Infrastructuring the Urban Commons: A portfolio of institutional tools for post-industrial Sheffield

Infrastructuring the Urban Commons: A portfolio institutionaloftools for post-industrialSheffield.

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON FACULTY OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

Infrastructuring the Urban Commons: a portfolio of institutional tools for post-industrial Sheffield.

Laura Bucero Descalzo

Being a major research project submitted to the faculty of The Built Environment as part of the requirements for the award of the MSc Urban Design and City Planning at University College London:

I declare that this major research project is entirely my own work and that ideas, data and images, as well as direct quotations, drawn from elsewhere are identified and referenced.

Word Count: 8,408

Main Text: 2,141

Images: 10,549

Signature: Laura Bucero Descalzo

Date: 11th of September 2023

I would like to express my grattitude to my supervisor Joost Beunderman for guiding me through the process, from its begginings as a cluster of ideas and passions, to a more focused and comprehensive outcome. I greatly enjoyed our discussions, and your thoughtful feedback consistently encouraged me to tackle challenging questions and refine my work.

I must also thank everyone who so kindly gifted their time to chat about the commons both during formal and informal interviews, for our conversations have inspired me more than all the literature ever could.

Finally, I also wish to thank my family, and Jack for their continous support, feedback and encouragement; Tomas for the photos, and the EASA community and all the friends I’ve made along the way for showing me that different ways of living, learning, creating and caring in common are possible.

page left intentionally purple

In recent decades, the theory and practice of the urban commons have been the subject of extensive research, arising from the necessity of transition from current unsustainable and inequitable urban systems to more collaborative, resilient, and fair ones. Situated within the broader framework of the Social and Solidarity Economy, the urban commons have the potential to address complex and interrelated social, environmental, and economic challenges by recentring ‘use value’ at the core of the relationships between people, land, and urban resources. Additionally, through commoning practices of self-governance and self-management, existing structures in post-industrial cities can be creatively reconfigured into something new by a community of end-users, in ways that promote community wealth and well-being. Nonetheless, although the urban commons are gaining strength as a design framework, the general lack of institutional support in the UK, on top of neoliberal and austerity policies and privatisation trends, hinders long-term financial, spatial, and social resilience.

This project argues for the development of new institutional tools to reconcile mainstream institutions and policy frameworks and innovative ways of sociospatial organisation. Thereby, infrastructuring the urban commons by supporting their (re)emergence, long-term sustainability and resilience, and transferability to other contexts. Employing a research-by-design methodology, key narratives and strategies from a literature and case study review are identified to inform the design of a portfolio of institutional tools that aims to bridge this gap. The portfolio comprises funding and organisational mechanisms that might enable communities of commoners, government and educational institutions and diverse stakeholders to collectivise the provision, care and management of urban spaces, resources, and services. Sheffield is taken both as the case study and the site to test the proposed tools. Understanding ‘infrastructuring’ as a verb, the project emphasizes the negotiation and re-articulation process both in the design and in the contractual practice of the commons.

Architecture students working at SADACCA (August 2023)

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Architecture students working at SADACCA (August 2023) p. 7

Micro-contract for slices of time & space p. 11

Architecture students gathering at SADACCA p. 12

Methodology diagram p. 15

Literature review diagramatic summary p. 18

The Declaration and Standard of the Levellers of England. p. 19

Map showing land in public ownership in the city center p. 21

Figure 8. idem p. 21

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

Figure 16.

Figure 17.

Figure 18.

Figure 19.

The NEST experiment (2017 – 2019), a meanwhile space in old library p. 27

Policy co-creation lab in Ghent within the ‘School of Commons — p. 27

Explanatory diagram of Ghent’s Commons Transition Plan p. 27

Summary of literature review findings p. 29

Figure 20. Sheffield’s history timeline p. 32

Figure 21.

Figure 22.

Figure 23.

Photo: Sheffield’ City Centre p. 33

Map of commoning practices in Sheffield City Centre and surrounding areas p. 38

Map of existing & potential commoning sites in Sheffield City Centre and surrounding areas p. 40

page left intentionally purple

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Figure 15.

vas.org Hubs and Welcome Places p. 21

Explanatory diagram of the Commons Economy p. 22

Photo: pop-up kitchen in Heely City Farm creates a threshold between intergenerational communities (August 2023) p. 23

Photo: EASA community meeting (August 2023) p. 24

Photo: Architecture students activating and reclaiming shaping power over public space through temporary furniture (August 2023) p. 25

Mercato Sonato (2016 – 2023), a community event space in an old market p. 26

Dynamo Velostazione (2016 – 2021… ), a bike rental social enterprise p. 26

Explanatory diagram of Collaborare e Bologna p. 26

Figure 24.

Flow diagram connecting potential actors to resources through the different tools to achieve the Common Goals p. 49

Figure 25.

Figure 26.

Figure 27.

Explanatory diagram of the tools interactions and conceptual framework p. 51

Photo: testing the Micro-contract for various projects p. 52

Explanatory diagram of the design application of the tools to an specific site and time frame p. 57

Figure 28. Collage p. 59

Figure 29. Collage p. 61

Figure 30.

Explanatory diagram of the funding system p. 63

This Major Research Project sets out to broaden the discussion of the theory and practice of the commons, focusing on the tools for transition towards a commons-oriented regenerative approach to postindustrial cities. Understanding infrastructuring as a verb, the project emphasizes the negotiation and re-articulation process in the contractual practice of the commons. A portfolio of institutional tools will be designed that embraces this relationality by creating possibilities for reciprocity between commoners and different stakeholders in the context of post-industrial Sheffield.

(Re)emerging commons

During the past two decades, growing social struggles due to the effects of privatisation and limitations of access to basic resources of urban life have triggered a renewed interest in the theory of the commons. Current development models have not only been incapable of preventing socioeconomic and environmental crises but have also accentuated them, making apparent the urgent need for a new model.

(UNTFSSE, 2022) A Position Paper published by the United Nations identified the Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) as a powerful tool for realising the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 Agenda. Thus, approaching commons as one of the many pathways within the wider SSE framework and learning from real-life commoning practices, extensive literature has explored how the “New Urban Commons” paradigm could facilitate the transition from current unsustainable and inequitable urban systems to more collaborative, resilient, and fair ones. (Rieiro, 2023)

The commons date back to 15th century England; however, the re-emergence of the theory and practice of the commons goes beyond a nostalgic reinterpretation of a pre-capitalist society. Initially introduced into economic theory by Elinor Ostrom in the 1990s, the commons have been conceptualised as an alternative type of social relation based on selfgovernment, self-management, and self-organisation of common-pool-resources (CPRs) (Ostrom, 1990) (UNTFSSE, 2022). This project will explore relevant

narratives around the theory of commons (enclosures, reciprocity, thresholds, cosmolocalism, and the city as a commons) examining how these might be reflected in practice.

The Urban Commons paradigm expands on Ostrom’s traditional small-scale commons by fundamentally deconstructing binary public-private and state-market governance solutions at a city scale. (Foster & Iaione, 2019) By prioritising social and cultural value over monetary profit, it has the potential to challenge modern-day enclosures and create ongoing relations of reciprocity that can deal with acute urban social issues and spatial inequalities such as land injustice, disenfranchisement, poverty, marginalisation, and loneliness (UCRC, 2022). In addition, Urban Commons function as socio-material thresholds, spaces of encounter and exchange between different livelihoods, cultures and types of knowledge and forms of knowing, (Stavrides, 2016) that are neither part of the system nor completely built up against it (Hardt & Negri, 2009).

As a design framework, the commons recognise the need for structural change in urban contexts, particularly in addressing complex and interrelated social, environmental, and economic challenges. They embody the cosmolocal paradigm (Bauwens, Kranjc, & Ramos, 2022) which emphasizes the importance of local communities in shaping their futures by actively participating in the creation and management of urban resources and services, that are both locally relevant and globally connected. Ultimately, Urban Commons reclaims the shaping power over the process of urbanisation, expanding the right to the city (Harvey, 2012) by understanding the city as a commons, “a shared resource that belongs to all of its inhabitants”.

(Foster & Iaione, 2019)

On an increasingly urbanised planet, post-industrial cities have become critical spaces of experimentation with new relationships between people, land, nature, and resources. Urban commons have great potential to tackle local and global issues, but first, they must be able to overcome a series of critical issues. Most importantly, access to space or land in cities is highly contested, and urban commons often struggle to secure spaces or access land to develop their activities. In addition, the lack of appropriate indicators that define the value urban commons bring to the community and the environment makes it especially difficult to find legitimacy, obtain legal permits or access capital both in the short and long term. Inexperience or lack of resources to deal with institutions or drawing funding applications, excess bureaucracy, lack of long-term funding, financial anxiety, and spatial insecurity further hinder urban commons from emerging or lasting over time. (Harris & Rimmer, 2019) (Dellenbaugh-Losse 2020) Thus the motivation for this project stems from the recognition of the vulnerability of the commons and the need for institutional tools that can support commoning practices and allow the unlocking and sharing of resources at city-scale.

The research project positions itself in the urban landscape of the UK by taking Sheffield both as the site and the case study. Sheffield has a particular industrial and cultural history closely interlinked with the commons, (Udall, 2019) however, deindustrialisation and central government cuts have left the city underfunded and with a great stock of industrial heritage buildings under great pressure of private redevelopment (Gregory, 2023)

The project aims to map Sheffield’s commons and the social, spatial, financial, and legal (inter)relations between each other and with local and national institutions; as well as identify potential sites for commoning. Mapping and tracking these practices will reveal challenges and problems and inform the design of a portfolio of institutional tools applicable to post-industrial cities, designed to nurture, sustain, and replicate urban commons. These tools would provide the infrastructures that might contribute to urban commons’ emergence, sustainability, and transferability. Finally, understanding commoning and infrastructuring as verbs, the design proposal embraces the continuous process of prototyping and testing and remains open to being renegotiated and evolved, just like urban commons themselves.

Designing (for) the commons

Infrastructuring the Urban Commons: a portfolio of institutional tools for post-industrial Sheffield.

Micro-contract for slices of time & space Figure 2.

01. 1 > Research question

How might social, spatial, economic, and legal institutional tools contribute to the emergence, sustainability, and transferability of urban commons, whilst facilitating the reconfiguration of existing urban spaces and structures in post-industrial cities?

01.2 > Research objectives

1 > Understand what urban commons are and how they unfold in the context of Sheffield, identifying the challenges they face.

2 > Explore how existing urban spaces could be used in a creative way and reconfigured into something new through commoning practices.

3 > Design a portfolio of institutional tools – legal, financial, social, and spatial infrastructures, that incorporate urban commons into urban development within existing institutions.

01.3 > Limitations

This Major Research Project is mainly concerned with the design of institutional tools and their potential impact in the transition towards a commons-oriented approach to urban development of post-industrial cities.

For the purpose of contextualising the design proposal, UK’s and Sheffield’s policy landscapes are briefly examined, although thorough investigation is not within the scope of this project. Similarly, property law and its implications in the use of and access to land, and conditioning factors related to real estate are not studied. However, the various basic principles of property law and the constraints or opportunities that real estate present are touched upon in the case studies and taken into consideration in the design proposal.

Finally, although Sheffield was chosen both as the site and case study due to its interesting landscape of urban commons existing in parallel to the undergoing regeneration programme, it is hoped that lessons on how to reconfigure spaces in post-industrial cities into something new through collaborative efforts can be transferred to other UK and non-UK contexts.

01.4 > Contribution to practice

Whilst existing literature is concerned predominately with commons’ structures – internal physical and social organisation, this project focusses on the commons enabling infrastructures – the external systems that support the emergence, sustainability, and transferability of the urban commons. Thus, using infrastructuring as a verb, the research does not only highlight the need for new resilient institutional tools, but emphasizes the process of institutional change necessary for urban transition. Although research shows that commons-enabling infrastructures must be radically different from existing ones, the project aims to use design to bridge the gap between mainstream policy frameworks and alternative forms of self-governance and self-management.

01.5 > Statement of research ethics

The proposed research presents a low ethical risk. Interviews will be impartial and transparent, ensuring that participation is voluntary, and responses are anonymised. Only a brief description of the urban commons will be identified, and this data will be used in accordance with UCL’s Data Protection Principles and Research Ethics Committee. Personal data such as emails will not be shared. Respondents will be provided with a sheet detailing the purpose of the research, along with an individual consent form. Everyone will have the possibility to leave the interview at any time or decline to participate.

Additionally, to investigate the urban commons and alternative ways to make the city, this project will aim to acknowledge and dismantle power imbalances in Academia and practice. To achieve this, the researcher will question which voices are currently dominant and present, and which ones are marginalized or absent. The research will be informed by voices that are not usually heard in academia to work towards decolonising and “depatriarchising” research and design.

Overall, the project will aim to develop an ethical and inclusive research practice that values diverse perspectives and seeks to address the historical injustices that underpin socio-spatial inequalities.

Architecture students gathering at SADACCA Figure 3.

The project starts by formulating a research question and three objectives. Following a research by design methodological approach, the project combines literature and case study review and design to address the urban issue and generate practical knowledge that simultaneously contributes to the understanding of the theory.

Initially, mapping is used to analyse the urban commons context of Sheffield and visualise the existing actors acting as commoners, the type of relations enabling the commoning practices, the type of resources being shared and the challenges they face. Mapping is also employed throughout the design process to identify potential sites for commoning amongst the derelict post-industrial urban fabric.

The literature review examines the emergence of the new urban commons paradigm and its relevancy in confronting the current social, economic, and environmental crises. Next, implementation methods of Commons-enabling institutions and mechanisms in urban development are explored and interrogated. Then, to understand how urban commons unfold in the context of Sheffield, a case study review is conducted. Defining and designing for the commons involves taking a practice-based perspective through the re-telling of commoning stories. Thus, design will be informed and enriched by a combination of informal conversations and semi-structured interviews.

Key themes from the literature and findings from the case study review are addressed through the design of a portfolio of institutional tools. One of the tools, the Microcontract, is prototyped and tested through the speculative design of two scenarios that will inform further research.

Finally, the project concludes with a reflective review, highlighting the successful aspects of the portfolio, the questions that arise from the design and the areas that need further research prototyping or testing.

context authors questions narrative

England & UK context

Historic Commons & Enclosure Movement

new enclosures

socio-economic and environmental crises make aparent they system’s failure (neoliberalisation, austerity programmes, privatisation of public goods, cost-of-living crisis...)

paradigm shift

Academic literature

Urban Commons

Ostrom & Hess 2006

Federici 2019

what are urban commons? why is the theory and practice of commoning (re)emerging?

Historic Commons and the Enclousure Movement in

what are the key narratives de ning the urban commons?

Social & Solidarity Economy

Gift economy

Reciprocity Thresholds

Heterotopias

UNSSE 2022

Engle et al 2022 Chang et al 2022

Foucault 1967

Harvey 2000

Hardt & Negri 2009 Stavrides 2016

Ostrom 1990

Polycentric governance

Bauwens, Kranjc, & Ramos 2022

Lefebvre 1968

Harvey 2012

Foster & Iaione 2019, 2022

England

Traditionally, commons are associated with CPRs (Ostrom, 1990) and consist of three elements: a pool of resources, a community that uses and shares the resources, and a set of collectively agreed-upon practices, rules and values that govern the resources. During medieval England, historic commons were the common land such as woodland or pastures, allocated with shared rights including grazing, foraging, fishing, extracting minerals or collecting wood and turf. The common was an integral part of the manor and the basis of the open-field system, an unfenced landscape that required the cooperation of all residents of the manor. Historic “commons” simultaneously describe a shared resource, traditionally linked to land, and the collective activity and governance rules put in place by social processes to use and sustain that resource.

(De

Angelis & Stavrides, 2009)

How can urban commons be incorporated into city-scale urban development?

Non-UK context

LabGov P2P foundation

what next?

Global context

Standing 2019

How might social, spatial, economic, and legal institutional tools contribute to the emergence, sustainability, and transferability of urban commons, whilst facilitating the recon guration of existing structures of post-industrial cities?

what institutional tools might contribute to the emergence, sustainability & transferability of urban commons?

Despite being essential for the livelihood of communities and social reproduction in agrarian society, common land gradually diminished when the open field system was replaced by private ownership systems as landlords viewed privatisation of land as a means of increasing agricultural productivity. As a result, beginning in the 15th century, the Enclosure Movement saw the fencing of existing holdings and the deprivation of commoners from their rights to access and use land as a resource for subsistence.

(Ostrom & Hess, 2006) The Enclosure Movement drove rapid urbanisation and industrialisation, and collective efforts, shared knowledge and livelihoods linked to the management of the common land were eventually lost or forgotten as commoners became wage labourers in factories (De Angelis & Stavrides, 2009).

The Declaration and Standard of the Levellers of England. Later known as the Diggers, they were a political movement in Surrey during the mid-17th against common land enclosures. The name derives from the practice of levelling hedges and walls and digging in enclosed common land during riots.

Figure 6.

The Enclosure Movement was part of a historical process by which pre-capitalist forms of production and social organization were transformed to create the conditions necessary for the development of capitalism. This process known in Marxist theory as ‘primitive accumulation’, (Marx 1867) is further expanded upon by Harvey’s theory of ‘accumulation by dispossession’. Harvey (2003) explains how the accumulation of capital continues to occur through the expropriation and dispossession of people and resources, inevitably creating new forms of inequality, exclusion, and social and environmental destruction. Understanding the term “enclosures” and how it is still relevant today is useful in explaining modern-day privatisation (Standing 2019), as Hess and Ostrom argue, “the narrative of the enclosure is one of privatisation, the haves versus the have-nots” (2006: 12). Since the late 20th century, neoliberal economic and political ideologies have driven the implementation of policies that emphasize private enterprise and profit maximisation. The privatisation of public space, goods, and services, the sell-off of community assets and social housing, government cuts and reduced welfare benefits and access to education and health, and the commodification of natural resources and cultural heritage, as well as knowledge through intellectual property rights, are all examples of “new enclosures” (Federici, 2018).

During the past decades, new enclosures have taken on new forms and intensified. In the UK, privatisation particularly targeted the social housing model through Thatcher’s Right to Buy, which has resulted in a net loss of 1.9 million homes since 1979 and a shift from 31.4% of the overall housing supply in 1981 to just 18.1% today. (Hodkinson, 2012). Furthermore, the UK government’s austerity program, adopted after the 2008 recession and used from 2010 to 2019 and again after the COVID-19 pandemic, has caused sustained reductions in public spending and tax rises. This has led to the sale of more than 4,000 public buildings and spaces every year to private

developers by underfunded councils. (Locality, 2018) The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (2019) revealed that 20,651 public buildings and spaces were estimated to be sold by underfunded councils from 2014 to 2018. Particularly in Sheffield, by 2017 the council raised £36.5 million by selling off 78 spaces, including schools, playing fields, libraries, and historic listed buildings (Williams 2019). Simultaneously, both the market and state are demanding more from the urban commons to address the deficits and issues caused by the system. Austerity policies have consolidated social inequalities, accentuated poverty and increased food insecurity and the use of food banks (Jenkins et al. 2021). In Sheffield, the voluntary sector has stepped up to provide the essential services, creating alongside the council an accessible map of Hubs and Welcoming Places for those struggling to heat their homes or feed themselves and their families. (VAS, n.d.)

In conclusion, the commons are becoming increasingly instrumental for humanity in ensuring social reproduction by counterbalancing new enclosures and repairing the damages caused by neoliberal markets and state institutions. (UCRC, 2022) Urban commons in particular raise the question of how the provision of spaces, services and tangible and intangible resources in urban contexts could be re-claimed and collectivised. To explore how this could be achieved, four narratives that contribute to our thinking and of the urban commons are identified in the literature: reciprocity, thresholds, cosmolocalism and the city as a commons.

vas.org Hubs and Welcome Places

Urban Commons and new enclosures

Figure 9.

26% of land in Sheffield is owned by the Council (source: Gregory 2021, Property Terrier Holdings sheffield-city-councilopen-data-sheffieldcc. hub.arcgis.com)

Map showing land in public ownership in the city center idem

Figure 8.

Figure 7.

Reciprocity & the Gift Economy

Various authors (Engle, 2022) (Federici, 2018) (Harvey, 2012) have highlighted the inadequacies of the current capitalist system, exposed by global economic crises, however, capitalism’s structures run so deep in society that also affect our non-economic relations with each other and with the world around us. In a competitive market environment, the private property economy does not promote reciprocal relations between humans, nature, and resources as there is no bond between the object and the subject/consumer. Under the current system sharing is discouraged because market value is based on scarcity and exclusivity, however, alternative economic models based on wealth-sharing can foster new understandings of value beyond the one-dimensional monetary definition (Engle, 2022).

The rejection of the dominant capitalist logic of private property and the transition towards more interconnected ways of living that value human relationships and the well-being of all is conceptualised by Federici (2018) as ‘re-enchanting the world’. This involves the rediscovery and celebration of alternative ways of organising societies that promote human dignity, collective care, and the stewardship of resources and the environment. Similarly, in the book Sacred Civics (2022) the authors propose reimaging shaping cities based on ‘sacred values’, this is, as if people, lands, and natures were unique, lifesustaining, self-owning and uncommodifiable. (Engle, 2022)

An example of how this might translate to practice is libraries of things (LoT). As part of the sharing economy, LoT reframe value as social capital, community cohesion, cultural identity, and well-being, and as tangible collections of borrowable objects, they allow users to save money and reduce waste, all while making skill-building more accessible. In the UK, LoT take many names and forms, some are more grassroots such as Sheffield’s GreenCityAction Community Toolbank based on Abbeyfield House,

and others have been institutionalised, (Library of Things Cic, 2023) Additionally, LoT have the potential of forming partnerships with councils, repair shops, community gardens and kitchens, low waste markets, maker-spaces, arts, music, and kids’ play spaces; thus building supportive and reciprocal commoning networks between communities and mainstream institutions.

The Gift Economy Gifts

Thresholds and heterotopias

Reciprocal relationships require specific spatial and social settings, - for instance, GCA’s Toolbank provides a welcoming space in Abbeyfield House where neighbours can meet. However, a library of things such as this is also a space that functions under its own rules, times, and protocols, different to those from outside, -- a heterotopia in Foucault’s (1967) terms. The concept of heterotopia applied to the urban commons is used by Stavrides (2016) to describe “a collective experience of otherness … as the practice of diffusing new forms of urban collective life”; and by Harvey (2000, p. 194) as “spaces of alternate ordering… within which life is experienced differently”. These spaces allow encounters with the “other,” connecting to diverse ways of being, living and knowing and fostering mutual understanding, negotiation, and conflict resolution. In this sense, urban commons are defined as socio-material thresholds, not merely as physical resources but as gateways to shared experiences, mutual support, and collective action within our cities (Stavrides 2016).

The threshold quality of the commons “separates while connecting,” (Stavrides 2016) implying that although commons function outside or against the market and the state, they have an emancipatory

potential to transcend enclosures and create new ways of living/creating/working/caring “in common.” Likewise, urban commons are transformative thresholds where communities reclaim and repurpose urban spaces and resources for common use and become catalysts in reappropriating the city as a commons. Unlocking, locating, or producing threshold spaces through spatial practices, such as symbolic representation, physical occupation, temporary adaptation of space and cooperative organisational, ownership, governance, and management models, allow the creation of “spaces of hope.” Spaces, according to Harvey (2000) represent hopeful and aspirational approaches and experiments to urban development that embody a more just and equitable urban future. A spatial network of urban commons, or rather as Stavrides (2002) proposes, “a city of thresholds” could provide opportunities for encounter and exchange through spaces and times of departure from dominant capitalist logic, and entry-points for interaction between actors and stakeholders that bridge the divide between the public and the private realms.

diagram of the Gift Economy

Photo: pop-up kitchen in Heely City Farm creates a threshold between intergenerational communities

Figure 10. Figure 11.

administrative support time, ideas, kinship, care

streamline planning application if the development contirbutes to the commons

Cosmolocalism & polycentric governance

The most prominent critique against the commons is Hardin’s (1968) “The Tragedy of the Commons”, which argues that CRPs are inevitably unsustainable because users always maximise extraction, thereby depleting the resource. Hardin’s argument has been used to justify privatisation and total state management of common goods (De Angelis & Stavrides, 2009), however, Ostrom’s (1990) extensive economic research on the commons proved that commoners are capable of developing and negotiating tools to access and sustain their CPRs. Nonetheless, while commons succeed in small contexts, as the number of commoners and the territory covered expands resource-sharing and decision-making becomes ever more complex. Consequently, Ostrom’s theory highlights the effectiveness of decentralized and locally tailored governance systems in successfully managing and sustaining common-pool resources.

Further exploring polycentric governance, Bauwens et al. (2022) apply the cosmolocal mode of production to the commons, which involves resourcesharing at a global scale. In practice, it would involve local places contributing to and benefiting from other communities’ open knowledge, technologies, designs, and software. On one hand, this would facilitate the

(re)introduction of the logic of the commons to sustain communities’ resilience and wealth, and on the other, it would accelerate the urban transition. According to the authors, implementation of this model will require cities to set up a four-layered system of collaboration. The first layer consists of recognising the existing commons in all their complexity and building networks to expand their impact. The second layer focuses on creating coalitions of support and agreements between cities and commoners, through the establishment of a new sociopolitical contract. The third layer involves using open design and knowledge collaboration to transform their production, sharing it with other cities. Finally, the fourth layer forms synergies between cities by connecting commons from around the world.

Overall, in the context of the urban commons, cosmolocalism emphasizes the potential of urban communities to contribute to and benefit from global knowledge-sharing and collaboration through polycentric networks of governance, while recognising that although cities are part of the global economy and face shared challenges, their solutions should be rooted in local knowledge, culture, and practices.

The city as a commons & the right to the city

Building on Ostrom’s work, Foster & Iaione (2022) employ Lefebvre’s ([1968] 1996) ‘right to the city’ framework to focus the study of the commons and decentralized governance systems in urban contexts, As Harvey (2012), they understand the city as a site of production of commons, revindicating the right to the city as the struggle to reintegrate urban spaces with the social fabric, empowering residents to collectively care for city life and shape urban environments. However, the right to the city is also rooted in the conflict between the commercial exchange value of buildings and spaces and their social use value. Being constructed by social processes, the use value of urban resources derives from their everyday use and the connections between their users. As a result, the authors propose rethinking the city as a generative common resource, shared, and co-created by all citizens. This would involve redesigning institutions to bring together various stakeholders, including citizens, governments, institutions, civic organisations, and businesses, in the co-design process of both tangible and intangible common-good resources and services.

Thus, the “Co-city” proposed by Foster & Iaione (2022) aims to move away from traditional topdown decision-making and embrace more inclusive

and participatory practices by explicitly involving mainstream institutions. The Co-city framework is distilled into five design principles which are: collective governance, enabling state, social and economic pooling, experimentalism, and tech justice (Foster & Iaione, 2022). These principles employ institutional mechanisms and legal, digital, and technological tools, to foster, sustain and replicate various urban commons. However, they are not meant to be used as strict design guidelines, but as an interpretative protocol or a common language that enables the exchange of ideas and practices in-between cities without compromising institutional diversity and adaptiveness.

Answering the question of “What can Institutions Do,” Milburn & Russell (2018) propose the formation of public-common partnerships, exemplified by the “remunicipalism” movement. For instance, in ‘Barcelona en Comú’ the council took the role of the enabling estate by linking up with urban commons and citizens, actively involving them in the governance and management of urban spaces and resources, and effectively reclaiming the city as a commons. (The Care Collective, 2020)

community meeting (August 2023)

Architecture students activating and reclaiming shaping power over public space through temporary furniture (August 2023)

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Bologna Learning from > Ghent Learning from >

The co-cities protocol developed by Foster & Iaione (2022) within LabGov has influenced commonsoriented initiatives across Europe, and most significantly the Italian city of Bologna. Bologna’s commoning journey began in 2007 when the concept of “common goods” was proposed to be incorporated into the Italian Civil Code, sparking renewed interest in the commons. In the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, the city faced dereliction and reduced citizen participation due to a lack of trust in the government and bureaucratic hurdles. In response, in 2014, Bologna launched the “Collaborare è Bologna” project, partnering with LabGov to create the “Regulation for the Care and Regeneration of the Urban Commons.” This law aimed to foster collaboration between the municipality and citizens, empowering them to co-govern and regenerate the city together.

(Dellenbaugh-Losse,

Zimmermann, & de Vries, 2020)

Bologna recognises its residents as resourceful agents capable of co-producing urban solutions. To reflect this, the city was reorganised into six districts, each with its council and local hub, adopting a layered approach to decentralization. It established new offices and processes to facilitate citizen participation and future collaborations. “Collaboration pacts” and the recognition of “the right to care” streamlined citizen engagement, allowing straightforward application for urban development projects while the city provides insurance during citizens’ involvement. Bologna’s polycentric governance model ensures better allocation of city resources, prioritizing community needs and long-term perspectives for each district. Bologna has also been a pioneer in implementing participatory budgeting, where citizens could propose, discuss, and vote on how a portion of the municipal budget should be allocated. (LabGov, 2016)

The recent Commons Transition Project for the city of Ghent (Belgium) provides further understanding of what commons-enabling institutions could look like. In 2017, the council commissioned members of the P2P Foundation to conduct an indepth site-specific and situational analysis of the commons in the city. The aim of the study consisted of understanding the emergence of commoning practices to determine and provide guidance to city authorities regarding adjustments or creation of policies in favour of citizen initiatives centred around the commons. Using mapping, and a series of questionnaires, interviews and workshops, the study revealed there were around five hundred urban commons in Ghent, predominantly grassroots efforts, but found them to be fragmented, largely enclosed vulnerable to commodification and overall lacking synergy in between each other. (Bernardi, 2017)

To empower commoners and give them more political influence, the report advises the development

of a city-wide commons strategy, including the creation of new institutions. The “States-General of the Commons” would represent commoners and the “Chamber of the Commons” would support different actors in the commons economy. The city should also adopt cosmolocal production and a circular finance model through which savings in the city budget could be redirected to commons projects. Additionally, a “Call for Commons,” based on openly sharing knowledge commons, could promote alliances involving various stakeholders (Bauwens & Onzia, 2017).

While some recommendations made by the report have been implemented, such as the creation of the Temporary Use Fund to provide financial support for commons initiatives, an educational program about commons and several spaces for commoners to meet and collaborate; new institutional bodies have not been established and the future of the project is uncertain (Turolla, 2020).

Figure 14.

Figure 15.

Figure 18.

Figure 16.

Figure 19.

Figure 17.

Explanatory diagram of Collaborare e Bologna

Mercato Sonato (2016 – 2023), a community event space in an old market

Policy co-creation lab in Ghent within the ‘School of Commons ‘

Dynamo Velostazione (2016 – 2021… ), a bike rental social enterprise

The NEST experiment (2017 – 2019), a meanwhile space in old library

Explanatory diagram of Ghent’s Commons Transition Plan

context

England & UK context

ndings narrative

Historic Commons & Enclosure Movement

new enclosures

Bologna and Ghent’s initiatives highlight how a universal urban commons framework can be applied and adapted to different socioeconomic and urban settings. However, it is crucial to recognise that commons-public partnerships are interdependent, and the fluctuating electoral cycles pose a risk to their long-term viability. Besides, Bologna’s Participatory Budgeting and Ghent’s Temporary Use Fund, while commendable, might not provide adequate financial backing for urban commons to effectively counter the profit-driven real estate market, especially in the short run.

Addressing this challenge, Standing (2019) suggests a novel Charter of the Commons, reminiscent of Britain’s 13th-century Charter of the Forest that safeguarded common land access. The proposal advocates for a Permanent Commons Fund on a global scale, dedicated to supporting various commons endeavours encompassing community-led housing, community-owned renewable energy, gardens and food commons, community-based education and healthcare services, and cultural and digital commons. Funded by a combination of public and private sources, it would be managed by a board of trustees that would be accountable to the global commons community. Standing’s ambitious proposal mirrors prevalent themes in existing literature, from the historical erosion of commons due to enclosures to their potential revival through interconnected cosmolocal networks fostering reciprocity.

Expanding commons beyond cities or borders, this vision strives to ensure that urban commons can continue to provide essential benefits to people and the planet.

During the past decades, new enclosures have taken on new forms and intensi ed. In the UK, privatisation particularly targeted the social housing model through Thatcher’s Right to Buy. More recently, UK’s austerity programme has led to public buildings and spaces being sold-o by councils, and to an increase in social inequalities, poverty and food insecurity.

Academic literature

paradigm shift

Urban Commons

Social & Solidarity Economy

Gift economy

Reciprocity Thresholds

Alternative economic system that reframes “value” beyond capitalist market logic, and that prioritizes social and enviromental well-being instead of solely nancial pro ts.

Heterotopias

Spaces of exchange and connection between di erent livelihoods & forms and knowledge & knowing. Alternatives forms of organising society Beyond binary state-market relations

Polycentric governance

Cosmolocalism

Polycentric governance that allows & site-spe c solutions & collaboration and resource-sharing at a global scale.

The city as a commons

institutionalisation of the commons

Non-UK context

Bologna Ghent

The right to the city “Partner City” or “Enabling State”

Permanent Commons Fund

Global context

Charter of the Commons

Recognising citizens as resourceful agents of change and creating the means for meaningful participation.

CREATION OF NEW INSTITUTIONAL BODIES, PROCESSES & TOOLS

MAP GOVERNANCE

The world as a commons

Interactive Map (B) Co-Cities Map

Collaboration Pact (B) Commons Accord (G)

FUND MANAGE MAINTENANCE SUSTAINABILITY

Participatory Budgeting (B) Temporary Commons Fund(G) Bank of the Commons (G)

Portfolio of institutional tools to infrastructure the urban commons

What next? The world as a commons

Summary of literature review findings

Figure 20.

Sheffield’s growth as an industrial town during the 18th and 19th centuries was driven by technological innovation in the manufacturing of crucible steel. Concurrently to the peak of its industrial era, Sheffield was also home to a multitude of “little Mesters,” who defied the ever-greater transition to wage labour. The Mesters were self-employed, owned their means of production and formed craftsmen clusters who rented small workshops within larger factories (Udall, 2019). Although Mesters were not exempt from great pressures and difficulties in their work, this form of particular industrial development allowed for “practices of interdependence” between Mesters, as economies became entwined with sociality. (UCRC, 2022) Towards the end of the 20th century, after over half a century of depression, Sheffield’s industries, along with those in various other regions of the UK, experienced their most severe decline.

Thatcher’s influence on Sheffield in the 1980s was profound, and her neoliberal policies led to a drastic reduction of the public sector, as well as severe cuts and privatisation in the steel and coal industries, which led to high unemployment rates and the abandonment of manufacturing factories in the city-centre. However, in response to this challenging environment, DIY forms of making and culture emerged, flourishing in the abandoned spaces left by the declining industries. The arts and music scene of Sheffield thrived alongside these vacant areas, becoming hubs of resistance and renewal, and as the Mesters had centuries prior, these initiatives operated outside capitalism and fostered alternative ways of producing cultural and social activities. (UCRC, 2022)

A 2019 study on the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCA) (Harris & Rimmer, 2019) found that there were approximately 3,389 voluntary and community organizations, social enterprises, and community interest companies (CICs) in the city. Of these, over half provided social care, welfare, and health services, while the other half provided education, training, and research. The VCS, a network of urban commons, play

a key role in policy development and service provision and contributes significantly to Sheffield’s gross value added (GVA). However, the report found that financial instability and the lack of new generations of volunteers with the necessary skills threaten their sustainability over time. In addition, the VSA face challenges in building relationships with Sheffield City Council due to the current practice of funding short-term projects. This uncertainty makes it difficult to plan for the long term and co-produce local services.

To interrogate how can the city best support urban commons, this project looks at four Sheffield cases part of the VCS where an aspect of everyday life has been collectivised. These stories of postindustrial Sheffield’s urban commons outline both the continuous process of resistance against or existence within modern-day enclosures, and the potentialities of commoning practices in shaping non-capitalist or anti-capitalist urban socio-spatial forms of living, working, and caring in common.

Urban Commons in Post-industrial Sheffield

Sheffield’s history timeline

Sheffield’ City Centre

Figure 21.

Figure 21.

Shareholders of Portland Works Ltd. own a share of the land, building and common areas and are responsible for the management, maintenance, repair and servicing of them. Work spaces are available for tenants who sign a lease (right to occupy) portlandworks.co.uk

Portland Works is a Grade II Listed cutlery factory in Sheffield, historically tied to the city’s industrial evolution. It was occupied by Mesters since the 1870s and later by artists and musicians when industrial activity began to decline. In 2009, facing the threat of conversion into private flats, a successful campaign was launched to save Portland Works, and in 2014 a social enterprise comprising around 500 community shareholders purchased the building from the private owner. This effort not only involved contributions of money, but also of time, skills, and knowledge, to renovate the building, hold exhibitions and collectively rethink Portland Works’ future role in the city. Collaborations with Studio Polpo and the University of Sheffield aided in mapping mutual relations of care and labour as a tool of “alternative for value accounting” (Petrescu, 2021) and exploring ways to make the project feasible and economically sustainable for the tenants in the long term. (Urban Commons Research Collective, 2022)

Portland Works now serves as a threshold between different modes of production, operating independently of market speculation cycles, but in collaboration Sheffield City Council, Sheffield Town Trust, and Sheffield’s universities, amongst other institutions, and participating in city-

wide events. It provides affordable workspace for 35 tenants, fostering relationships of reciprocity among them. ‘Tuesday volunteers’ support renovation and maintenance efforts. However, financial sustainability relies on donations from private and institutional sources, including the Heritage Lottery Fund and the Architectural Heritage Fund.

In conclusion, Portland Works’ story is an exemplary case of how ‘Working urban commons’ can counter new enclosures through relational practices rooted in mutuality, sharing and cooperation. It also emphasizes the need for strong organisational systems, in this case, the Asset Lock, which ensures the building will be retained within the CIC to be used for the community purposes. (Urban Commons Research Collective, 2022) Finally, although Portland Works was not purchased under the Community Right to Bid (Localism Act 2011), the model has the potential to be transferred or replicated in other post-industrial contexts.

Bloc Projects is a not-for-profit arts organization in Sheffield that emerged from the aspiration of individuals to establish their own gallery space and create a supportive and creative environment for local artists. Located in a former cutlery and tuning fork factory, the gallery’s focus lies in exploring art practices intertwined with broader sociopolitical contexts. Though not all its end users own or manage resources, Bloc Projects operates as an urban commons by facilitating interactions between citizens, organizations, and institutions, and opening up spaces for commoning the city.

The organization offers two distinct programs aimed at different segments of the public. The curated program supports emerging artists by providing financial, legal, and logistical guidance, helping them access grants, coordinate exhibitions and develop marketing strategies for their work. Additionally, in recent years, Bloc Projects has developed a model for managing and maintaining meanwhile use spaces across the city through which privately owned sites that are due for redevelopment are rented below market value to provide affordable artist studios. These studios are available at a minimal cost to others in need of workspace for creative activities and rent-free to Bloc members. The revenue generated from these meanwhile spaces sustains the organization

while fostering collaborations and supporting artists, thus enhancing social capital, and contributing to the city’s cultural prosperity.

The gallery space serves as a venue for talks, workshops, and exhibitions, open to the general public for free. Bloc Projects funds its operations through annual memberships, studio rents, and support from national and local institutions like the Arts Lottery Fund, England Arts Council, Sheffield City Council, and local universities. While emphasizing the significance of spaces for fostering relationships and collaborations in the city, Bloc Projects acknowledges the cultural, linguistic, social, and economic barriers that Art can present. To address this, the organization strives to be accessible, inclusive, and crossdisciplinary, welcoming various forms of knowledge and art practice. Bloc Projects also highlights the ethical responsibility of urban commons to engage with diverse groups of audiences and communities and translate art into everyday relatable experiences.

The case of Bloc Projects invites us to explore the potentialities of a network of meanwhile spaces across the city that allows disused buildings to be accessed and reconfigured creatively, fostering new relations between people, urban resources, and diverse forms of creating and knowing.

Randall St, Highfield, S2 4SJ

Ownership model: commonhold property

71 Eyre Ln, S1 4RB / 2-4 & 16 Matilda St, S1 4QY Ownership model: Private ownership (Asset Lock) / Meanwhile space (right to occupy) blocprojects.co.uk

the Brink Ltd. owns the

On the Brink is a co-housing in Nether Edge that emerged in response to the 2008 mortgage crisis and a desire for alternative ways of living together. The co-house sits in a residential area of suburban Victoria Villas, developed in the 19th by middle and upper-class landowners seeking distance from the densely populated and insalubrious city centre. More than a century later, through a mix of pragmatism and serendipity, the Victorian villa in particular, Brincliffe House, built in 1852, offered an opportunity for collective ownership due to its spacious layout and grounds. In 2015, a group of people formed On the Brink Ltd. and purchased the house and the land, transforming it into eleven flats and adding a terrace extension for three families, accommodating a total of twenty-six residents. Thus, as a commonly held property, On the Brink, has no overall landlord, instead, it is co-owned by the residents of each unit, who are collectively responsible for the management and maintenance.

What differentiates OTB from traditional housing schemes are the communal spaces. As thresholds between the private and the public, the living room, kitchen, and courtyard are shared by the residents and foster new forms of living together that extend care beyond the nuclear family.

Convivial forms of living together do not exclude conflict, in fact, it plays a vital role in urban commons by pushing the community to renegotiate and rearticulate their collective and individual responsibilities. The community invites a spectrum of voluntary participation, yet in an analogous way to the gift economy, strives to create relations of care that are reciprocated and appreciated. However, navigating financial instability, interpersonal differences, and motivations require a significant investment of time and emotional labour as well as the willingness to understand different perspectives and knowledge.

‘Living urban commons’ have the potential to nurture alternative forms of communal care and collective kinship. Although On the Brink exhibits a certain degree of enclosure, as it is constituted by a closed group of commoners and a finite resource, the collective exercise of reimagining the house—the central node of social reproduction (Federici, 2011) —could expand attitudes of interdependence and cooperation beyond the domestic realm, rethinking housing as a commons at a city scale.

SADACCA (Sheffield and District African Caribbean Community Association) is an anchor community space in Sheffield that has been serving the needs of the African Caribbean community since 1955. Formed by the first Windrush generation who moved from the Caribbean to Britain to serve postwar labour shortages in factories, SADACCA’s main aim has been to provide a welcoming and safe space, through the promotion of cultural activities and care and recreation services.

In recent years the organisation has faced several challenges, including the need for new leadership and the risk of eviction from their space, a listed metalworks office building leased by Sheffield City Council under great development pressure. In response to these challenges, SADACCA developed a strategic plan in collaboration with Live Projects, an initiative by the School of Architecture at the University of Sheffield. Although Live Projects were able to argue the social value of the community space to the council, SADACCA’s main challenge remains to be securing a space in the Wicker and ensuring social and financial sustainability.

To address this issue, the strategic plan involved a five-yearlong project aimed at maximising

SADACCA’s built asset to fund further improvements and support the organisation’s financial stability over time. Though restrictions on listed buildings presented some constraints, small interventions such improving the accessibility, visibility, and experience of the place through furniture and signage were carried out, making SADACCA more welcoming to the wider public. The project also included the creation of rentable units, co-working spaces for local start-ups, a schedule of activities and a bar which revenues are redirected towards the educational spaces, the care centre and the maintenance of the organisation and the building.

In summary, although the long-term future of SADACCA is still uncertain, the strategic plan developed by SADACCA and Live Projects highlights the significance of meaningful partnerships, participation, and knowledge exchange in the resilience of ‘caring urban commons’. SADACCA’s strategy also serves as a model for how real estate can be used as a resource for the commoners, and how community spaces can preserve heritage, promote social inclusion, and contribute to the cultural and economic prosperity of future generations.

48 Wicker, Sheffield S3 8JB

Ownership model: leased to SADACCA by Sheffield City Council since 1986 sadacca.co.uk

90 Osborne Rd, Nether Edge, S11 9BB

Ownership model: commonhold property

On

land, building and common areas and is responsible for the management, maintenance, repair and servicing of them, but each resident is responsible for their individual house. onthebrink.community

Existing & potential commoning sites in Sheffield City Centre and surrounding areas

The conceptual framework combines strategies derived from the literature and case study reviews, into a portfolio of institutional tools that aims to bridge the gap between mainstream policy frameworks in the UK and Sheffield and innovative forms of citizen participation and stewardship of urban spaces and resources.

In combination with existing policies and taking inspiration from change-makers elsewhere, these tools could provide the necessary legal, financial, social, or spatial infrastructures that might contribute to urban commons’ emergence, resilience, and transferability.

UK policy context

COMMUNITY

Precedents

Collaborative mapping & workshops to identify community priorities and needs, and potential sites for commoning

London’s Library of Things & Sheffield’s community toolbank

The Localism Act of 2011 encompasses a range of new opportunities and flexibilities for local governments and rights for individuals and communities to assume control of public services, community assets, and to have an impact on planning and development. The most relevant ones to support the Urban Commons are:

Locality.org.uk

The right to express their interest in running a particular public service and potentially bid to do this.

Allows the transfer of management and/or ownership of publicly owned building or land to a community-based organisation, below market value, in order to promote social, economic or environmental well-b eing.

The right to nominate buildings or land for listing by the local authority if its use contirbutes to the community’s social well-being. During the first 6 months that a listed asset goes for sale, community groups can make a bid to buy the asset on the open market.

Communities have the right to bring forward smallscale community-led developments.

Liverpool (2020) and the Borough of Southwark (2022) established Land Commissions, set out to rethink how land is used, and recentre its social purpuse at the core of planning policies.

Bologna’s Collaboration Pact

Interactive map of urban commons and projects carried out within the Collaborare e Bologna framework

Relationship formed between SCC and the citizens that enables and guarantees access to urban spaces and resources for an agreed period of time, under a set of mutually agreed upon rights and responsibilities.

An interactive mapping platform compiling everyday commoning practices. It makes urban commons visible and accessible to a greater number of potential users or commoners; and functions as a tool of alternative value accounting, tracking the number of urban commons, the services provided, the people involved, and the relationships formed. It would be continuously updated by the citizens.

Tool B > Commoning

Periodical gatherings involving citizens, SCC, local and national institutions, social enterprises, and ethical banks and foundations, providing a time and a space for conversation, (re)negotiation and (re)articulation of commoning principles and goals, discussion of community priorities.

Deposit of public and private funds which are invested through the participatory budgeting in commoning projects that follow the Commoning principles in the Pact, while simultaneously collecting the revenues to then be re-invested in the same or new urban commons.

Main policy document that legally recognises the urban commons and provides definitions and shared language and establishes a set of commoning principles to inform and guide micro-contracts.

Alternative economic approach used to finance the creation and maintenance of commoning practices, where citizens can decide on the allocation of part of the municipal budget. It would be supported by commoning workshops where citizens can bring forward ideas or discuss different public spending projects.

Collection of tangible and intangible things that members can borrow. The library could work as a swap shop or a free shop, where citizens must give something in return in the capacity that they can. Members are not passive recipients, but contributors to the library and therefore to the sustainability of the commons.

Digital platform for community outreach, communication and connection between users, who can register and form partnerships with other commoners or stakeholders.

Tool A > Collaborative Mapping

Tool C > Micro-contract for slices of time & space

Tool F > Bank of the Commons

Tool D > Commoning Pact

Tool G > Library of the Commons

Tool E > Participatory Budgeting

Tool H > Commoning network

wrokshops

Emergence Sustainability Transferability

Explanatory diagram of the tools interactions and conceptual framework

pooling of common resources (tools, food, clothes, books, knowledge, skills, time...)

of

Gifts,

Commoning

Upon identi ng community priorities, the Commoning pact outlines the commons goals & shared values and translates them to co-created policies.

department She eld City Council Ethical banks & foundations

Education

Care & management of collectively governed urban commons

tracing & tracking new reciprocal relationships Field experts

34

redirecting funding to projects that build social capital and bene t humans & non-humans on a cosmo-local scale

One of the tools of the portfolio, the micro-contract, was prototyped to generate practical knowledge that contributes to the understanding of the theory while raising further research questions that then were explored in an iterative design process. The micro-contract is tested in two scenarios.

Scenario 1 explores how the Salvation Army Citadel building, a derelict Grade II Listed building in the city centre owned by SCC, could be given a new lease of life through commoning as an alternative to commercialled development. This scenario is purely speculative and serves to refine the micro-contract that will be employed in the second scenario.

Scenario 2 takes place in 48 Wicker, a Grade II-listed building home of SADACCA and owned by SCC. Securing their space in the Wicker as well as retail space for the Africa-Caribbean community is amongst SADACCA’s main goals. This scenario explores how this could be realised employing the tools proposed in the portfolio. Through a two-week-long field research, the micro-contract was usertested on-site through informal interviews with potential users, feedback, and observations. Scenario 2 also revealed what was missing, what ought to be adjusted and what was successful from the micro-contract prototyped during Scenario 1.

The design process proved the findings from the reviews regarding the challenging aspects of the urban commons accessing funding and capital, dealing with real estate and the commodification of land, and being financially sustainable. These issues are addressed through another two of the tools in the portfolio, the Participatory Budget, and the Bank of the Commons, plus the design of a ‘Smart Contract’ between the commoners and the private owner. Finally, an alternative economic system informed by the Sharing & Gift Economy, named the ‘Commons Economy’ is proposed, to promote interconnectedness and reciprocity between commoners and stakeholders in the city.

Q1: What would the process look like in practice? > Testing in two speculative scenarios

Q2: How could urban commons be funded, to ensure financial sustainability & stability?

Q3: How could urban commons interact or deal with real estate?

1

Design proposal of prototypes of the Commoning Pact and the micro-contract for slices of space and tiem

Usertesting of the Micro-contract Figure25.

1 > This Commoning Pact recognises the city as a commons and its citizens as active, creative and powerful actors in its shaping process.

2 > This Commoning Pact acknowledges existing Urban Commons as bene cial for communities wealth, development and resilience, and thereby is committed to build networks to expand their impact; by promoting the creation local and extralocal coalitions of support through the establishment of a new socio-political Micro-contract which enables socially-oriented, commons-based organisations to access urban spaces and resources and claim collective care and management of them.

3 > This Commoning Pact governs the forms of collaboration amongst citizens and She eld City Council to support the emergence, sustainability and transferability of urban commons.

4 > The regulations will be relevant in situations where citizens’ actions contribute towards the creation of social and cultural value and the care and management of disused buildings or urban spaces.

5 > This Commoning Pact regulates the actions of shared care, management and maintenance of Urban Commons through the provision of legal, administrative, economic and instrumental support for commoners, aimed to facilitate the unlocking, activation or recon guration of existing urban structures or collectivized urban resources and/or services.

DISCLAIMER

This is an UNOFFICIAL document produced as part of an speculative design proposal for the creation of institutional tools that might contribute to the emergence, sustainability, and transferability of the Urban Commons.

Bologna’s REGULATION ON THE COLLABORATION AMONG CITIZENS AND THE CITY FOR THE CARE AND REGENERATION OF URBAN COMMONS was employed as a reference for the elaboration of the Commoning Pact. The project was carried out at The Bartlett School of Planning during 2023 as part of the module “Major Research Project”, and therefore has no association with She eld City Council nor any of the institutions mentioned in written report.

Commoning Principles

Mutual trust

gift exchanging & regard for shared values & for one another

Reciprocity in honouring the Micro-contract, responsabilities & self-accountability

Flexibility

Table

Inclusiveness Transparency

in breaking down social, cultural & linguistic barriers

Openness

Urban commons: a shared resource or common good (land, urban space, knowledge, skills or culture, collectively governed and maintained by a community of end users know as commoners, through a bottom-up, horizontal and inclusive process of participation de ned as commoning.

Commoning: set of practices, and socially agreed-upon principles, guidelines and rules de ned by commoners to sustain the common good.

Commoners: a group of people, (a community, a civic organization), not necessarily culturally homogeneous, but united by a common mindset and shared values.

Common good: uncommodi able pooled resources that ful ll commoners’ needs.

Commons economy: an alternative system to the traditional market-driven economy in which common goods are shared heritage belonging to the urban community as a whole. It is based on open access, collective management, solidarity-based contribution, cooperation and sharing.

A.15How to Use this Document?

The Commoning Pact (side A) regulates the collaboration amongst citizens and the City. The Micro-contract (side B) is to be lled in by the citizens with the details of the collaboration proposal in conformity with the commoning principles, and submitted for assessment via the online Commoning Portal at www.she eId.gov.uk/commoning_pact/micro_contract

WORK TOGETHER EAT BREAD TOGETHER DECLARE THIS ALL ABROAD

“THERE IS NO COMMONS WITHOUT COMMMONING”

Table A.2

(Mark the spot in the map with an “X”)

Type

S

R

Identify risks, indicate control measures and agents responsible for risk management

Table 6 Declaration of Rights & Responsibilities The

(1) Individual citizens or civic groups have the right to actively participate in caring for, managing and improving public spaces and disused buildings in She eld; as long as the commoning practices carried out positively contribute towards the overall bene t of the community and align with the shared values and common goals outlined the Commons Pact.

(2) Citizens must express their intentions democratically and commit to carrying out the project outlined in this Micro-contract, with the support of the City.

(3) Citizens are responsible for the creation and documentation of tangible and measurable outcomes. Following the methods in Table 7, citizens will regularly monitor the process progress, report the resources being utilized, and measure the results achieved through collaboration with the City.

(1) The City places trust in the Citizens and values their responsibility, time and resources. The City demands that the collaboration with the citizens takes place in accordance with the Micro-contract, allowing exibility and simplicity in the process to guarantee the public interest is ful lled.

(2) The City will support partnerships between di erent stakeholders to carry out peer-to-peer viability and Social Impact Assessment to ensure that the administrative requirements, the execution of the urban commons project and the quality standards are in line with the actual needs of the community and the common goals.

(3) The City guarantees transparency and fairness in its relationship with citizens in the way evaluations and assessments are conducted and the decisions are made, ensuring it has provided extensive knowledge about the partnership opportunities and allocated assistance and technical support to the submitted proposals.

Scenario 01 > Application of tools

THANK YOU NOTE to: Gut Level

“Thank you for providing a safe space where I can dance with my friends”

THANK YOU NOTE to: Regather

THANK YOU NOTE to: Studio Polpo

“Thank you for gifting your technical knowledge, time & patience”

THANK YOU NOTE to: the Citizens

“Thank you for making fresh, local produce affordable and accessible”

“Thank you for taking care of me and giving me a new lease of life” - Citadel

THANK YOU NOTE to: Repair Cafe

“Thank you for teaching me how to fix my toaster, now I won’t have to throw it away”

THANK YOU NOTE to: Library

“Thank you for letting me borrow the sewing machine, upcycling clothes was so much fun”

– The Star, She eld

Salvation Army Citadel

https://www.she eld.gov.uk/participatory_budget23/

Monthly commoning workshops bring together university students & locals to source ideas & promote continued mutual learning.

Participatory Budgeting 2023

Eco-cafe that serves meals made with donated quality surplus ingredients, where volunteers & locals hang out.

Spaces for events and meetings are available for rent (for a small fee or another service in lieu) for students and youth organisations.

Revenues from the Eco-cafe, events & spaces’ rents are reinvested in future commoning projects

Salvation Army Citadel

Collaborative e orts granted the Grade II Listed building a new lease on life, (re)opening it to the city

the micro-contract gives citizens a code to access the space

Maintenance works carried out every second day by users and volunteers.

Partnerships between the City Council and diverse social enterprises enables unlocking and reusing existing assets of architectural and cultural value.

Borrowed from the Library of Commons

1 > Submit your proposal

2 > Discover what other commoners are doing near you and think of creative ways of collaboration

3 > Vote for projects that YOU want to see happen

4 > Most voted proposals https://www.she eld.gov.uk/commoning_network/

Commoning Network

1 > Discover what other commoners are doing near you.

2 > Connect with the council, universities, civic organisations, and local businesses to form partnerships.

3 > Find out what funding opportunities are available.

Feedback Board

thank you!

2608 people liked this 204 people will attend shared 351 times

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim

Micro-contract for slices of time & space

Enables community groups and emerging social enterprises to access “slices of space” and urban resources and claim collective care and management of them during a contractual “slice of time”.

Donation for the Library of Commons

Collection of surplus food and locally grown ingredients to cook and share

“Citadel’s building is brought back to life by people’s ideas and skills”

“The Heart of the City in the hands of the public one again”

She eld City Council

Urban Commons Map

SHEFFIELDURBANCOMMONS

Commoning Workshop @ Salvation Army Citadel

A homework club and learning/training centre to promote nance literacy.

An incubator that provides mentorships & early fundraising for local bussiness

– gambinga gambinga 2022 (NowThen)

A Sewing Club (by day) where people can meet, chat, mend or make clothes, learn new skills & exchange tips & tricks

An Intergenerational Domino Club (by night)

A community radio that broadcasts music by local artists and stories about commoning projects

Day-care centre

Communal courtyard

GYM Bar

SHEFFIELDURBANCOMMONS

SADACCA @ 48 The Wicker

Find & Map Urban Commons in your area.

Do you know of a potential site for commoning? Register it here.

Multipurpuse event space for hire

Revenues from co-working & event spaces are used to nance the organisation & improve the building

Protection and celebration of the architectural, cultural and living heritage

Feedback Board

thank you!

Commoning Pact enables the community to secure the space

Thank

The History of Sadacca

Mapping allows streamlines the listing process of buildings as Asssets of Community Value

“it is only when the city is seen through the eyes of all, & its story told in the voices of all who live in it & call it home, that its real story can ever be told”

how many hours? ...)

What are the incentives for landowners to sign Smart Contracts?

1. The property will raise in value after the projects

2. Streamlined application process and lower fees after X amount of years being used for commoning, IF the development continues to create social value and full ls communities’ priorities & needs

Property is surveyed at the beggining of the project. An agreed % of improvements & citizen co-investments that raise its market value are deducted from its price.

Prevents commodi cation of land and allows citizens to buy Assets of Community Value

IF/WHEN

BELLOW MARKET VALUE

IFdoescommunity not buy theandproperty the owner sells

This Major Research Project aimed to explore ‘infrastructuring’ methods for promoting and sustaining urban commons, whilst revitalizing abandoned physical assets in post-industrial cities. It responds to the limitations of current economic and urban development models, highlighted by global socio-economic crises, climate change, austerity programs, and privatization trends in the UK. In recent years commons have regained attention as a viable alternative within the social and solidarity economy (SSE). Additionally, disused industrial structures are being repurposed through commoning practices that combine resources with human skills, knowledge, and aspirations creatively. However, enabling the reemergence and growth of the commons at a city or even global scale will require new ways of thinking and modes of action.

There are divergent perspectives on urban commons in the literature. Some advocate Ostrom’s ‘neo- neo-institutionalism,’ attributing the issue to a lack of suitable institutions. Others lean towards the neo-Marxist argument, focusing on resistance against enclosures and social reproduction while rejecting state and market institutions entirely. This project examined how these two perspectives could be integrated by viewing urban commons as thresholds between conventional market-state institutions and alternative socio-spatial organisations. Nonetheless, productive partnerships can only occur when public institutions coordinate their goals and actions with external agents of change.

Reviewing academic literature and case studies uncovered both the potential and the challenges

associated with urban commons. Since urban commons operate outside extractive property market logic, long-term financial stability and accessing capital in highly contested urban settings are the greatest barriers, followed by capacity-building and forming long-term relationships with institutions. These findings hold significant implications for institutional design, encompassing policy development, governance structures, resource allocation, and accountability mechanisms. In Europe, several cities like Bologna and Ghent have initiated protocols and transition plans following a commons-based approach to urban development, though these efforts are recent, and their long-term impact remains to be fully realised. Nonetheless, valuable lessons from these cities can be adapted to the UK context. This adaptation involves using design to reconcile established policy frameworks and innovative commons strategies. To do this, Sheffield is chosen both as the case study and the site for experimentation and testing of the design proposal. Although the city has a long history of social activism, a strong voluntary and community sector, a large stock of disused buildings, and a high percentage of publicly owned land, community-led initiatives still lack the infrastructure necessary to develop and sustain themselves over time. Thereby, to bring urban resources and people together, a comprehensive portfolio of institutional tools is designed which SCC, or any other Council, could implement to reintegrate commons into urban life and city planning.

For this project, the Commoning Pact and the micro-contract were prototyped and tested to address the research question. Firstly, on top of the problem of accessing capital, findings from the

interviews and the first micro-contract prototype emphasized the condition of the temporality of urban commons, as reflected in tensions in the use of the space, meanwhile-spaces, and temporary leases, or in time of use and activities conducted. Therefore, the micro-contract aimed to turn this constraint into an opportunity for interaction, understanding the urban commons as socio-spatial and temporal thresholds. The micro-contract also emphasizes the contractual nature of the commons, enabling the periodical renegotiation of protocols and rules amongst commoners and between commons-public/ private partnerships. Secondly, the design process of the Commoning Pact and micro-contract revealed that the term ‘commons’ presents both linguistic and conceptual challenges due to its historical origins in the English open field system and colonial influences, limiting its cross-cultural applicability. Other terms such as ‘co-city’ and ‘co-design’ offered a more universal understanding. This highlights the need for a shared language between citizens and the city that reflects diverse values, leading to the incorporation of definitions into the Commoning Pact. Developing new institutional vocabulary is crucial for legitimising current and future commoning practices, facilitating policy development that officially recognizes the city as a commons, and empowering communities to participate in its shaping process. Lastly, user testing and on-site interviews demonstrated that meaningful engagement occurs when there are well-defined, achievable, and easily accessible frameworks in place. In practical terms, this implies the creation of an inclusive program of in-person commoning workshops and a robust communication strategy to enhance awareness of success stories and opportunities. For

example, periodic workshops and a digital platform could be used to share skills, and knowledge, and promote legal and financial literacy.

It is essential to recognise the research’s limitations, including time and length constraints that limited the depth of prototyping and testing, as well as challenges in securing formal interviews with certain organizations. Although this project did not delve into the complexities of real estate’s relationship with urban commons, it underscored that this is a significant challenge. Therefore, there is a need for further exploration of legal and financial mechanisms that could empower the commons economy to compete with the private property economy. It also remains to be examined how the urban commons framework could be integrated within Sheffield’s urban development model and the Council’s vision for the city, and in-depth policy analysis would be necessary to contextualize the tools developed and translate theoretical concepts into practical implementation.

In conclusion, this project has explored the diverse ways of infrastructuring urban commons through the design of a portfolio of tools supporting commonspublic partnerships and the reconfiguration and repair of existing industrial structures. It has also been shown how self-governance and self-management as tools for commoning could foster new ways of local sociality while helping navigate societal transition at a global scale. It is intended that this research enriches our understanding of urban commons, advocating for their inclusion as structural components of urban design and city planning strategies.

Architecture00, NESTA, Design Council CABE. (2011). Compendium for the Civic Economy. London: 00productions.

Bauwens, M., & Onzia, Y. (2017). Commons Transition Plan for the City of Ghent. Ghent. Retrieved July 2023, from https://labgov.city/theurbanmedialab/ urban-commons-initiatives-in-the-city-of-ghent-acommons-transition-plan-by-bauwens/

Bauwens, M., Kranjc, R., & Ramos, J. (2022). Commons Economics in Action. Mutualizing Urban Provisioning Systems. In J. Engle, J. Agyeman, & T. Chung-Tiam Fook, Sacred Civics. Building Seven Generation Cities. New York: Earthscan, Routeledge.

Bernardi, M. (2017, October 18). Urban commons initiatives in the city of Ghent: a Commons Transition Plan by Bauwens. The Urban Media Lab. Retrieved from https://labgov.city/theurbanmedialab/ urban-commons-initiatives-in-the-city-of-ghent-acommons-transition-plan-by-bauwens/

De Angelis, M., & Stavrides, S. (2009, July). On the Commons. (A. Architektur, Interviewer)

Dellenbaugh-Losse, M., Zimmermann, N.-E., & de Vries, N. (2020). The Urban Commons Cookbook. Strategies and Insights for Creating and Maintaining Urban Commons.

Engle, A. C.-T.-F. (2022). Imagining shaping cities as if people, land and nature were sacred. In J. Engle, J. Agyeman, & T. Chung-Tiam-Fook, Sacred Civics: Building Seven Generation Cities (pp. 8-18). Taylor & Francis.

Federici, S. (2011, January 4). Feminism and the Politics of the Commons. The Commoner, p. 14.

Federici, S. (2018). Re-enchanting the World: Feminism and the Politics of the Commons.

Foster, S., & Iaione, C. (2019). Ostrom in the City: Design Principles and Practices for the Urban Commons. In D. Cole, B. Hudson, & J. Rosenbloom, Handbook of the Study of the Commons. New York: Routeledge.

Foster, S., & Iaione, C. (2022). Co-Cities. Innovative transitions toward just and self-sustaining communities. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Foucault, M. (1967). Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias. Architecture/Mouvement/Continuité. Retrieved from https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/ foucault1.pdf

Gregory, S. (2023, August 3). South Yorkshire councils feel the strain after a decade of underfunding. Retrieved from NowThen Magazine: https:// nowthenmagazine.com/articles/south-yorkshirecouncils-feel-the-strain-after-a-decade-ofunderfunding-cuts-austerity

Gregory, S. (2021, August 4). Who Owns Sheffield?: Digging deep into land ownership in our city. NowThen.

Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2009). Commonwealth. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.

Harris, J., & Rimmer, M. (2019). The University of Sheffield, School of Health and Related Research. Voluntary Action Sheffield.

Harvey, D. (2000). Spaces of Hope. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Harvey, D. (2003). The New Imperialism.

Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London: Verso.

Hodkinson, S. (2012). The new urban enclosures. City, 16:5, 500-518.

Kershaw, A. (Producer). (2021). Saving Portland Works [Motion Picture]. Retrieved from Saving Portland Works: www.portlandworks.co.uk/

LabGov. (2016). Bologna Lab. Retrieved from LabGov City: https://labgov.city/explore-by-lab/bolognalab/

Library of Things Cic. (2023). Why Library of Things? Retrieved from Library of Things: www.libraryofthings. co.uk

Locality. (2018). Great British Sell Off. London: Locality.

Milburn, K., & Russell, B. (2018). ‘What Can an Institution Do?’ Towards Public-Common Partnerships and a new ‘Commons-sense’. Renewal, 45-55.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: the evolution of Institutions for collective action.

Ostrom, E., & Hess, C. (2006). Understanding Knowledge as a Commons. From Theory to Practice. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Patti, D., & Polyák, L. (2017). Funding the Cooperative City. Community Finance and the Economy of Civic Spaces. Vienna: Cooperative City Books.

Petrescu, D. (2021). Calculating the value of the Commons: Generating Resilient Urban Futures. Environmental Policy and Governance, 31.3.

Standing, G. (2019). Plunder of the Commons. A Manifesto for Sharing Public Wealth. Pelican.

Stavrides, S. (2002). From the City-Screen to the CityStage. Athens.

Stavrides, S. (2016). Common Space: The City as Commons. London: Zed.

TBIJ. (2019, March 4). Revealed: The thousands of public spaces lost to the council funding crisis. (L. Power, Editor) Retrieved August 12, 2023, from The Bureau of Investigative Journalism: https://www. thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2019-03-04/ sold-from-under-you

The Care Collective. (2020). The Care Manifesto. The politics of interdependence. London: Verso.

Turolla, G. (2020, November 11). Establishing connections in intermediate spaces: Policy participation in Ghent. UrbanAct Articles. Retrieved August 28, 2023, from https://urbact.eu/articles/ establishing-connections-intermediate-spacespolicy-participation-ghent

Udall, J. (2019). Mending the commons with the ‘Little Mesters’. Ephemera, 253-281.

Urban Commons Research Collective. (2022). Urban Commons Handbook. Barcelona: pdr-barcelona.

VAS. (n.d.). Sheffield’s Network of Hubs and Welcoming Places. Retrieved from Voluntary Action Sheffield: https://www.vas.org.uk/what-we-do/sheffieldsnetwork-of-hubs-and-welcoming-places/