city. The inner-city gaps between houses, vacant buildings long since abandoned, unattended parks and forgotten street corners. Indeterminate territories as Dougal Sheridan describes them, they are the urban areas “not readily identified and included in the understanding of cities”. The indeterminate provides the setting, however here we are concerned less with the spatial conditions of disuse and more with people and praxis; movements and initiatives that endeavour to re-imagine and to engage with disused parts of the city. We discuss how the re-use of indeterminate territories can define social belonging, but also how the instability that characterises them challenges the contextual, urban status-quo. In the context of this discourse, I interpret the subsequent re-use of previously vacant space, using the term ‘liminality’ from the Latin, limen meaning ‘a threshold’. In anthropology liminality refers to social or religious ritual, rites of passage at which point those involved are at a threshold between their preliminary state, and that which succeeds and is defined by the ritual process. I translate this to an understanding of place and time in which ‘liminal spaces’ are defined by their use during this transitional stage.

We’re all Commoners It was May 1st recently. In England that might not mean too much, but in Germany it is the national holiday Tag der Arbeit (workers’ day). The day has a rich history, especially in the capital. Traditionally protesters gather in large numbers, supporting a variety of causes and Kotbusser Tor, often the nucleus of demonstrations, invariably descends into violent confrontations with police. I wasn’t aware of a great deal of animosity as I experienced my first Tag der Arbeit this year. According to friends who have lived here for years: “the festival has taken on much more of a festival vibe in the last decade or so”. What I did notice however, was a complete transformation of the city, the streets of Kreuzberg were off limits to cars with throngs of revellers filling the streets, filtering slowly in all directions. Music blared from open windows while the occupants hung lazily on the sills, chatting to friends out of sight inside. Görlitzer park, although never particularly quiet, was busier than I had ever seen it previously. Every inch of grass covered with groups of all colours and ages, their conversation mingling with the Reggae band performing on the far side of the shallow bomb-crater, (where the train station once stood) and the punching bass of a sound-system close by. Impromptu music performances coaxed passers-by into dancing with one another; food vendors sold from informal stalls, barbecues and even luminescent shots for €1 poured from unmarked plastic bottles—all fuelling the eclectic, vibrant enthusiasm. At this moment in time, for the duration of this day, Görlitzer park was transformed into a raucous, loud, colourful, intoxicated, glorious commons. In the absence of a single authoritative figure, a civic stewardship governed the disorganised proceedings; every member jointly involved in creating a common experience. Describing a similar social order revealed in the tumult of activity outside her front door in New York City, Jane Jacobs writes—“this order is comprised of movement and change, and although it is life, not art, we may fancifully call it the art form of the city”.2

Re-usable

Fig.5

Come the morning of May 2nd, Görlitzer had already returned to its usual host of visitors: lines of weed dealers, locals on their way to work, curious tourists buying cheap weed and so on. The commons really is utterly dependent on a complex interplay of overlapping – sometimes antagonistic, sometimes complimentary – social conditions. In Henri Lefebvre’s immortal words: “(social) space is a (social) product”3 The venue plays a part, but ultimately it is the users of space that produce its common, social, spatial, temporal wealth.

Squatting the Capital On May 1st 1970 an ephemeral occupation of the MĂ¤rkisches Viertel in the Reinickendorf district took place, with 100 students and workers attempting to create a youth centre.4 Although they were immediately evicted by police, it was the first ever squat in the city and the start of a huge movement that has spanned five decades. For the disenfranchised, disillusioned, displaced and at times disgruntled citizens of the concrete fields of cities, squatting is very much a vernacular architecture of expression; squatters are the pioneers of urban re-use. Squats have been described as creating existential spaces, to use the term coined by Felix Guattari whereby the site mutually acquires and reciprocates purpose through use.5 Each era of the movement found its identity in the counter culture of its time, in the music, drugs and politics of its proponents - punk and speed defined the 70s while teckno, LSD and ecstasy ruled the 90s. But the various movements also become strong advocates for various humanitarian and political causes such as LGBT rights, gender politics, anti-racism and so on. The 1980s were a chaotic time for the squatting movement in Berlin. Police brutality and the resulting death of a young activist lead to a militant atmosphere of anti-capitalist rebellion, of anarchy. The scene was struggling towards the end of the decade but 1989 changed all of that. The dismantling of the iron curtain brought about a new wave of Autonomen in to the new territory of East-Berlin. Embracing ex-soviet properties throughout the collapsing East-German state, the squatters of the 90s sought to engage with their surroundings in a way that their predecessors had not.6 A number of illegal squats opened their doors to community engagement and creative input, cultivating a cultural relationship with people and place in their surroundings. Communal living in squats such as K77 and the famous Kunsthaus Tacheles, became art centres showing films, exhibitions, hosting workshops and so on. A lesbian squat that has since been legitimised, LiebigstraĂ&#x;e 14 in Friedrichshain maintains a free

Re-usable

Fig.6

bike repair service to this day. Many occupations developed strong ties with local communities and eventually managed to obtain joint legal ownership as a result. On July 24th 1990 after drawn out debate between politicians and squatters, an issue of decree enforced the legalisation of some 100 of the 130 squats in East-Berlin at the time, the rest faced eviction. The scene began to fracture as more anarchistic groups condemned the compliance of the newly legalised squats7. However, it canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be denied that the inclusion of occupied spaces in the urban fabric of Berlin has left a continuing legacy to this day. The few squats that remain today are among those legitimized in the 1990s. They stand as testaments to a communal right to the city, a vibrant statement of intent in the spaces that the city would otherwise ignore.

City for Sale The notion of space as a resource is not a new one, urbanisation has long been used as a vehicle to absorb capital surplus.8 However the mobility of capital in an age of split-second monetary transfers is a modern phenomenon. As much was exposed recently in the Panama Papers where some £170bn of UK real-estate was found to be owned through offshore holdings across the globe.9 This border-less monetary system poses issues for the urban citizen. As capital flows towards business districts in city centres, property values increase and force rent prices skywards, in turn pushing ‘non-productive’ lower income residents, smaller businesses and community venues to the urban perimeter. This process of accumulation by dispossession, as Harvey puts it, “does not proffer any right to the city”10 on the contrary, it significantly obstructs citizens capacity to partake in their city. Further to the effectual displacement of city residents a second factor comes in to play here, which is the sale of public land into the private sector. While the creation of ‘pseudo public space’ might offer a mild illusion of freedom, the employ of private security in many cases crushes the potential for spontaneity and genuine civic expression that is so important to fostering healthy urban environments. The regulation of public activity in common spaces of the city, limits the chance encounters that, In Jane Jacobs words: “are the small change from which a city’s wealth of public life may grow.”11 As Harvey explains, capital relies on scarcity in order to develop monopoly rents: “scarcity can be created by withholding land ... from current uses and speculating on future values”.12 In addition, land disputes, multiple home-ownership and extended processes of planning account for vast quantities of land being removed from the everyday use of citizens. In search of scarcity, capital forces identify the desirable segments of the city, the rivers, parks and central areas as the most valuable; the locations that otherwise provide public service as social gather points. The result are “cities of fortified fragments, of gated communities and privatised public spaces kept under constant surveillance.”13

Re-usable

Fig.7

A gated community of apartments under construction on opposite the ex-squat, Rigaer 94

Indeterminate territories in which common use, mixed interests and indeed subcultures often intertwine and flourish, precisely because of the freedom that they can enjoy, are also threatened by the march of accumulation. Like many less material entities such as art and music, cultural qualities can also be commodified. Tourism for example draws on cultural assets deemed original or locally unique. Likewise, properties for sale or rent can be marketed based on their proximity to such desirable assets, in this sense it is not just the space itself that is a resource but also the abstract experiences that might once have been assumed to be immune from such perverse forces: “The transformation of consumer goods into corporate products or trademarks articles ... has by and large replaced elementary or generic products” so that “commodity aesthetics” extends “further and further into the realm of cultural industries.”14

City for Sale

This is a phenomenon that we might call the paradox of the commons or in some cases gentrification. In a cruel twist of fate, the more successful spaces become at supporting community values; the more desirable they become to subsequent marketisation. The evidence of indirect cultural trade of this sort is found in rising rents and localised demographic shifts. The fragmentation alluded to by Harvey is increasingly evidenced by the luxury apartments cropping up across the city, particularly in the peripheral districts such as Prenzlauer Berg and Friedrichshain where formerly squatted neighbourhoods, have become kitsch artsy districts marketed to families and professionals. In efforts to combat the gentrification of its marginal districts, Berlin has in recent years introduced rent-caps that limit landlords to charging no more than 10% above the local average15 and even more recently made the use of open-source holiday website, Airbnb illegal in the capital. What effect, if any, these measures will have remains to be seen but judging by the leaps in rent I have witnessed in just 3 months, Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m doubtful.

Spaces of Resilience The process described in the previous section, whereby speculative investment assumes and intentionally preserves urban voids, necessarily leads to a vast quantity of slack space which, as Catherina Gabrielsson states: “constitutes a lapse in the system of determination that allows for appropriation.”16 Gaps in urban context present an opportunity for exploitation, where insurgent citizenship17 becomes possible and social actors can establish an oppositional right to the city. As evidenced in the coloured history of the Berlin’s squatting movements, insurgent appropriations regularly overlap, contrast and conflict. Some chiefly antagonistic such as the militant activists of the 80s, some more experimentally such as the camp at Cuvrystraße, seen here from the bridge over the River Spree (Fig.8). The camp prior to its eviction in 2014, challenged formal modes of living and land value by taking residence of the last remaining empty riverside plot in the city centre. Insurgent citizenship of this kind – by nature of its oppositional stand point – is often instigated by relatively disparate social groups, that focus too closely on their individual cause and fail to establish networks with one another. A lack of communication limits the wider impact of such movements, squatting being a prime example, to assemble a “revolutionary force”.18 Nevertheless insurgent cultural spaces can develop strong ties with local or even city communities, the Kunsthaus Tacheles being an excellent example. Stubbornly situated in an old department store in the Jewish quarter of Berlin since 1990. It stood as a proud, grafittied monument to public defiance, cultural creativity and anti-capitalist struggle, until it was eventually evicted in 2010.19 Tacheles is still remembered affectionately and to many it is still “the publicly perceived representation of Berlin subculture” as Sheridan points out, its cultural consolidation in Berlin is signified by its appearance on a Berlin postcard in 1995 (Fig.9).20 As a heterogeneous cultural space the mixture of uses, people, music, art and ideas that Tacheles attracted might best be described through Lefebvre’s definition

Fig.8

Fig.9

Re-usable

of heterotopia, explained by Harvey as: “liminal social spaces of possibility where ‘something different’ is not only possible but foundational for the defining of revolutionary trajectories.”21 It might be noted that this is where my understanding of liminal space extends from. Indeed such spaces, in which citizens can engage collectively and actively, are vital for groundup initiatives to develop and prosper. Insurgent citizens herein transform marginalised slack spaces into socially productive environments and thus transform everyone involved into active citizens; developing what Rachel Unsworth calls “social capital” in informal networks.22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

“How Berliners Refused To Give Tempelhof Airport Over To Developers”. the Guardian. N.p., 2015. Web. 7 May 2016. Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961. 50. Lefebvre, Henri. The Production Of Space. Oxford, OX, UK: Blackwell, 1991. 73. “Berlin Besetzt”. Berlin-besetzt.de. N.p., 2016. Web. 15 May 2016. Guattari, Félix and Gary Genosko. The Guattari Reader. Oxford, OX, UK: Blackwell Publishers, 1996. 196. Steen, Bart et al. The City Is Ours. Oakland: PM, 2014. 143 Geronimo was a well-known author for his 80s squatting history: “Fire and Flames” which he followed with the broadly critical 90s history: “Glow and Ashes” Harvey, David. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. New York: Verso, 2012. 9 Pegg, David et al. “Revealed: The Tycoons And World Leaders Who Built Secret UK Property Empires”. the Guardian. N.p., 2016. Web. 5 Apr. 2016. Harvey, David. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. New York: Verso, 2012. 21 Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961.72 Harvey, David. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. New York: Verso, 2012. 91 Harvey, David. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. New York: Verso, 2012. 15. Haug, Wolfgang in Harvey, David. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. New York: Verso, 2012. 93. Connolly, Kate. “Snakes And Ladders For Tenants As Berlin Rent Cap Starts To Bite”. the Guardian. N.p., 2015. Web. 12 May 2016. Gabrielsson, Catharina. “Squatting My Mind – Towards an Architectural Ecosophy.” Field Journal 4 (2011). 183 Steen, Bart Van Der et al. The City Is Ours. Oakland: PM, 2014. 139 Harvey, David. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. New York: Verso, 2012. xiv. “History | Kunsthaus Tacheles”. Kunsthaus-tacheles.de. N.p., 2016. Web. 15 May 2016. Sheridan, Dougal. “The Space of Subculture in the City.” Field Journal 1 (2007). 99. Harvey, David. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. New York: Verso, 2012. xvii Unsworth, Rachael. “Building Resilience and Well being in the Margins within the City.” City 15.2 (2011).

2 BERLIN

Fig.10

Fig.11

Fig.12

Fig.13

Fig.14

Fig.15

Fig.16

Fig.17

Fig.18

Fig.11 Fig.12 Fig.13 Fig.14 Fig.15 Fig.16 Fig.17 Fig.18

the entrance to Kopi 137 a derelict plot in Friedrichshain the approach to Tempelhofer Feld political messages outside a squat in Kreuzberg people on the roof of the Gorlizer Bahnhof supply shed that was bombed during WWII (May 1st) an informal stall sells food on the street (May 1st) a wagendorfer near Gorlizer Park a void space in Kreuzberg

Using vague space “Abandoned space in which a series of occurrences have taken place seems to subjugate the eye of the urban photographer.”1 Photographs of empty, urban spaces – in which a fading residue of the past is still palpable – transgress the aesthetic narrative by tempting our imagination beyond the confines of the image itself. In this sense Terrain Vague, to use Ignasi de Sola-Morales’s multifarious term, “are mentally exterior in the physical interior of the city”.2 There is an interesting contrast however, between images that show signs of life and those of Terrain Vague, that do not. Where people crowd around informal food stalls or revellers climb on to rooftops, the evidence of use defines a sense of ‘place’ in the temporary emotional relationship with those using it. With a hundred or more people sat on its roof on May 1st, the ruins of Görlizer Bahnof are unified with the city... even if only for a day.

Fig.19

case studies:

An airport, a field and a fallow

Case Studies

Tempelhofer Feld A cherished and well used communal space south of the city centre

300

64%

hectares of open space

voted to free Tempelhof

open to public since

2010

The former airfield of the Tempelhof City Airport has been used as a public grounds for recreation since it was handed over to the public in 2010. Standing at any point in Tempelhofer Feld you can always see the top half of TV Tower; it can’t really be escaped in Berlin. The needle-like structure is an icon of the city’s corporate interests, from the highest vantage point in the city it looks down at the huge park—the park looks back in defiance. In 2014 a referendum to block 4700 apartments being built on the site was voted in favour of by 64.3%.3 In doing so, Berliners excersised a stubborn right to this part of the city, even in the face of strong government and media campaigns for its development. As a result of the referendum a conseravation act was written into law, forbidding development of any sort on the site. Only temporary structures can be erected and even park benches and portable toilets receive close scrutiny. Two years on and the citizens initiative ‘100% Tempelhofer Feld’ are once again campaigning to save the park, this time to force the government to stick to their word. “We just came there and we didn’t have any money and we had no clue how to organise something like that, but we were very

Fig.20

Berlin

motivated by the idea of having a place where freedom is not just a word but something that is palpableâ&#x20AC;? 4 When the weather is good the site plays host to hoardes of cyclists, skaters, tourists and revellers alike. As you would expect, the old airfield is completely flat with most of the 300 hectares covered in open grass. Narrow gravel and tarmac paths criss-cross the expanse, while two parallel runways are the lasting scars of its previous life. The Barbecue area is equally well-used, if not more so, on sunny days smoke rises above the crowds along with the music and conversation from every corner. Offensively loud music pumps from a mobile speaker unit being wheeled around the park by a group of tipsy, sunburnt thirty-something men. Groups of teenagers gather and disipate as quickly as they arrived; there is a changing rythmn of movement, a collective eb-and-flow that is as unpredictable as the future of the park itself.

Fig.21

Case Studies

Legal uncertainty Although conserved by law after the 2014 referendum victory, the park is still under threat from private development plans and council efforts to overturn the 2014 referendum result. This is the source of renewed legal struggle for the citizen’s initiative ‘100% Tempelhofer Feld’ who are compaigning for another referendum, to force the city council to respect referenda outcomes. Canvassing for local campaigns such as above, regularly take place at the park gates, unlike other parts of the city known for demonstrations – such as Kotbusser Tor for example – the park doesn’t seem to attract much political antagonism. Perhaps a symptom of the sites tenuous legal status and the terms of its permitted existence.

Sharing The success of the referendum means that the old airfield was given to the city as a gift to its citizens. The mixed uses and shared experiences are emblematic of civic participation, not to mention the community gardens and festival events that have taken place here. Furthermore the proximity of all of this activity to the growing refugee camp in the terminal buildings, acts as a powerful symbol of civic sharing on a city-wide or even nation-wide scale. Open access The park is open to all but is closed at 8pm, at which point rotating stiles allow anyone remaining inside to leave at their leisure. If you spend any amount of time here, you can’t help but notice the diversity of TF’s visitors, nor the apparent sense of freedom and mutual tolerance. Through the ‘100% THF’ initiative, the site is linked with other community spaces in Berlin.

Common re-use Berliners use Tempelhof with a great deal of pride. It represents an ability to shape their city above and beyond the usual forces of realty investment. Though construction of any kind is necessarily limited, the self-built community gardens draw the passing residency of readers, writers, smokers, drinkers and anyone you can think of. The gardens were built before the referendum and are therefore protected by the conservation act, it is only a shame that these crooked wooden assemblies can’t be extended past their boundaries, into a labyrinth of wacky gardens. There are indeed liminations to the act.

Food, drink and segway tours There are at least three food/drink vendors on site, such as Tempelburger in a wooden shack surrounded by stacks of pallets, that serve as seating and dozens of deckchairs at the front. Management The space is loosely managed by mutual stewardship, although the occasion council vehicle patrols the perimeter, and guards kick you out at 10pm.

Fig.22

Berlin

Fig.23

e e

t e b d c b

public toilet entrance/exit bbq zone dog enclosure community gardens tempelburger

b t

d d

t c e b

Final thoughts

The successful referendum in 2014 was an example of direct-democracy in action, not least did it empower citizens of Berlin, but it clearly shook the governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s confidence. This became clear in January 2016 when the city government introduced new legislation to dull the effect of the referendum process, and even now are in the process of attempting to kill it off entirely.5 Despite this unstable footing, Berliners certainly make the most of the park in the meantime and they use it with pride; a collective inclusivity is evident in the vast mixture of sport, music, social activity and so on. The space acts as a hub for surrounding communities, and as the most visited open space in the city (2 million visitors in 2014) its usership clearly extends beyond the neighbouring districts. A strong sense of community, sharing and mutual stewardship is evident from the local investment in the self-built communal gardens, bike workshop and busy BBQ areas, not to mention the festivals that occasionally take place here. As Diego made clear, the forseeable future is uncertain for Tempelhofer Feld, for the time being it serves as an invaluable space for empowerment, free thought, expression and creativity, it is no understatement to say that the park gives citizens of Berlin a voice that can be heard above the clamouring din of the money hungry developersâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;how long that will the case though, is anybodyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s guess.

Case Studies

Flughafen Tempelhof NUK A refugee shelter in the terminal buildings of the former city airport

300,000

1344

square meters internal space

displaced people

airport closed in

2008

The site of the Airlift that served as West-Berlin’s lifeline during the Cold War is now the largest covered refugee shelter in Europe The ‘Tempelhofer Flughafen’ has had an eventful history. Air-traffic operation began in 1923 and prior to it’s closure by referendum in 2008, it was arguably the longest functioning airport in the world.6 Construction of the building as we know it today began in 1934, instigated by the National Socialist Party as part of the “meglomaniac project of World Capital Germania”.7 As the sun sets over Tempelhofer Feld, the monolithic canopy of the airport forms an artificial horizon that frames the pink and purple hues of the sky. It is a disarming sight for such an imposing structure. The building itself forms a huge arc around the west perimeter of the airfield, stretching 1.2km with U-bahn stops at either end. The interior is equally vast, with 300,000sqm of largely uninterupted space it is clear why the city government decided to reuse it as a refugee shelter. The main tenants however are the Berlin Polizei, they have rented parts of the building since 1951 and now occupy approximately 46,000sqm.8

Fig.24

Berlin

Fig.25

Fig.26

Four of the airport’s seven hangar’s now accomodate displaced peoples of conflict in the middle-east. Just six months after opening of the camp, it is soon to be the largest of its kind in Europe. According to media sources there are currently some 3000 residents9 of the NUK (‘notunterkunft’ German for ‘shelter’), while official statistics from TAMAJA give a more modest estimation based on weekly counts, of 1344 occupants.10 Although the camp is set to stay for 3 years at least, it is unclear what the future holds, indeed much of the response to this crisis is uncertain. Berlin, along with the whole of Europe was unprepared for the scale of the problem. An estimated 80,000 refugees are expected to arrive in Berlin over the course of 2016 and with no forseable end to current conflict the displacement may go on for years to come. The real challenge then, is not just to find suitable housing for all of these people, but also to begin the extended process of integrating them with wider society.

Case Studies

State re-use The NUK is part of a huge central governmant response to the worsening refugee housing crisis in Germany. The re-use of various large buildings around the city for shelter is a necessary shortterm measure. TAMAJA provides contact 16 hours per day in order to: “act as an interface between the displaced persons on the one hand and the political and administrative players, social services and the civil society on the other hand.”11 Networking and skills Emphasis is placed on the importance of social integration and education, while TAMAJA say that there is a strong willingness of society to support refugees. Volunteers are vital in mediating cultural barrier, one teenager that I spoke to lit-up when I mentioned that I live near Hermanstraße: “I go to school on Hermanstraße!” Residents are given daily German lessons and opportunities to find jobs training in IT or at the onsite job centre.12

Restricted Access For obvious security reasons public access to the NUK is limited by security checks at entrances, entry is only permitted for justified reasons such as volunteering. The building is surrounded by perimter fences on both front and rear of the site, for better or worse the enclosure hides the presence of its occupants and unfortunately limits integration. The capacity is currently limited to 2344 occupants with the reported potential for up to 7000, with such high demand eligibility for shelter here must thus be tightly managed. Management At present the NUK is managed by TAMAJA, a private company that operates under the sanction of state governance. TAMAJA states that it has 165 permanent employees and is largely supported by over 300 volunteers. Security is outsourced to another company, some complaints have surfaced from the camp about the primarily Arab guards discriminating against other occupants.14

Partcipation Each hangar has a social work centre, providing assistance to the occupants, there is also an anonymous submission for any complaints or suggestions about the NUK.13 Living quaters consist of cellular white partitions or tents in the hangars, there seems to be no leeway for residents to participate in the design or construction of their dwellings.

Berlin

hangar 1 closed for renovation

hangar 2 374/528

hangar 3 closed for renovation

hangar 4 159/536

hangar 5 closed for renovation

Fig.27

hangar 6 431/710

Final thoughts The refugee camp is unlike most re-use mechanisms in that it has always been subsidised by the state, in this sense it has a greater level of financial stability. At present the camp exists as a prossessing centre for refugees awaiting permanent residence, by nature of this transient residency the camp faces additional challenges in order to foster integration with its surroundings. The efforts of TAMAJA are to be commended, where concious attention has been made to prioritise social work and communication above forceful regulation (extra social workers rather than increased security). The primary users of this shelter (occupants) have had no part in the design and construction of their home for the past 6 months, a lack of autonomy in control over dwelling removes the sense of spatial belonging. Furthermore the enclosure of the site prevents an open relationship between the refugees and the local community, it establishes not only a physical divide but also a social and emotional one. This exclusionary enclosure obfuscates any sign of life within the terminal buildings, an external ambiguity now represents the lives of almost 1500 people who, despite living in the centre of the city are now excluded from its mental space. As Jane Jacobs rightly points out: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Impersonal city streets make anonymous people.â&#x20AC;?15 TAMAJA assert that the camp will remain open until 2019 at the very least, for now the plan is to renovate the remaining empty terminals and eventually turn the building into an arrival centre for new refugees, a facility sorely needed in the city.

hangar 7 closed for renovation

Case Studies

Cuvrybrache A make-shift camp constructed on the last plot of free land overlooking the Spree

50+

150

self-built houses

largest population

evicted by police in

2014

For some Cuvrybrache was an experiment in alternative living, for others it was a necessity for survival An audacious appropriation of valuable land on the edge of the river Spree, in the heart of Berlin; this camp was always going to have a hard time. Established in early 2012, a small group of homeless people, a few artists and architects set about building tents and homes to live in on the abandoned site. The name ‘Cuvrybrache’ refers to its location on the corner of Cuvrystraße and the German word ‘brache’ translating in English to ‘fallow’, the term refers to the undeveloped nature of the plot, but also to its potential. ‘Discuvry’ was the project of Sicilian architect, Chiara and artist, Yuki: “to live in a totally informal urbanisation in the centre of a european capital.”16 The pair began building their home in March 2012 when there were no more than 20 residents of the site, at that time Chiara describes the abundance of wood found in the surrounding area as a valuable building material. A communal library was built, a ‘free-box’ was set up and a theatre on the site hosted performances by residents. Almost a year and a half after its birth, the camp had as many as 150 people

Fig.28

Berlin

living on the site and supplies of wood were stretched thin. So too were the availability of toilets, showers and water in the local area; no such facilities existed on site. A variety of nationalities settled at Cuvry during 2014, Roma and Sinti families came from Romania in the Spring, building a street of houses for themselves. As Polish and Russians established their own ‘turf’, tensions developed between groups within the camp. Outside the camp too local resident and businesses expressed concern at theft and drug use emenating from the space. The site had existed in a state of flux for some years, never quite able to come to an agreement with district officials or the billionaire land-owner, despite avid campaigning and public support. In September 2014 following a suspicious fire, Cuvrybrache was swiftly evactuated - police dismantled the site on the 18th and 19th and by the 22nd, the bulldozers were already in. The iconic murals, added in 2010 by street artist BLU overlooked the site and have become synonymous with Berlin. Several months after the eviction, the two pieces were daubed over in black paint at the request of the artist himself, in protest to Cuvry’s gentrification.

Fig.29

Fig.30

Case Studies

Insurgent Space Taking Internal Tentions At its inception the camp was relatively As a small gyspy community grew benign, an intial group of 15-20 actors in the camp, from one small family primarily looking for shelter but also to in the winter to an entire street of experiment with the spatial context and some 20 houses by spring. On her modes of alternative living. Consistent Discuvry blog, Chiara talks about the threats of eviction prompted residents “Gypsy Conquest” as the roma families to campaign against gentrification and dismantled community buildings on for the land-owner to negotiate land site to construct their own houses, rights with them. The uncertainty of the occupying a growing proportion of the camp ultimately led to its instigators limited land: “continuing in this way becoming increasingly demoralised, FreeCuvry will be really a gipsy camp” not wishing to embark on ambitious she continues “maybe we can create a projects with the constant risk of canal to communicate with them and imminent closure. One french resident working together.”17 Wars between the that I spoke to expressed his concern Roma and Sinti, Polish and Russians about eviction but optimistically also became increasingly hostile and assured me that “here is no way near problematic not just to the residents as bad as Paris, here they treat you like of the camp, but to the surrounding humans.” community. It seems that these tensions were ultimately the downfall An island in the city of the camp, mounting pressure for it to The plot on which the camp was built be shut down and a diminished unity is central to Berlin and among many of with which to respond. the creative business of the gentrified Kreuzberg district. Directly opposite Autonomy across the river is the universal music No running water, toilets or showers headquarters in Berlin. The land-owner on site forced the occupants to fend of course plans to construct luxury for themselves in the concrete jungle. apartments in place of the evicted camp. Living off the urban land around them they used the toilets of bars and bakeries, Community links some residents would visit homeless Cuvrybrache hosted a number of shelters for showers and food. In the cultural events, festivals and community winter this hardship was too great a engagement workshops. From building feat for most with more than half of the furniture, to the Cuvrynale art residents moving elsewhere for the cold exhibition, the Wolfsfrieden Theatre months. The better equiped dwellings and FreeCuvry movement. were able to sustain occupants all year round.

Fig.31

Berlin

a b c d e

Original Teepees Polish + russion turf free housing space performance space gypsy road

a e

d Fig.32

Final thoughts Cuvrybrache was an audacious, daring appropriation of land directly under the noses of corporate businesses and a gentrifying Kreuzberg. Though the space existed for different reasons to different resident, the community, arts and theatre projects that developed alongside Chiara and her partner Yuki’s ‘Discuvry’ clearly prompted local engagement, support and activity. The environment in which Cuvrybrache sought to develop autonomy was a financially hostile one, it’s location next to the river made its speculative real-estate value one of significance and set the camp at odds with authority, to a greater extent than most squatted spaces. By nature of Cuvry’s free-spirited development in its infancy, the original residents were open and enthusiastic to welcome outsiders onto the site. At such a small scale of site, collective cooperation and unity is essential for oppositional strategies to survive, however the cultural tensions and conflicting motivations among the growing number of residents ultimately brought about the camp’s demise. As Harvey points out, any squatted space is a call for enclosure and though they might be unwilling to admit it, this enclosure is often necessary to develop meaningful progress.18

Area Comparison Fig.33

Tempelhofer Feld

Flughafen Tempelhof NUK cuvry

Site Comparison Fig.34

FEld

informal users

38,000

residents

volunteers

Flughafen

Employees

cuvry

1,000

1,344

150

300+

150

165

toilets

340

showers

180

sinks

170

Refugee Demographic Fig.35

120 other

122 mixed descent 459 syrian 42 iranian

1,344

211 iraqi

390 afghan

Statistics from: TAMAJA Berlin GmbH. Report_ English_27.04.16. PDF.

male

female

Case Study Summary

These definitions represent a generalisation of the observations made in the previous two sections, in reality most mechanisms of re-use will fall in to multiple categories and can of course transition between definitions as they evolve over time.

insurgent

Antagonistic approach aiming to challenge normative praxis or further oppositional causes such as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;anti-gentrificationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.

collective

Characterized by cooperative civic engagement and participative praxis often in pursuit of policy change e.g. referenda, community land trusts.

skilled

Defined by the active involvement of qualified or considerably experienced individuals, capable of providing skillsets not normally available to civic actors. This includes but are by no means limited to architects, designers, engineers, planners and so on.

authorised

Any mechanism instigated, sanctioned or supported by the state and/or land-owner, this denotes a direct involvement of authority e.g. government funding, obtaining legal rights, successful referenda.

Feld NUK Cuvry 2008 2009 2010

2011

2012

Fig.36

2013

2014

2015

2016

de Sola-Morales, Ignasi. “Terrain Vague” in Mariani, Manuela and Patrick Barron. Terrain Vague. Abingdon: Routledge, 2013. 25 2 ibid. 26 3 “How Berliners Refused To Give Tempelhof Airport Over To Developers”. the Guardian. N.p., 2015. Web. 7 May 2016. 4 “Interview: Diego Cardenas.” Personal interview. 6 May 2016. 5 “Interview: Diego Cardenas.” Personal interview. 6 May 2016. 6 “Tempelhof Airport”. Berlin Brandenburg Airport. N.p., 2016. Web. 7 May 2016. 7 ibid. 8 “How Berliners Refused To Give Tempelhof Airport Over To Developers”. the Guardian. N.p., 2015. Web. 7 May 2016. 9 “Berlin To Extend Tempelhof Airport Refugee Camp”. DW.COM. N.p., 2016. Web. 7 May 2016. 10 TAMAJA Berlin GmbH. Report_English_27.04.16. PDF. 11 TAMAJA Berlin GmbH. Factsheet - Tempelhof Airport.PDF. 27.04.2016. 12 ibid. 13 ibid. 14 Bell, Julia. “The Sinister History Behind The Nazi-Era Airport That’s ‘Home’ To 3,000 Refugees” The Independent. N.p., 2015. Web. 12 May 2016. 15 Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961. 57. 16 Ricoul, Catherine. Cuvry, An Urban Wasteland. 2015. Web. 6 May 2016. 17 Ciccarello, Chiara. “Gipsy Conquest”. discuvry. N.p., 2014. Web. 15 May 2016. 18 Harvey, David. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. New York: Verso, 2012. 71.

3 MECHANISMS

Fig.37

Mechanisms

No Crystal Vision Earlier this month I met with Diego Cardenas to discuss the citizen’s initiative, 100% Tempelhofer Feld of which he was a formative member. He spoke at length about the success of the referendum in 2014 and of the incredible value of the park at present, however when I asked if he has a vision for the park in 5 or 10 years, he was at a loss: “Well... I don’t have a crystal vision”1 He continued, to explain the conflicts of interest that arise in such matters of politics, money and public will—but it was his long pause for thought, almost confusion at the question that struck me most. His initial response seemed as much a statement about the park’s future, as it did about his own. On Tempelhofer Feld, the only determinable factor is the present moment at which purpose can be defined. To add to Jeremy Till’s definition of slack space, as: “a space that something will happen in, but exactly what that something might be is not determinedly programmed”2 ...Liminality describes the moment at which that ‘something’ is happening. If by re-using indeterminate territories users determine social and spatial purpose, then for as long as they are in use are these indeterminate territories just... territories? I would argue that the defining characteristic here is not a spatial understanding of ‘place’ but rather the transitional mechanism, by which the ‘place’ is iteratively defined in the present. For this reason, liminality can be considered a temporal condition of simultaneously evolving activity and definition - the between state in which place is no longer bound to the residual understanding of its past, though neither has it established a logic or perhaps permanency of its own, within the order of the city.

case studies:

Re-use around the World

Rés do Chão Connecting creative businesses in need of premises with empty shops in the Portuguese capital The neighbourhood of Misericórdia in Lisbon is a charming network of narrow streets and small, 18th century buildings. The area was once home to all manner of traditional shops, in the aftermath of the financial crisis however, many have been forced out of business leaving behind dozens of empty premises. With many designers struggling to find affordable rents in the city, four young architects set up Rés do Chão in order to connect like-minded creatives with the vacant shops of Misericórdia. The project aims to reinvigorate as much of the neighbourhood as possible, by renovating shops at a street-level: “that brings more people into those spaces, more people wanting to visit those streets, with more things to see and do.”3 Those looking to let or rent a space submit an application on the firm’s website (Fig.39) and Rés do Chão do the rest. They connect property owners with small businesses and offer renovation services for the new shops. Rés do Chão is an excellent example of collaborative re-use. The project benefits to a great degree, from the skills that the architects can provide but also feeds on the shared creativity of its new tenants. With new funding from city-hall, the future of a revitalised neighbourhood looks positive for Misericórdia.

Mechanisms

Fig.38

Fig.39

Recetas Urbanas The archetypal ‘rebel architect’ Santiago Cirugeda is an architect know for his subversive approach to self-building and community projects in Seville and the rest of Spain. His rejection of Spain’s prohibitive planning regulations see many of his projects circumvent the letter of the law in ever more creative ways. From schools built by the students, playgrounds constructed entirely of reclaimed materials (Fig.41) to temporary circus venues (Fig.40). Spain is currently in the depths of a worsening recession and social services are stretched thin. The country is in desperate need of houses, schools, community facilities and so on; Santiago’s firm, Recetas Urbanos make it their goal to provide these with as little cost and waste as possible. Emphasis is on participation, Santiago recognises that community involvement can give a huge boost to social wellbeing and community resilience. Working within and around the law forces Recetas Urbanos constantly to rethink and innovate; they pass on knowledge in order to equip others with the skills to enact change of their own. Despite many of the projects ultimately being shut down, the effect of these temporary installations is much longer lasting. Projects like la Carpa (Fig.40) a circus venue built on state-owned property draw people into spaces that would otherwise never see use. The performances and crowds transform the space into a magical arena, for 6-months la Carpa belonged to the public rather than the state. Even though it had to be eventually dismantled, the liminal space still finds a place in people’s hearts.

Mechanisms

Fig.40

Fig.41

Granby Four Streets Assemble won the Turner Prize with the renovation project of 1990s council housing in Liverpool The Granby Four Streets are a group of terraced streets in Toxteth, Liverpool that were built to house workers in the early twentieth century. The area fell in to decline and disrepair, after a string of failed regeneration plans, the houses were earmarked for demolition in 1981. Residents formed an association to fight the demolition plans and campaign for renovation. For over a decade, locals planted the streets, organised monthly markets, painted the boarded-up houses, potted plants throughout the streets (Fig.42) and eventually formed the Granby Four Streets CLT (Community Land Trust).4 In 2011 Assemble, a London based design collective, teamed up with the CLT to enact a planned regeneration of the streets and derelict houses. The design project built on the hard work that the community had already done and drew inspiration from the areas rich heritage.5 Assemble embraced the full participation and creativity of the industrious community. Guerilla gardening initiatives were taken to the next level with plans for a winter garden in one of the gutted terrace houses (Fig.43), out-of-the-box design responses to the derelict properties produced unique solutions and new ways to imagine renovation. The scheme received funding from multiple sources including central government, proving that citizens initiatives do have the potential to enact substantial change.6 Not to mention that the project won Assemble studios the Turner Art Prize in 2016, progressing the renovation of the site further into the broad cultural realm, as the first architectural project ever to win the prestigious award. It might have take 30 years of relentless campaigning but Granby Four Streets is a testament to the civic empowerment, a rare example of truly transitional praxis at its very best.

Mechanisms

Fig.42

Fig.43

Conclusions The relationship of the everyday citizen with formal, urban space is one determined in no small part by the typology of space itself. In the dictated environment: “meaning and narrative ... have less to do with the reader and more with the author”.7 By contrast, over the course of this study we have seen that the re-use of indeterminate territory establishes citizens as the authors of an ongoing narrative in the present. It is evident from our observations – both in Berlin and of those reuse mechanisms elsewhere in the world – that the consistent liminal condition is one of prolonged uncertainty; the risk of imminent eviction, of the developers ‘winning’ or funds running dry. Circumstantial concerns vary wildly from one case to another, finding funding, social input, productive output, securing legal status and so on. While stability might be temporarily achieved in one regard, it can just as easily disintegrate in another. Predicting the future of liminal space is indeed a fools game. In the 2014 referendum over the free use of Tempelhofer Feld, almost 800,000 citizens of Berlin enacted their collective right to the city. The referendum was an overwhelming success and the demands of the city’s citizens were written in to law, yet no more than 2 years on the old airfield has been returned to its prior state of uncertainty, under seemingly relentless threat from monetary interests. The narrative continues... In such uncertainty then, what can we consider to be a successful outcome? The most obvious answer could be something along the lines of space achieving a stable state of existence; as with the formation of the Granby Four Streets CLT for example, or perhaps the steady signs of economic productivity seen in Lisbon. This becomes problematic however, when we take into account other cases such as the projects of Recetas Urbanas or the camp on Cuvrystraße... because these projects eventually ceased to exist, does this then make them failures? As Morales puts it “the divided individual of the contemporary city looks for forces instead of forms.”8 At a time when virtual reality pervasively limits so much physical, social exchange and experience it is unsurprising that the disaffected or simply disgruntled among us might look for something real to engage with.

“FreeCuvry was a unique reality in Berlin, a mirror on the society that surround us. It was amazing, beautiful, crazy, cruel. It was damn real. Now it is just history, just memory”9

1 “Interview: Diego Cardenas.” Personal interview. 6 May 2016. 2 Till, Jeremy. Architecture Depends. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2009. 134 3 Mariana Paisana of Rés do Chão qtd in. Tariq, Syma and Emilie Gouband. “Misericórdia, Lisbon”. Icon 2016: 56-60. (Fig.38) 4 “History”. Granby Four Streets CLT. N.p., 2016. Web. 8 May 2016. 5 “Granby Four Streets”. ASSEMBLE. N.p., 2016. Web. 8 May 2016. 6 Wainwright, Oliver. “The Liverpool Locals Who Took Control Of Their Long-Neglected Streets” the Guardian. N.p., 2014. Web. 8 May 2016. 7 Gabrielsson, Catharina. “Squatting My Mind – Towards an Architectural Ecosophy.” Field Journal 4 (2011). 171. 8 de Sola-Morales, Ignasi. “Terrain Vague” in Mariani, Manuela and Patrick Barron. Terrain Vague. Abingdon: Routledge, 2013. 28. 9 Chiara, Ciccarello. “Discuvry”. Discuvry. N.p., 2016. Web. 5 May 2016.

APPENDIX

Fig.44

Bibliography Ahrensbach, Timothy, Joost Beunderman, and Indy Johar. Compendium for the Civic Economy. London: 00:/, 2011. Print. Awan, Nishat, Tatjana Schneider, and Jeremy Till. Spatial Agency. Abingdon, Oxon [England]: Routledge, 2011. Print. Bader, Markus, and Jan Liesegang. Building The City Together. Print. Bernt, Matthias, Britta Grell, and Andrej Holm. The Berlin Reader: A Compendium on Urban Change and Activism. Beilefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2014. Print. Blundell-Jones, Peter, Doina Petrescu, and Jeremy Till. Architecture And Participation. New York: Spon Press, 2005. Print. Cairns, Stephen and Jane M Jacobs. Buildings Must Die. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2014. Print. Fainstein, Susan S. The Just City. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2010. Print. de Sola-Morales, Ignasi. “Terrain Vague.” in: Mariani, Manuela and Patrick Barron. Terrain Vague. Abingdon: Routledge, 2013. Print Fichter, Robert, and John F. C. Turner. Freedom to Build. London: Macmillan, 1972. Print. Friedman, Yona. Pro Domo. Barcelona: Actar, 2006. Print. Gabrielsson, Catharina. “Squatting My Mind – Towards an Architectural Ecosophy.” Field Journal 4 (2011). Web. Guattari, Félix and Gary Genosko. The Guattari Reader. Oxford, OX, UK: Blackwell Publishers, 1996. Print. Hallam, Paul, Cristina Cerulli, Victor Buchli, Andrea Luka. Zimmerman, and Lasse Johansson. Estate. London: Myrdle Court, 2010. Print. Harvey, David. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. New York: Verso, 2012. Print. Heyden, Mathias. “Evolving Participatory Design: A Report from Berlin, Reaching Beyond.” Field Journal 2 (2008). Web. Ignasi, de Sola-Morales. “Terrain Vague”. Anyplace. Cynthia Davidson. 1st ed. Massachusettes: MIT Press, 1995. Print. Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961. Print. Mendez de Andes, Ana. Urbanaccion 07/09. Madrid: La Casa Encendida, 2010. Print. Orazi, Manuel, Nader Seraj, and Yona Friedman. Yona Friedman: The Dilution of Architecture. Lausanne: Archizoom, 2015. Print.

Appendix

Parvin, Alastair. “A Right to Build.” 00:/, 2012. Web. Petrescu, Doina. “The Indeterminate Mapping of the Common.” Field Journal 1 (2007). Web. Schwarz, Michiel, and Diana Krabbendam. Sustainist Design Guide. Amsterdam: BIS, 2013. Print. Sheridan, Dougal. “The Space of Subculture in the City.” Field Journal 1 (2007). Web. Shoshan, Malkit. Village: One Land Two Systems and Platform Paradise. Bologna: Damiani, 2014. Print. Steen, Bart Van Der, Ask Katzeff, and Leendert Van Hoogenhuijze. The City Is Ours. Oakland: PM, 2014. Print. Till, Jeremy. Architecture Depends. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2009. Print. Turner, John F. C. Housing by People: Towards Autonomy in Building Environments. New York: Pantheon, 1977. Print. Unsworth, Rachael. “Building Resilience and Well being in the Margins within the City.” City 15.2 (2011). Web. Wang, David, and Linda N Groat. Architectural Research Methods. 2002. Print. Vardy, Sam and Carolyn Butterworth. “Site-Seeing: Constructing The ‘Creative Survey’”. Field 1 (2008): n. pag. Print.

Other References Digital “How Berliners Refused To Give Tempelhof Airport Over To Developers”. the Guardian. N.p., 2015. Web. 7 May 2016. “Berlin Besetzt”. Berlin-besetzt.de. N.p., 2016. Web. 15 May 2016. Pegg, David et al. “Revealed: The Tycoons And World Leaders Who Built Secret UK Property Empires”. the Guardian. N.p., 2016. Web. 5 Apr. 2016. Connolly, Kate. “Snakes And Ladders For Tenants As Berlin Rent Cap Starts To Bite”. the Guardian. N.p., 2015. Web. 12 May 2016. “History | Kunsthaus Tacheles”. Kunsthaus-tacheles.de. N.p., 2016. Web. 15 May 2016. “Tempelhof Airport”. Berlin Brandenburg Airport. N.p., 2016. Web. 7 May 2016. Bell, Julia. “The Sinister History Behind The Nazi-Era Airport That’s ‘Home’ To 3,000 Refugees” The Independent. N.p., 2015. Web. 12 May 2016. Ricoul, Catherine. Cuvry, An Urban Wasteland. 2015. Web. 6 May 2016. Chiara, Ciccarello. “Discuvry”. Discuvry. N.p., 2016. Web. 5 May 2016. “History”. Granby Four Streets CLT. N.p., 2016. Web. 8 May 2016. “Granby Four Streets”. ASSEMBLE. N.p., 2016. Web. 8 May 2016. Wainwright, Oliver. “The Liverpool Locals Who Took Control Of Their Long-Neglected Streets” the Guardian. N.p., 2014. Web. 8 May 2016.

Magazine Mariana Paisana of Rés do Chão qtd in. Tariq, Syma and Emilie Gouband. “Misericórdia, Lisbon”. Icon 2016: 56-60. (Fig.38)

Images Fig.1 Fig.2 Fig.3 Fig.4 Fig.5 Fig.6 Fig.7 Fig.8 Fig.9 Fig.10 Fig.11 Fig.12 Fig.13 Fig.14 Fig.15 Fig.16 Fig.17

Fig.18 Fig.19 Fig.20 Fig.21 Fig.22 Fig.23

Fig.24 Fig.25 Fig.26

Andrew, Elliott. Deutschland Sagt Sorry! 2016. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Berlin Map. 2016. Illustration. Image available from: map. 05.05.2016. Web “http://maps.google.com” Andrew, Elliott. Street near Cuvry. 2016. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Tempelhof community Gardens. 2016. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Food stalls at Görlitzer Park. 2016. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Liebigstraße squat. 2016. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Gated community. 2016. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Cuvry from the bridge. 2016. Photograph. Sheridan, Dougal. Tacheles 1995. in: Sheridan, Dougal “The Space of Subculture in the City.” Field Journal 1 (2007). 99. Andrew, Elliott. Sunset. 2014. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Kopi 137 entrance. 2016. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Derelict site in Friedrichshain. 2016. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Tempelhofer Feld approach. 2016. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Squat in Kreuzberg. 2016. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Gorlizer Park May. 1st 2016. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Street food May. 1st 2016. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Wagendorfer. 2016. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Void space in Kreuzberg. 2016. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Tempelhof NUK fence. 2016. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Tempelhofer Feld skate park. 2016. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Tempelhofer Feld community gardens. 2016. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Tempelhofer Feld bins. 2016. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Tempelhofer Feld. 2016. Illustration. Image available from: map. 05.05.2016. Web “http://maps.google.com” Graphics available from: isometric people. 05.05.2016. Web. “https:// d3ui957tjb5bqd.cloudfront.net” isometric camping. 05.05.2016. Web. “http://cache4.asset-cache.net” Andrew, Elliott. Tempelhof NUK. Photograph. Welters, Gordon. Tempelhof Refugee Shelters. 05.05.2016 Web. “https://pbs. twimg.com/media/Ca70BI_UEAEcOvt.png:large” Andrew, Elliott. Tempelhof NUK fence. 2016. Photograph.

Appendix

Fig.27 Fig.28 Fig.29 Fig.30 Fig.31 Fig.32

Fig.33 Fig.34 Fig.35 Fig.36 Fig.37

Fig.38 Fig.39 Fig.40 Fig.41 Fig.42 Fig.43 Fig.44

Andrew, Elliott. Cuvrybrache. 2016. Illustration. Image available from: map. 05.05.2016. Web “http://maps.google.com” Andrew, Elliott. Cuvry after the eviction. 2016. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Cuvry. 2014. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Cuvry. 2014. Photograph. Ciccarello, Chiara. Chairs from Cuvry. 05.05.2016 Web. “https://discuvryberlin.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/1000sedie.jpg?w=560&h=281” Andrew, Elliott. Cuvrybrache. 2016. Illustration. Image available from: map. 05.05.2016. Web “http://maps.google.com” Graphics available from: isometric people. 05.05.2016. Web. “https:// d3ui957tjb5bqd.cloudfront.net” isometric camping. 05.05.2016. Web. “http://cache4.asset-cache.net” isometric wigwam. 05.05.2016. Web. “http://image.shutterstock.com/” bushes. 05.05.2016. Web. “http:// image.shutterstock.com/” Andrew, Elliott. Area Comparison. 2016. Illustration. Andrew, Elliott. Site Information. 2016. Illustration. Andrew, Elliott. Refugee Demographic. 2016. Illustration. Andrew, Elliott. Area Comparison. 2016. Illustration. Andrew, Elliott. Holzmarkt. 2014. Photograph. Andrew, Elliott. Icon Magazine Spread. 2016. Photography Rés do Chão. Rés do Chão. 04.05.2016. Web. “http://resdochao.org/” Recetas Urbanos. Espacio la Carpa Sevilla. 06.05.2016. Web. “http://www. greenbuildingmagazine.it” Cirugeda, Santiago. Situaciones Urbanas. [Barcelona]: Tenov, 2007. Print. 35 Assemble. Granby Four Streets. 06.05.2016 Web. “http://i1.liverpoolecho. co.uk” Assemble. Granby Four Streets. 06.05.2016 Web. “http://www.metalocus. es” Andrew, Elliott. Holzmarkt. 2014. Photograph.

Interview: Diego Cardenas On 6th May 2016 Diego Cardenas of the citizens initiative 100% Tempelhofer Feld, very kindly took the time to speak with me about the groups successful referendum in 2014, the new upcoming referendum this year and of course about the site itself. How long have you been working with 100% Tempelhofer Feld? I started working with the initiative around, let me think 2012... after 2012. Do you have a vision for Tempelhofer Feld’s future? Well... I don’t have a crystal vision, there are too many questions involved in that. That’s why it’s so difficult to say in the next year, we know for sure that the city council has the plan to build on big parts of the area, although that goes against the referendum result. What we see is they really disrespect the vote of citizens; doing that very openly. There are too many monetary interests, that’s why they have to do it, they don’t have another alternative. We see that as a very dangerous development in things; if there is a vote by the people it has to be respected. You can’t just say, no it doesn’t count. It is difficult to foresee what is going to happen. Many people want to keep it as an open area, as an open space. We can see on the other side of the city, that the political and economical situation is going in the other direction. I don’t know which side is going to win. And the government is doing it under the guise of the refugee camp? Yes, that was the argument they used to revoke the law. The referendum was about a law to conserve the park as a public space. Berlin is a sovereign state, so the law had a lot of steps to overcome; the referendum was the last step. That was won in such a clear way, that [result] has never been so clear since the second [world] war. During the original referendum, did you expect the council to attempt to overturn the result in the future? Yes, but we did not realise that it would be so fast and in such a disrespectful way. On one hand it is the fact that they revoked a law by the people, there

Interview: Diego Cardenas

were only 80 people in the parliament and they decided that the vote by nearly 800,000 people didn’t count. Also the use of the refugee situation, not only in Berlin, in Germany but in all of Europe, is just an argument to do what they were always going to do. The interesting thing is that after they revoked the law, they are not speaking any more about refugees, they are already speaking about students and housing. They are already planning the way they will give construction permits; it is clear that they really want to do it. Do you think that a complete ban on construction is necessary to avoid the government exploiting the law? One of the arguments by the opposition was that in Berlin we need 50,000 houses per year, if we don’t do that then there will be people on the street, that was the picture that they were giving. But then on the other side, if the need was so big that they wanted to sacrifice Tempelhof just for around 4700 apartments, then it doesn’t mathematically fit; it didn’t make any sense. And on the other hand, we knew that the development of any form of housing there has to be very expensive. It has to be, there is no infrastructure there, there is no electricity, there is no water supply, there is no street, there is no nothing; you have to do everything there if you want to build. We also now that the earth – because it was used as an airport – it is totally contaminated. We’ve heard that there were even times during its use as an airport, that kerosene was sometimes tipped, nowadays it would be unthinkable but it happened there. What we know for sure is that this site is completely contaminated, if you want to build there then you have to decontaminate. Nobody said how much this would cost and this has to be paid for by the contributors. They said that the development costs that would have to be assumed by the council, they had for that an estimation that had been done in 2002. 12 years later they didn’t have an update on that information. [The estimation] was for €600m. Then we knew that the costs would explode when they really started, I don’t know how many millions more. It was that moment that people really started to think; are they showing all of their cards? Are they really picking the truth or is it just business as usual? What do you think the park represents to the community that uses it? Oh it represents a lot. Tempelhof is in the city centre, surrounded by neighbourhoods like here in Neukölln, where the pop density is very high. Historically there is a lack of public space in this area, the neighbourhoods

Appendix

used to working areas. When you go [to the park], most of the people are people from around here, it is totally diverse. It’s amazing how diverse it is, not only the culture it is music and so on. I think it something very personal to everybody, when I first came to Tempelhof, when I came to Berlin I went there and I couldn’t understand how it was possible to be in the centre of a big city and to have a sunset on the horizon. I haven’t seen that anywhere in the world. Big cities always have a lack of open space, places were you can just go and watch the sky. For me that was the moment when I understood the value of that place, there is something that is too valuable just to sacrifice for whatever interests. I haven’t ever been involved in politics, [but] then I became really involved. In that sense, do you think that the park gives a voice to the community? Oh yes, sure sure sure. I still remember when we were collecting signatures. Migrants were not allowed to sign, only German citizens older than 18 years old living in the city for longer than 6 or 3 months. Nearly all the thousands and thousands of people that are coming to Berlin, they weren’t allowed to have a say. I remember one day when I was in the entrance of the field collecting signatures, a mother with two children came over. She was signing and the little child asked me what [the referendum] is for. I tried to explain to him and he said that he wants to sign, that it is important that [the field] is kept. The mother said [to him], “you are not allowed”. In that moment it was clear to me that his voice was exactly the important voice, and then I told the mother that she should help him sign his name. I remember his name was Nicola; he was very proud when he was writing his name and that he was 6 years old, because it’s his future. Who am I to tell a child that his voice is not worth it? That his voice does not have the same meaning as anybody else’s. I’m that sure if you ask [the children], then the results would not be 65% but 100%. How are the community gardens managed? There are three gardens, this is a good question but I am not the right person to ask. I know that the gardens are organised by a form of association or something that is very German. They say in Germany that whenever three Germans come together, they make an association! There are rules about who can assume one of these spaces and what they are allowed to do there, but I think it is complicated. It is a responsibility [to take on one of the gardens] that’s why not everyone wants to do it. You have to participate, that is how they organise it I think.

Interview: Diego Cardenas

Do you think that if this second referendum succeeds, it gives people more of a platform to be heard? With the first referendum we knew that it would be difficult, I think that we really came very close to the goal, but didn’t arrive there. We need the last step – this has to be done, otherwise the referendum tool in this city is just a fake, it doesn’t mean anything if they can just change the vote of the people. In the future it will be difficult for the people to express whatever they think is important. Are there any links between your initiative and other initiatives in the city? Yes there are many. We receive a lot of people coming from all parts of the city, they want to help and to work with us. At the time we felt that networking was something that had not been exploited but we didn’t know how to do it, because all of these organisations are organised by people with different visions and ideas, of how things should work. Our initative was so successful because we were very close; we kept very tight to our goal. If somebody wanted to help use then OK, but we didn’t have the time to speak a lot. You can do whatever you want and be creative, if you need some material then we can help. We started to make a list of organisations to change this, to make a network of organisations that has been growing more connected over time. What I see now is that all the information coming from all of these groups that are coming from very different topics, but it is somehow starting to give some results. Do you know how many people use Tempelhof? Yeah, during summer with good whether, up to 50,000 in one weekend. In 2014 during the ref we had info that 2m per year, these numbers have been going up, t is the most visited public space in the city. The famous Tiergarten has ten times less visitors than Tempelhof, which is probably because Tempelhof is so open and available for different activities. How do people go about building something temporary on the site? There were already some buildings which were part of airport site, many of them are empty. We proposed that something has to been done with public participation in order to decide how they are used. The city council

Appendix

cannot take any decision about the use or development without the citizens participation. Is there a spokesperson for those citizens? No the law does not specify who, the city council just has to make sure that a process [of participation], is happening. The EPP is a process with citizen participation that is lead by one figure that we consider to be paid by the city council. He is the chief of the BUND, an environmental organisation. These people from the BUND were very keen to support the cities plans and now they are the ones leading the process of participation. I personally don’t trust them; I don’t believe that they are really interested in making the process a success. I think they are going in the other direction to conclude that participation doesn’t work; that people are too disorganised. Nonetheless many people from our group are involved in the process and they are very critical about every step they took. They can’t do just what they want, [our initiative] won’t give up easily. The community gardens were there before, all the things that already exist in temp are protected by the law. It is [a case of] what will happen in the future, we understand that we can’t just keep the park the way it is. There need to be toilets and benches and there are many things that can be done, we just say to let people participate in the decisions. Let’s make something that is different rather than just receiving orders from above about how things should be done. It makes it more interesting when people can decide what it is that they want to do. There are many user groups involved in the EPP that are very critical about the process, one of the most interesting examples of is the skater’s group. I remember during the referendum that the skaters were our guerilla group, if we had any action to do – if we needed a lot of people and it has to be very fast. There was this guy, his name was roger that’s all I know and roger knew all the skaters and I think all the skaters of the world! Nobody knows how it was organised; they were very young people. We got got like 100,000 stickers and they had to be put up in the city over one weekend. So I called Roger and said, “these have to be put in all of the lights and in all of the toilets of the clubs in the city, it has to be”. I went to the clubs that weekend and saw them there, how they did it I don’t know. You know, this is one of the examples of one of these groups helping us. They never came to the meetings, they were just supporting us very strongly but in their own way.

Interview: Diego Cardenas

Was the skate park built before the 2014 referendum? Yes it was. [The skaters] are participation in the EPP because thy have an interest in keeping it open. There were rumours that [the council] wanted to move it away because that is one of the areas where they wanted to build. What do you think the city can do to meet the housing requirements? You have to see that the housing policy of the council is not intended to solve any problems at all, because they are part of the problem. When we speak about housing we should start to speak about the need for affordable housing, which is not what they are doing. What is going on in Berlin, and it is not only Berlin, you come from England so you are years ahead of us. Luxury condos [are built] for whom? It is not the ordinary citizens that can afford them. We know that most of this housing is intended to be used as capital investment that will never be affordable for the people that really go to work, most of the people in Berlin don’t have the money to afford that kind of housing. We have a lot of empty condos and apartments that you can find on the real estate market around the world, that is not really solving any housing problem. So you have really to start rethinking the housing policy of the official part of the city. We have the CDU and the SDP which sound good but these people have privatised the whole social housing system, along with the left party (Greens) when they were in alliance with the SDP. As far as I know there used to be approximately 600,000 social flats in the city, now it’s all sold to the market. Now they come and say that we need housing, but they have privatised it, so when [the council] say that they are preoccupied with the housing crisis, I feel like they are laughing in our face. Do you think that the only option is for people to look for solutions of their own? It is a problem that has to do with all of us and it is a global problem. [Real estate] is at the heart of the whole question. We knew that when we succeeded in the Tempelhof referendum, that we had destroyed billions in potential real estate; we really touched their hearts and that’s why they will never easily accept the will of the people. It is about money and money reigns in the world. We just came there and we didn’t have any money and we had no clue how to organise something like that, but we were very motivated by the idea of having a place where freedom is not just a word

Appendix

but something that is palpable. Were you involved in 100% Tempelhofer Feld from the beginning? There was a small group at a bar where they started to meet. When I started they had a small office space in Schillerkiez on Schillerpromenade and that was the place where we organised the campaign. There were so many different people, Germans, migrants, women, men and they all came with many ideas about how to do things. Do you think that all of those ideas can be realised now in the park? Can people still be creative within the restriction of the conservation act? I don’t think that creativity is really something that is endangered when there is some kind of organisation. I think creativity is endangered, when there is some hierarchical authority that is not able to understand the need of the people. We never said how it has to be organised but for us it was important to keep it like a space where different ideas can be developed. That is why participation was one very important point in our arguments, or one of the main points. There are a lot of groups that are interested in how we did our referendum. Some months ago I had a group of Japanese professors from many different universities in Japan, that are organising the possibility for referendums there. At the momement there are no referendums in Japan, so they wanted to know how it worked. It really is an interesting tool for societies to express themselves, and that is why [the government is now] trying to make this tool completely useless. In January they passed a new law that made it completely difficult to pass a referendum; there are many more obstacles. Here in Berlin referendums can only be organised by associations and these associations don’t get public money. For that reason the city council [in 2014] was not allowed to use public money for publicity of their own, so it was kind of balanced. We didn’t have money, the money we spent in our referendum was all small donations. We really had such a small budget for our referendum that it is ridiculous how much less money we had than the other side – the real estate investors and the media – but the city council were not allowed to take public money for their publicity. Now they changed the law so that the city council, is allowed to take public money for publicity and they don’t even say how much money they are allowed to take. They just say as much money as they consider necessary, so if they

Interview: Diego Cardenas

had had this law in [2014] they would have spent billions to make sure that the referendum didn’t succeed. That is the moment when I say, somehow this city represents the city of freedom and creativity and whatever you want, but in reality I am not so sure (that north korea is so much worse than what they doing here). It can sound harsh, but it is harsh what they are really doing without explaining to people what is really going on. If you ask anybody in the street they don’t know that they just put one of the most important tools of direct democracy out of work. The new referendum says that all of these things must be taken back and it is very clear who has the right to do what, and it is very transparent. For all of these examples housing policy is behind it, Cuvry is a perfect example, it was an open space and I have seen in the newspapers a few weeks ago that in the Gerhart-Hauptmann Schule they are also planning to build apartments there. The Greens – it’s just a name. I live in Friedrichshain, KreuzbergFreidrichshain is lead by the Greens with a huge majority and it has been in Kreuzberg-Freidrichshain were some of the worst destructions of public space have happened, with the open agreement of the Green Party. They are really on the side of the developers. I have been in some meetings about the Kreuzberg-Freidrichshain area of Freudenberg, which is a big site in Freidrichshain and has been now built on. I remember when the Green representative was there arguing why it is important to privatise [the area] and, why there is no other alternative although everybody was sitting there with lots of ideas and alternatives; he’s on their side. I remember that they asked for permission to build something like 400 apartments, meaning that one side of the site could be left as an open space. The Green representative for Kreuzberg-Freidrichshain gave the permission for nearly 700, which meant of course that they had to make it more dense. The developer said, no we will use all of the permit and they will exploit [the whole site]. So, green I don’t know. I used to vote for them but now, no way.

Appendix

Interview: Theresa Jocham Theresa Jocham of TAMAJA was kind enough to answer a few of my questions by email. May 13th 2016 How many paid employees work at the Tempelhof Flughafen NUK? At the moment around 165 employees of TAMAJA. But in total there are many more people working here in the NUK. We have a catering company, a company for the security and the cleaning personal. So that would be around 200 employees of other companies working here as well. An estimate of the number of volunteers would also be really helpful. That is very hard to answer. We have many volunteer organisations here at the Tempelhof Flughafen. For example German Now, Tmehpelhof hilft, THF Welcome, Asylothek, and many more. You can also read about it on our website. But at the moment we have around 300 registered in our data base. Are the security guards paid/volunteers and are some residents of the NUK themselves? The security guards are working for an external service company. Therefore they get paid by their company. No residents of the NUK are working as security guards. What is the long-term plan for the camp in the next year to five years? The airport will for sure be a NUK till 2019. What is the projected growth of the site of the next year? In the future the NUK will be turn into an Arrival Center. The idea is that people that arrive in Germany will go into one of these arrival centers and will stay there until they finished their asylum application. At the moment the NUK is not growing much because some Hangars are getting rebuild inside. We are setting up new shower facilites and cabins. At the end of february 1.922 people lived here, in March there were 1.699 people living here, April: 1.340.