Planning for Communities of Care - Report

Planning for communities of care

Insights from “Muslica” - supporting Fargemarka Boligprosjekt with Urban Ecological Planning approaches

Opportunities and challenges presented by non-traditional planning approaches for urban experiments

A case of Fargemarka, Trondheim

Muslica

“Translates from Hungarian into ‘fruit fly’ – a small, yet unmistakable being that is everywhere and nowhere. Almost invisible but still participating. It subtletly interferes and takes a closer look under the surface where it appears.”

planning of communities of care

A semester project by:

Hamish Hay, Laura Flóra Podoski and Fabian Wildner for the course: AAR52230 Understanding Urban Ecological Planning

Supervisor(s): David Smith, Rolee Aranya

Pictures & Figures: Oda Balke Fjellang, Hamish Hay, Laura Flóra Podoski and Fabian Wildner

Trondheim, 5th June 2020

Theresearch project used the principles of action research and analytical autoethnography to explore challenges and opportunities faced by a nascent urban experiment, Fargemarka Boligprosjekt Association, and provide recommendations that have wider applicability. Urban experiments often defy traditional planning approaches and propose alternatives in the face of community, climate and ecological breakdown at a local and global level. The Fargemarka Boligprosjekt aims to create a ‘community of care’ using abandoned buildings in Trondheim, Norway, integrating principles of sustainability, inclusion and activist planning. The project drew on established academic theory related to intentional communities, insurgent planning and self organisation & self governance, along with associated case studies, to examine how the Association could more effectively achieve its Vision. It was concluded that a productive partnership with the Municipality could be created through a practical synthesis of rebel action and co-production, and a stronger focus on internal decision-making structures, as well as activities promoting cohesion, could improve the effectiveness and inclusivity of the group.

Figure 1: Observing the beauty of the abandoned buildings at Østmarka.

Presenting the task and research question.

Globalisation, whilst bringing people together in new ways, has conversely led to “widening social divisions, growing inequality, and increasing alienation” (Healy, Arunachalam and Mizukami, 2016, p.24). Higher incomes have not resulted in higher levels of happiness, well-being or security and arguable an erosion in social capital (Lockyer & Benson, 2011). Furthermore, the most vulnerable in society (including migrants, minorities and the elderly) have frequently been excluded from the benefits of a more connected world (Healy, Arunachalam and Mizukami, 2016).

Urbanisation is another main driver of change in society today. As stated by the United Nations (2017) “(...) by 2050 the world’s urban population is expected to nearly double, making urbanisation one of the twenty-first century’s most transformative trends”. The New Urban Agenda composed by the United Nations on Sustainable Urban Development, also called ‘Habitat III’, emphasises the importance of enshrining the vision of the ‘right to the city’ in governments’ legislations, political declarations and charters - including the right to decent housing and standards of living. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development formulated in 2015, consists of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (‘SDG’s’), where SDG 11 deals with making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable (United Nations, 2015).

In the face of these pressures and global trends, urban experiments that promote environmentally sustainable lifestyles, along with non-financial metrics for well-being and happiness, are becoming increasingly prominent. Such experiments can be exclusionary, but more frequently are driven by a desire to be “models and demonstration centers for a transition to a more just and sustainable society” (Lockyer & Benson, 2011, p.4). The term ‘Planning for communities of care’ has been adopted for this report, reflecting the focus of this research on urban experiments that concentrate on care for people, communities and the environment. Communities of care are “places where members care about and support each other, actively participate in and have influence over the group’s activities and decisions, feel a sense of belonging and identification with the group, and have common norms, goals and values” (Battistich, 1997, p.137). Often, such projects and communities aim to challenge and ultimately change existing

traditional systems of planning that seek to perpetuate ways of living that they perceive as having failed.

This study focuses on a growing ‘community of care’, a singular nascent urban housing experiment, Fargemarka Boligprosjekt Association. This translates as “colourful field housing project” and is based in Østmarka in north-east Trondheim, Norway. The NTNU Fargemarka Research Group (informally known as ‘Muslica’) was created in the context of the ‘Understanding Urban Ecological Planning (UEP)’1 self-guided module. The Research Group shared personal and academic interests in the Association and established itself to carry out action research to identify, understand and critique the opportunities and challenges faced by growing urban experiments in the context of the Norwegian planning system. By better understanding the social processes of creating and sustaining new intentional communities, the possibility exists to champion positive effects and minimise unintended consequences for comparable urban experiments around the world.

The group adopted the following research question: “What opportunities and challenges are presented by non-traditional planning approaches for urban experiments?”

The research involved a challenging period of immersion in the activities of the Association including weekly meetings and working groups, combined with note-taking, interviewing, and exercises in self-reflections. The research techniques of the group drew on principles of analytic autoethnography, in particular the work of Sally Denshire (2014) and Leon Anderson (2006). These principles supported the team in gaining insight into wider processes of social change, whilst grappling with the tension between the phenomenological experience of being a complete member of the Association whilst engaging in strenuous data collection and self-reflection.

The report begins with additional background information on the Fargemarka Boligprosjekt Association, its Vision, and how this corresponds with the objectives of the Trondheim Kommune (Municipality) and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Next, academic theory around urban experiments and associated case studies are presented around three research domains (“intentional communities”, “insurgent planning” and “self governance & self organisation”) and compared to observations in the Association. This is followed by joint and individual reflections on the process of action research offered by the Research Group, and the voices of other members of the Association are presented through interviews and a survey. Then, opportunities and challenges are discussed that could have wider relevance for urban experiments around the world. A short documentary accompanies this report to illustrate a holistic picture of the case.

1 Course description: https://www.ntnu.edu/studies/ courses/AAR5230

Figure 2: Scenic ‘landscape’ of the Østmarka area

BACkground

The Municipality has prepared a human-centered urban development strategy for 2050, which builds on existing physical and social structures, proposes the use of participatory methods and innovative solutions and has sustainability as one of its primary goals. As well as having a separate responsible center for the implementation of the SDG’s, it is experimenting with different techniques for citizen engagement (Trondheim Municipality, 2019). This, in accordance with the vision of the United Nations, envisage cities that are participatory, promoting civic engagement and engender a sense of belonging and ownership among all inhabitants (United Nations, 2017).

The Municipality of Trondheim assumed responsibility for the area of Østmarka 2017 next to the psychiatric department of the St. Olavs Hospital. Only a few years ago the housing of Østmarka was part of the hospital itself and even earlier it used to be a civic neighbourhood. The site has an area size of 12,000 m2 and 10 empty buildings on it in total. The buildings are heated and supplied with electricity as well as water (Fargemarka Boligprosjekt, 2020). The 48 apartments and two commercial buildings on the site have been empty for approximately two years by 2020, waiting to be masterplanned and redeveloped. Meetings with the Municipality suggest that the area will be under development for the next 10-

Figure 3: The first organised event was a Christmas market which included food, music and a film screening inside and outside the abandoned houses.

Figure 4: The houses are still in a very good condition. Ovens, double-glazed windows and freshly painted walls show their qualities.

Figure 5: One of the ten colourful houses in Østmarka.

A brief overview of the urban development strategies of the Trondheim Kommune (Municipality), the history of the Fargemarka Boligprosjekt and how it fits into this context.

Trondheim

20 years. It is expected that it will take 1-2 years before the Municipality will decide on a plan for the area, which will then be presented to the politicians, extending the process even longer (Eierskapsenheten, 2020). Therefore the buildings are likely to stay empty for at least a couple of years more. The site is located on a valued open green area, which is valued by local residents. A map of the area is provided in Figure 6.

The Fargemarka Boligprosjekt Association

Fargemarka Boligprosjekt was founded in the autumn of 2019, when a member squatted in one of the abandoned properties in Østmarka for a week. A few weeks later through a few enthusiasts with different personal motivations yet with shared desires and ideas, formed the core of this housing project. Early in 2020, the Association (“Forening” in Norwegian) was established with the aim of becoming a living example of a sustainable, affordable and inclusive housing project in Norway, that supports the transformative commitments made by the United Nations in the New Urban Agenda (2017). The members of this relatively young initiative have been operating both politically and through direct action to try and create a new area for sustainable alternative living at Østmarka, Trondheim (Fargemarka Boligprosjekt, 2020). The Fargemarka Boligprosjekt describes itself in the following way:

“Fargemarka is a project bringing together all kinds of people with a shared vision of a new sustainable community in the Trondheim area. We see Østmarka as a potential urban ecological area, where we can find collective solutions to the global challenges our society faces. Fargemarka can find solutions in a world with an increased need for housing and selfsufficiency. To approach the challenges of tomorrow we need to stand together today to find sustainable solutions”. (Fargemarka Boligprosjekt, 2020)

The ‘slogan’ of the Fargemarka Association, as adopted in printed and online media, is “Tillit til folket for en levbar framtid” (Fargemarka Boligprosjekt, 2020), which can be translated as “Trust the people for a livable future”.

The project has an expansive Vision, arranged into three main categories: housing, community and sustainable future. The visions were created with a purpose of binding the group

with fundamental goals and priorities, regardless of personal intentions and motivations for taking part in the project. In case of conflict, it was intended that the visions would act as guidelines for solving these.

A fundamental shared goal of the Fargemarka Association is the availability of adequate, affordable, sustainable and accessible housing that promotes high-quality livelihoods for everyone regardless of income and background. The Vision about housing revolves around experimentation for affordable and price adjusted dwellings in urban areas, based on existing physical structures and with focus on maintenance and climate-responsible reuse. The Association believes that, regardless of means and status, adequate existing and new alternative housing solutions are important in a world with increased precarity.

The aim of the vision about the community is to create a diverse and inclusive ‘community of care’, based on active involvement and participation. Trust and equality shapes the process of democratic self-governance, which is meant to be resilient towards environmental and social change. Reducing consumption and production and sharing systems and strategies are part of this vision. The community wants to contribute to creating room for practical and theoretical knowledge exchange for all citizens in Trondheim.

The vision also aims to help make Trondheim a sustainable forward-looking model for green living that can influence communities around the world by creating a necessary and adaptable ‘blueprint’.

Figure 6: Map of the housing estate. (Source: Google)

“So, the feeling in Fargemarka today is... the sense of the place being empty. Not necessarily dead, but everything is stop-paused.”

A Fargemarka member describing her mental map of Østmarka.

Methods & approaches

The research methods included a literature review, autoethnography and self reflections.

Introduction

The approach of the Fargemarka Boligprosjekt Research Group in NTNU (‘Muslica’) was to carry out empirical action research, synthesising a comparative literature review with analytical autoethnographic research. The Research Group critically analysed academic literature with relevance to urban experiments, and produced three mini-reviews across three domains: intentional communities, insurgent planning, and self governance & self organisation. Alongside this, the group fully participated and played an active role in group activities, and collected empirical data through observations, a survey and interviews. Throughout the process, the group reflected on their personal role in the processes of social change observed in the group.

Urban Ecological Planning

The approach and suite of research methods were developed as part of the ‘Understanding Urban Ecological Planning (UEP)’ self-guided module. The aim of the module is to develop a “critical understanding of the key theoretical concepts in UEP”1 in relation to real-life cases, and arguably acts as a bridge between academia and achieving change in society. The roots of the UEP course are in the Chicago School approach to planning, which focuses on urban structures and their evolution from empirical evidence (Park and Burgess, 2019). Silwa et al. reflect on how the UEP course is based on nine key value statements (Silwa et al., 2018), which differentiate them from traditional planning approaches, as shown in Figure 7. These resonate closely with both the approach of the research project and that observed in the Fargemarka Association itself. Three of these value statements are elaborated on below:

Bottom-top planning

Traditional planning approaches recognise the duality of urban processes, and how they can be considered both ‘top-

1 https://www.ntnu.edu/studies/courses/AAR5230

Value based and developmental planning

Strategic

down’ (government-driven) and ‘bottom-up’ (community driven). The UEP approach rejects this dichotomy, and proposes stronger horizontal relationships and a collaborative approach at all levels. The Research Group paid particular attention to bottom-up approaches including ‘activist planning’ and ‘self organisation’ that emphasise collaboration between authorities, citizens and urban experiments. The group also explored the coincidence of attitudes between the Association and the Municipality, and how this could create opportunities for collaboration or otherwise.

Value-based and developmental planning

Value-based planning recognises the right of people to participate in development, particularly the disadvantaged. The Research Group has paid particular attention, through theory, observations and reflections, to the role of the group structure in facilitating a distribution of power. Attention was also paid to the different drivers and intentions within the group. Similarly, the Association itself has actively sought partnerships to help bring in traditionally marginalised voices through non-governmental organisations and the psychiatric unit of St. Olav’s Hospital.

The formal-informal continuum

Urban activities typically operate between the ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ spheres. The UEP approach recognises informality as an integral part of development, which should not be ignored. The Research Group had investigated the role of negotiated agreements in other intentional communities, and how they can carve out ‘tolerated’ informal spaces for planning, including in Svartlamon (Trondheim) and Christiania (Copenhagen). Similarly, the Association itself works through both formal and informal methods of planning (for example, through squatting as opposed to formal negotiation).

Figure 7: The UEP value statements. Those discussed in the report are highlighted in green.

Literature review

The Research Group conducted academic research through a literature review, case studies, and interviews with other academics working in relevant fields. The relevant concepts were then synthesised into three academic domains: 1) intentional communities; 2) insurgent planning; and 3) self organisation and self governance. These were chosen because of their relevance not just to the development of the Association, but also to its relationship with the Municipality and to citizens in Trondheim.

Action research and autoethnography

There is no singular definition of action research, but it can be differentiated from more traditional processes of research in terms of its intention to address societal issues and act as a vehicle for change, often in partnership with others (Maruyama and Van Boekel, 2014). For the Research Group, the inherent tension between embodying an agent for change whilst researching the process of change itself was clear. Therefore, as part of the process of action research the team integrated the principles of analytical autoethnography to provide a robust and structured way of collecting empirical data and gaining insights into broader social truths and trends in the context of the Fargemarka Association.

Autoethnography aims to discover “a world beyond the self of the writer” and blend “personal experience with narratives of others so as to study the complexity of everyday lived experiences” (Jenks, 2005). Sally Denshire justifies this approach by claiming that traditional academic research removes personal voices and experience, and can thus be deferent to wider dominant theory. Autoethnography, on the other hand, breaks through the ‘self-other dichotomy’, considers the background and perspectives of the researcher, and ultimately makes them accountable and vulnerable for the outcome of the research (2014). The technique was considered essential for the role of the Research Group, as each member was participating with personal intentions and biases.

Leon Anderson distinguishes between two forms of autoethnography. On the one hand ‘evocative autoethnography’ seeks to move “the reader to feel the feelings of the other”, and is akin to storytelling in requiring significant “narrative and expressive skills” (2006, p. 377). Analytical autoethnography, on the other hand, can be distinguished by not only “rendering the social world under investigation”, but revealing broader and more general social truths (2006, p. 388). Anderson highlights five key features of analytical autoethnography to make this distinction more clear: a) Complete member researcher; b) Analytic reflexivity; c) Narrative visibility of the researcher’s self; d) Dialogue with people beyond the researcher; and e) Commitment to theoretical analysis. These are explored in the context of the Fargemarka Research Group below.

Complete member-researcher (CMR)

CMR requires absolute immersion in the social situation under study. Therefore, the Research Group took an active role in development of the Association and participated extensively

in its activities. The group commitment to recording and documenting empirical data through meeting notes, photos, videos and regular reflections. Because of the personal interests of the researchers, there was a great willingness to invest significant voluntary time for engagement in the project. The group recognised there was a ‘tension’ between full and active engagement in Association activities and the need to record, interpret and reflect on large quantities of empirical data.

Analytic reflexivity

As the Research Group played such an active and engaged role in the development of the Association, it was necessary to be aware of their impact on the development of the research situation under study – and vice versa. The group committed to weekly reflections, in order to understand the beliefs of both themselves and others in the Association, and how these could potentially change over time.

Visible and active researcher in the text

As fully engaged members there was an element of reciprocal co-creation with other members. Therefore, the members of the Research Group are visible actors in the text, and regular weekly records include an exploration of subjective experiences. As explained by Anderson “As full-fledged members, they [the researchers] cannot always sit observantly on the sidelines. They should not necessarily shy away from participating in potentially divisive issues” (2006, p. 384). The weekly record sheets were the chosen format for showing the team’s engagement in the project including networking (to academic stakeholders like researchers or other institutions), involvement in working groups (structure, communication), the organising of workshops and the facilitation of the weekly meetings.

Dialogue with people beyond the researcher

The study necessitated distillation of multiple viewpoints to provide a fair representation of other views. Therefore, the Research Group conducted an anonymous survey and interviewed four individuals that were considered to be reasonably representative of the diversity of views and beliefs within the group. These views have been integrated as part of the text.

Commitment to theoretical analysis

Analytic social science gains “insight into some broader set of social phenomena than those provided by the data themselves” (Anderson, 2006, p. 387), and therefore it was necessary for the Research Group to consider their analysis, and the research question, in the context of three broader academic domains and interpretations of planning and urban experiments in the global context.

Figure 8: Discussing new ideas at a workshop of the Fargemarka Association.

theory

Thestudy of urban experiments in academia has an extensive pedigree, from the “right to the city” by Henri Lefebvre in his 1968 book ‘Le Droit à la ville’ to the more modern concepts of citizen-led planning. This review of academic literature, and associated case studies, examines how academic conceptualisations of urban experiments of citizen-led planning can influence and inform the evolving nature of the Association. The theory section is split into three domains, each lead by a different member of the Research Group: Fabian examines ‘intentional communities’ and how they form, Laura explores the concept of ‘insurgent planning’ in challenging traditional approaches, and Hamish compares the concepts of ‘self governance & self organisations’ in how urban experiments come together in the first place. Key pieces of literature in these domains, and interactions between them, are shown in Figure 9. The diagram notes how it is impossible to compartmentalise each domain and identifies synergies and interactions between them.

SelfOrganisation&SelfGovernance

Rauws 2016: Civic initiatives in urban development

Espinosa & Walker 2012: Complex management in practice

Kotus & Sowada 2017: Behavioural model of collaborative urban management

López 2013: The Squatters' Movement in Europe

McLaughlin & Davidson 1984: Leadership And Power In Intentional Communities

“Harnessing abandoned spaces”

“Working towards a collective vision”

“Amplifying global trends”

“Levels of participation distribution of

“Creating invited spaces for participation through urban experiments”

What opportunities challenges are non-traditional approaches for experiments?

“Convergence of attitudes of planning authorities and civic initiatives”

Kozeny 1995: Intentional communities: Lifestyles based on ideals

Pickerill Notes geographies

Strongin 2010: Imagining the Intentional Community Counterpublic

Sargent 1994: Utopianism

Intentional

Figure 9: The academic domains and selected literature. (Source of Icons: Gregor Cresnar, Adrien Coquet and franky from the Noun Project)

“Amplifying positive trends”

participation and of power” through experiments”

InsurgentPlanning

Mccamant 1994: Cohousing: a contemporary approach to housing ourselves

Hillier 2007: Stretching Beyond the Horizon: A Multiplanar Theory of Spatial Planning and Governance

Nyseth & Holm 2010: Planning beyond the horizon

opportunities and are presented by non-traditional planning for growing urban experiments?

“Challenging conventional approaches to planning”

“Activist planning”

Lietaert 2010: Cohousing’s relevance to degrowth theories

“Characteristics of cohousing and intentional communities”

“Communities of resistance and autonomous spaces”

Pickerill & Chatterton 2006: Notes towards autonomous geographies

Intentional

Sager 2018: Planning by intentional communities

1994: The Three Faces of Utopianism

Intentional communities

Lead author: Fabian Wildner

The context of the terminologies

Many people get engaged in associations or invest their time in movements in order to represent the values they stand for and believe in. People who want to live their values full time are often keen to join a so-called intentional community. But when talking about intentional communities the term needs to be defined as well as compared with other similar designations that are used in literature or also in everyday language in the same context. Lymann T. Sargent, who is researching the field of ‘Utopian Studies’, noticed nineteen different terms that are used for communal living arrangements in literature (see wordcloud in Figure 10).

Today, the range of terminologies used has reduced, whereas the term “intentional community” appears to get the most attention (Strongin, 2010). If we follow the definition of Geoph Kozeny, then an intentional community is defined as:

“A group of people who have chosen to live together with a common purpose, working cooperatively to create a lifestyle that reflects their shared core values. The people may live together on a piece

of rural land, in a suburban home, or in an urban neighbourhood, and they may share a single residence or live in a cluster of dwellings.” (Kozeny, 1995, p.19).

Other common terms have a rather narrow approach and focus on more specific aspects. An ecovillage, for example, focuses achieving a sustainable and circular lifestyle and is a response to trends of exploitation of nature (Sager, 2018). The terms collaborative housing or co-living, on the other hand, are focused mainly on aspects of living in a community but don’t clarify the diversity of members or organisational structures in place.

Intentional communities and activism

Going one step further, the aspects of resistance as well as of activism (that is often associated with resistance) should be elaborated more detailed since they are closely related to the aims of many intentional communities. Tore Sager extends Kozeny’s definition, describing an intentional community as a community that upholds a lifestyle that is reflecting on ideas about the meaning of ‘good society’ and seeks to underline the difference to the mainstream (Sager, 2018). This mentioned difference in the way of living and the need for those communities to live differently from mainstream society is the aspect that mainly differentiates them from an ‘average’ cohousing project. Whilst collaborative housing communities might tend to live a lifestyle similar to their neighbourhoods, Sanderock defines intentional communities as “communities of resistance” that are often activist in nature and sees an urgent need to integrate them into cities in order to make neighbourhoods more diverse (“from metropolis to cosmopolis”) (Sandercock, 1997). The means of activism of intentional communities are often related to arts and culture, social change, ecological living, peace work, religion or experimental family relations (Sager, 2018). Often, the goals are related to current problems or tendencies. For example criticizing the housing market or raising public awareness of vacant buildings and questioning whether it is ‘sustainable’ that those ones get abandoned whereas new ones get built – a practice that can also be described as “greenwashing” (Robb, 2016). Resistance carried out by activists can also include house occupation or squatting. Such activities form the origins of some intentional communities, first and foremost Christiania in Copenhagen but also Svartlamon in Trondheim. However, these are exceptions, as most squats originate from a counter-cultural attitude that may not aim to achieve a longterm change in planning (Prujit, 2013).

Many ‘activist’ intentional communities aim to plan the land use and the development of their desired rural or urban area, and therefore also aim for cooperation with the local government. Hereby it often comes to an agonist planning approach (differently to the ontological, consensus-oriented approach, the ‘agonistic’ allows conflicts (Yamamoto, 2017)) since intentional communities can insist on using their non-conforming ways of planning that often challenge the “mainstream” planning approaches by local governments

How urban experiments are labelled can tell us something about what they wish to achieve and how they are treated by others. This chapter examines how the word ‘intentional community’ has been used in the past, how they differ from traditional communities, and the role elements of activism in urban experiments. It then discusses how such labels and categories can be applied to the Fargemarka Boligprosjekt Association.

EcoVillage

Figure 10: The variety of different expressions for living in community.

(Sager, 2018). Therefore, municipalities often cannot apply standard procedures for those kinds of projects but “have to look for unorthodox ways to deal with recalcitrant neighbourhoods” (ibid, p.455). Activist planning theory deals with these interrelations between activists and governmental structures. Tore Sager underlines that intentional communities’ ‘activist planning’ criticises existing systems as opposed to policy: “They suggest alternative approaches concerning methods, content of plans or processes for planning and decision making” (ibid, p.453).

Intentional communities together with other spatial and social structures can be part of a so-called “autonomous space” as it can be found in Christiania in Copenhagen (Pickerill and Chatterton, 2006). The concept of “autonomy” is defined by Pickerill and Chatterton as the search for freedom and the deep desire to expand collective capacity for self-government but also other elements of the autonomy conceptualisation like localism, self-management, cooperation, solidarity and sustainability can be transmitted to core values of many intentional communities as well.

Discussion

Following the definition of intentional communities by Kozeny (1995) Fargemarka Boligprosjekt could be defined as an intentional community - even if the members do not live together yet, there is a common intention to do so in the future. The planned way of living by using the cluster of the currently vacant houses corresponds to a sustainable but also communal lifestyle that meets the mindsets of the current members in the Fargemarka Boligprosjekt association. Interestingly, the term ‘intentional community’ is not so established in common discourse as other ones, as shown in the results of the questionnaire. Only two out of 17 members would describe Fargemarka this way whereas eight members would name it a “Collaborative Housing Project” (Source: Questionnaire).

Intentional communities can be a space to exemplify strivedfor ideologies. In the case of Fargemarka Boligprosjekt, members are critiquing broader social concepts like capitalism, and are promoting self-governance and a circular

economic approach. Like Christiania or Svartlamon, the association of Fargemarka Boligprosjekt originated from housing occupations. The 10-day squatting activity from one of the members could be considered as the start of the project. However, the focus has since shifted towards pursuing cooperation with the municipality by, for example aligning with policies on housing and sustainable development in their Urban Development Strategy in Trondheim (Trondheim Municipality, 2019), for a sustainable long-term development of the community. Therefore, the vision statement was sent to the municipality with the goal to achieve a contract that would allow Fargemarka Boligprosjekt to legally use the empty buildings for a certain amount of time. Nevertheless, some members are still emphasising processes of direct (sometimes illegal) action.

“Yes, when I was younger I imagined I would live in a house, that it would be a reality. But the more I got into activism, a kind-of alternative lifestyle, the more I realised ‘oh, yeah’ I’ll never be able to have my own place if I go the traditional way of trying to buy something, and the rents are super high and it would mean I have to have a life where I work all the time to maintain that and I was also so tired of renting” - A Fargemarka Member

One aim of Fargemarka Boligprosjekt is to develop an economic model that lists the amount of money the municipality spends on maintenance and security of the buildings today. It would then examine how these services could be taken over by Fargemarka if it could establish a community on the site - an innovative way of funding services based on value to society. In addition, as a contribution to societal values, Fargemarka is aiming to encourage the immediate neighbourhood, as well as other people in Trondheim to take part in the project by providing space for practical and theoretical knowledge sharing and arranging workshops and activities for everybody, such as the art workshop (see Figure 15, p.27).

There is no doubt that Fargemarka intentionally employs aspects of activism in an attempt to challenge current planning techniques and seek more autonomy in decisionmaking, in common with other intentional communities. Following the definition of Pickerill and Chatterton about autonomous spaces, Fargemarka Boligprosjekt’s core values align with a need of searching for freedom and a desire for self-government.

communistic communities

cooperative mutualistic

collective EcoVillage

experiment settlement lifestyle practical

socialist societies

withdrawn colonies communal

commune enacted utopian

society

utopia and

Conclusion

insurgent planning

Lead author: Laura Flóra Podoski

management, meaning regular coordination meetings for the entire group. The work continues in smaller working groups and intentional neighborhood design is being performed. The decision-making procedure has an absence of hierarchy, which stresses the importance of every cohouser’s voice and equality. Extensive common facilities are highly valued, also seen by many as the heart of the cohousing community. Finally, the incomes remain separated in such communities (Lietaert, 2010). Furthermore, according to Mccamant, 50100 people make a perfect amount of people for an optimal cohousing group, as smaller or bigger ones often tend to end up experiencing organisational problems (1994). In the ideology about cohousing communities, leader positions occur naturally in the community, while a fair opportunity for contribution for everyone is maintained (Lietaert, 2010).

Lietaert (2010) addresses an important limitation regarding the cohousing movement. Cohousers, a large proportion of them, come from the upper middle class or middle class, having a relatively good standard of life from before (Lietaert, 2010). However, cohousing communities should optimally be available for everyone, regardless of economic background. Lietaert argues for making this possible by significant involvement and support from public authorities, in terms of the inclusion of low income families and individuals.

Housing and power

“…control of dwellings and neighborhoods must be in personal and local hands” argues Turner in his book Housing by People (1976, p. 118). He elaborates that large organisations should have little business designing or managing dwelling environments. Instead, they should be responsible for installing infrastructure, supplying tools and materials that people can use locally.

Principles of co-housing

Bugeja argues that life in the city has turned from being social, happy and safe into competing, stressful and distanced with loneliness as a main characteristic (Bugeja, 2006). One possible solution to the issues mentioned above could be cohousing; a phenomenon that started in Scandinavia approximately 40 years ago with the aim to “creatively mix private and common dwellings to recreate a sense of community, while preserving a high degree of individual privacy” (Lietaert, 2010, p. 1).

A concept of six fundamental characteristics of cohousing was developed by Liteatert (2010). Firstly, the participatory process, where members manage the whole process from scratch with some supervision from experts. The members themselves are the core drivers of this housing project. This gives a significant amount of control, but requires a great deal of time from all participants. Secondly, complete resident

The ‘who provides and who decides grid’ made by Turner (1976, p.139) gives an interesting perspective on the distribution of power and opportunities in dwelling (Figure 11). According to Turner, there are two important forms of participation. One is the central authorities’ participation in local housing development, by ensuring personal and local access to essential resources provided from the top-down. The other is citizen’s participation in the central authorities’ work, when planning the distribution of these resources and the infrastructure in general. Turner points out that the problem is to find the way for participation to be achieved in practice (1976).

Nyseth et al. (2010) addresses questions such as whether city planning projects should be of collective value for the many, and not only an economic profit for the few. Traditional top-down planning often doesn’t include important sociospatial analyses, such as emotions and stories connected to places (Torill Nyseth, 2010). Neither does it focus much on creative participatory processes or asks questions like “what do we want here?” addressed to citizens. From previous participatory planning activities through the Urban Ecological Planning master programme at NTNU, it has become clear that local residents often know most about their own living

The concept of insurgent planning has arisen in the face of rapid urbanisation and social change in the 20th and 21st Centuries. Guiding principles for insurgent planning are the use of transgressive and imaginative techniques that counter established political and social constructs (Miraftab, 2016), that can destabilise established orders, seek to promote the historical memory of place and adopt transnational approaches.

WHO PROVIDES?

SPONSORS USERS

WHO DECIDES? SPONSORS USERS

FARGEMARKA

environments, and often have comprehensive ideas and solutions to their own urban problems (Amankwaa et al., 2019).

Activist planning

An ‘activist planner’ according to Sager (2016), is someone that uses ‘activist style’ in the preparation and promotion of a specific plan. An activist style implies use of direct action initiating, facilitating or taking part in the planning process, trying to affect particular plans. Sager also presents activist planners by revealing three types of positioning in relation to the formal planning process: internal, intermediate and external positions. Internal positioning refers to professionals working for the responsible organ of the planning process, while external positions have their base in civil society most often being in opposition to the formal plan. However, some take place between those, in an intermediate position. Further, Sager states that lobbying is used routinely by activist organisations. Similarly, cooperation with external allies is also of great significance in respect of their support, professional expertise and legitimate channels (ibid).

Discussion

With respect to the Association of Fargemarka, the group consists of approximately 80 interested people1, and with a core group of around 202. According to Mccamant (1994), this is an optimal number for a cohousing group. On paper, the association of Fargemarka has three registered board members, which only applies in formal functionalities. In practice, Fargemarka has a flat organisational structure with consensus-based decision making, resulting in a bottom-up operational model. However, in reality natural leaders emerge, as also observed by Lietaert (2010).

Diverse groups of families and individuals with distinct economic and social backgrounds make up the group of Fargemarka. In the group, there are members with expertise in different fields, such as architecture, municipal consulting,

1 Based on subscriptions to the internal mailing list

2 Based on observed regular attendees at weekly meetings

IT, organisational management and so on.

“In Fargemarka, young adults have initiated the project, and they have asked for support from a larger population than just a group of young people. It was very inspiring and it was one of the things I liked best.”- Fargemarka Member

The way Fargemarka operates corresponds to four of the six fundamental characteristics of cohousing by Liteatert (2010). These consist of the participatory process, complete resident management, intentional neighborhood design and the absence of hierarchy. Due to lack of permission to move to the site, Fargemarka members can’t yet practice the two last characteristics of cohousing, namely extensive common facilities and separated income.

“Fargemarka is first and foremost a community that incorporates modern ideas. Fargemarka is a place where people can live to the fullest, not only ‘staying’ there. Above all, Fargemarka is a good potential for cheap housing with a sustainable concept.” - Fargemarka Member

The way Fargemarka operates can also be characterised by activist planning, defined by Sager (2016). The members are using direct action to try and take an active part in the planning process. Referring to Sager’s presentation of activist planning (2016), some members have been drawing Fargemaka from an otherwise external position to an intermediate one by, for example, explicitly matching the goals of the municipality to those of Fargemarka and trying to open spaces for collaboration.

“...it was very unfamiliar to me that there was a youth activist group that was used to thinking of doing something illegal. For me, it was difficult to always think of questions such as “Can I say this publicly?” Of course, I say it publicly, because if it isn’t then it it’s not true - in my world.” - Fargemarka Member

Figure 11: Shows the preferred positioning of the Fargemarka housing project in the 4th category of the ‘who provides and who decides grid’ by Turner (1976) where users ‘decide’ and sponsors ‘provide’. However, this is a simplified representation of the outcome of any settlement with the municipality, which will involve some sharing of power and responsibility.

Sponsors decide and sponsors provide

Users decide and sponsors provide

2. Sponsors decide and users provide

3. Users decide and users provide

Fargemarka is trying to aim for both types of participation referring to Turner (1976), by encouraging the central authorities to take part in the project, as well as trying to raise a voice in the central authorities’ formal planning processes. It is challenging to perform well established routines in new ways, but Fargemarka’s point of view is that the only way to success is through testing.

BOPILOT, a subproject of the municipality in collaboration with NTNU, gave some advice on the formal letter that the political contact group of Fargemarka was formulating. Additionally, the political contact group had several consultations with politicians at the city hall, as well as other meetings with experts in different fields. This is stressing the importance of the cooperation and support of external allies, as well as the opportunities presented by lobbying, emphasized by Sager (2016).

“I believe quite strongly that when people become clear about what Fargemarka is, it will create support. People will realise that Fargemarka is in for something good here.”

“Fargemarka has something that really points forward into the future.”

- Fargemarka Member

Conclusion

In terms of operational structure, Fargemarka exhibits many of the characteristics of co-housing and activist planning. Through negotiations with the Municipality, they aim to position themselves to play a powerful role in ‘deciding’ on the allocation of resources, whilst some ‘provision’ is done by the Municipality itself. They aim to extend participation both horizontally and vertically, by involving a wide range of local residents and the Municipality itself. Furthermore, through their diversity of members that have achieved both internal, external and intermediate activist positioning with respect to the Municipality. Such a combination could help to legitimise their approach.

Figure 12: Involving all members into the development process is one cornerstones of Fargemarka Boligsprosjekt.

“ (...) politicians don’t really decide what happens to the Municipality’s properties, it just kind of goes on this neoliberal logic of like ‘yeah, of course the natural thing is to develop housing for market price and sell it’ ”

A Fargemarka member talking about her observations of politics in Trondheim.

Self Organisation & Self Governance

author:

Theoretical background

‘Bottom-up development’, ‘tactical urbanism’ (Rauws, 2016), ’new urbanism’ (González et al., 2012) and even ‘guerrilla urbanism’ (Finn, 2014) are some of the evocative terms used by academics to describe forms of citizen-led planning, or urban

experiments, in cities. With roots in the concept of ‘the right to the city’, and the right to “change ourselves by changing our world” (Harvey, 2003, p. 1) they are harnessed to refer to a range of actions where citizens or groups make decisions about or intervene in the urban environment to meet their individual or group needs, in distinction from traditional ‘top-down’ planning processes. Interventions can be low-cost and experimental (Lydon, 2015), participatory and delivered in close partnership (González et al., 2012) or innovative or creative, and are often designed to make an artistic or social statement (Finn, 2014) .

In ‘Civic initiatives in urban development’, Rauws (2016) explains how adopting a nuanced approach to understanding how these experiments arise can be beneficial for analysis and policymaking in order to maximise their positive effects, and minimise their negative ones. He argues that such civic initiatives can be labelled as ‘self-organising’ or ‘selfgoverning’ depending on how they emerge and how they operate. ‘Self governing’ initiatives, he argues, are deliberately organised and work towards achieving a collective ambition. ‘Self organising’ initiatives, on the other hand, emerge spontaneously and consist of individual actions. In this case, there is an emphasis on the autonomy of each individual citizen and the presence of “individual ambitions” within the collective, but with recognition that the impact is “greater than the sum of its parts” (2016, p. 340). Rauws also discusses the ways and means which planning authorities can facilitate self organising and self governing initiatives to maximise positive effects and minimise negative ones. Proactive actions by planners can include sharing best practice for urban experiments, encouraging positive externalities (through financial support, incentives or regulations, for example) and continuously adapting their approach through monitoring, evaluation and learning (2016, p. 356). However, inaction by planning authorities can lead to the negative effects of such initiatives becoming prevalent. This is particularly important for self-organised urban experiments, which can evolve in a more unpredictable manner (2016, p. 345) and therefore may require more careful facilitation. Kelly, in particular, explains how inaction towards vacant buildings in urban areas can lead to a downward spiral of disinvestment and community ‘blight’, by providing a haven for illegal activity, creating fire risks, and harming the image of neighbourhoods (2004, p. 210). Martinez López highlights other negative side effects, such as ’self-ghettoisation’ and the persistence of societal inequalities (2013, p. 2). Proactive initiatives that enable or empower citizens groups to seek alternative productive uses for these buildings, such as for artists’ space as has been demonstrated by municipalities in other European countries, such as in Italy (Dimitrova, 2020).

Within the domain of self organisation and self governance, the relationship between an urban experiment and the planning authority can be defined in terms of models of participation. The concept of Arnstein’s ladder of participation, originally developed in the 1960’s is a foundational text that explores the practical meaning of participation for all participants

Urban experiments can arguably arise intentionally, spontaneously or somewhere in between. This chapter explores how categorising such experiments as ‘self organising’ or ‘self governing’ can help explain how they may generate positive and negative externalities over time. It then explores the coincidence of attitudes of top-down authorities (such as the Municipality) and urban experiment by applying participation theory, and how this can create productive relationships, or otherwise.

Lead

Hamish Hay

involved, particularly around power relations (Arnstein, 1969). Through Kostus and Sowada the model has been developed and extended over time to account for the impact of increased civil liberties, radicalisation and potential for ‘rebel action’, where “social entities start to force their opinions on democratic authorities” (2017, p.81). Kotus and Sowada argue that the coincidence of attitudes between local authorities, citizens and urban movements leads to emergent forms of participation (2017). Where such authorities transition towards a more deliberative or deliberative-directive approach - where space for participation is created and mutual trust is fostered - this arguably leads to a productive state of “partnership” (Arnstein, 1969) or “citizen power” (Kotus and Sowada, 2017). Jean Hillier (2007) provides an example in Tromsø, where immense dissatisfaction from citizens with the proposed masterplan for the city centre forced the city to adopt a participatory (or more ‘deliberative’) approach, known as the ‘Tromsø experiment’.

Discussion

Self governing or self organising?

From the outset, Fargemarka Boligprosjekt appears to exhibit clear characteristics of a self governing urban initiative, as defined by Rauws (2016). It is ‘deliberately organised’ in the form of regular weekly meetings, a mailing list, working groups and a partly codified organisational structure. It also has a Vision (arguably a ’collective ambition’) which includes the objective to have an impact on sustainability beyond the local area. However, when examined more closely, it also exhibits clear characteristics of a more ‘spontaneous’ self organising structure, where independent actions give rise to wider impact that is greater than the sum of each action in itself. This is reflected by the high level of independence of group members (it is accepted that any member can carry out an action if consistent with the group Vision) and the autonomy of individual initiatives (such as lobbying politicians, individual art projects and squatting). Furthermore, there are clear and highly distinct ‘individual ambitions’ or intentions within the group. For some members, these include finding a secure location for a mobile home on site, testing new methods of ‘co-using’ spaces, and normalising an existing squatting initiative. This hypothesis is compounded by the lack of a clear cause-effect relationship between the actions of Fargemarka and desired wider system change, and the relatively spontaneous nature of group actions.

“my soul is to park my house where I could go outside and be in this wonderful green area, currently we live on a parking lot and it’s not like the idyllic tiny house life”

“When I entered the housing market, I paid 300,000 NOK for my first apartment. It’s ridiculous that today you have to invest 3 million, it’s impossible! This was my first motivation for joining the project. It was about cheap housing”

- Members reflects on their individual intentions for Fargemarka.

Co-production with the Municipality

Within Fargemarka, there is a broad (but as of yet uncodified) understanding of a ‘short’ and ‘long-term’ approach to the development of the abandoned properties at Østmarka. The short-term approach envisages a form of ‘insurgent space making’ in direct challenge to the status quo, through the creation of an ‘invented’ space, which enables members to realise their individual and collective ambitions for the area (Zérah, Chakravarty and Negi, 2016, p. 91-110). Members understand that such actions could be illegal, or outside the normal planning framework.

“The group appeared to be somewhat polarised and some members gave the impression that civil disobedience should be the main instrument, without this being written. This created uncertainty.”

“Eventually, instruments I could not use (burglary, planning of house occupation) were used and I therefore chose to withdraw... parts of the group rushed forward and in my eyes “ruined” the opportunity for further cooperation”

- Members reflects on different attitudes to illegal action in Fargemarka

On the other hand, many members recognise this as unsustainable in the long term, and envision a ‘partnership’ model with the Municipality. In this scenario, a deal would be struck with the Municipality to give a level of security of control over the space and infrastructure of Østmarka. This approach resonates with other ‘co-production’ models across Europe, where residents produce their own services in partnership with authorities. The authorities themselves could transition to becoming a ‘facilitator’ of the initiative, where Fargemarka is both the producer and consumer of its own services (Czischke, 2018).

A way forward for participation

These organisational concepts can help to explain and rationalise interactions between the Municipality and Fargemarka thus far, and potentially offer a roadmap for future collaboration. The attitude of the Municipality has, to an extent, been ‘directive’. It has outlined a possible approach it wishes to follow for redevelopment of the area, but is almost entirely lacking in detail and has failed to create a space for meaningful citizen participation. This has led to a sense of mistrust and the suspicion of a ‘hidden agenda’ that could favour, for example, private developers at the expense of communities. In the absence of such participatory spaces, the attitude of some members of Fargemarka can be considered as rebellious, or “taking actions that motivate the authority to change their standpoint” (Kotus and Sowada, 2017, p. 80). Within Fargemarka, examples of such actions include illegal squatting and hosting a musical event within the buildings. The present position of the Municipality is unlikely to be tenable, and could lead to increased ‘radicalisation’ amongst some citizens within Fargemarka or even further incidences of civil disobedience. This carries with it the risk that some of the ‘negative’ effects of self-organisation or self-governance go unchecked, particularly when considering the unpredictability of self-organised systems. The ‘Tromsø experiment’ has demonstrated how extreme dissatisfaction with the centralised planning process can force more facilitated open participation. Some members of the Association also believe that the Municipality doesn’t have sufficient resources or skills to perform effective participation activities. Therefore, co-delivering or co-producing activities with the Association could help to overcome these barriers.

Conclusion

Fargemarka Boligprosjekt exhibits some key characteristics of both a ‘self governing’ and ‘self organising’ system, with some semblance of organisational structure heavily supplemented

with individual and often spontaneous actions reflecting the very specific needs and objectives of individuals within the group. The laissez-faire attitude of the municipality towards both Fargemarka and the unused buildings of Østmarka risks creating community blight, and does not create the environment for healthy citizen participation. However, application of planning theory points to a productive way forward - where Fargemarka and citizens are collaborative, and the Municipality creates spaces for engagement and trust-building through a more deliberative approach.

Figure 13: Hamish organised a creative idea-gathering workshop for possible, upcoming interventions.

“The future prospects of Fargemarka will depend both on their attitude to participation and that of the Municipality”

Hamish Hay expresses the importance of participation.

Figure 14: The “Muslica” NTNU Fargemarka Research Group.

Reflections & analysis

The analytical autoethnographic approach of the Research Group necessitated extensive and regular periods of individual and joint reflection. In addition to regular meetings for the Association and working groups, we met once a week to reflect about our work and contributions for Fargemarka, and current dynamics in the group as a whole. Our reflections also considered the impact of the Research Group on the Association, the impact of the Association on the Research Group, and how parallels could be drawn between our experiences and wider academic theory. To bring the voices of the members into our analysis we issued an anonymous questionnaire. This chapter begins with a joint reflection on the effectiveness of the Association, followed by individual reflections of our role and ends with a presentation of some of the outcomes of the questionnaire.

JOINT reflections

debate). Moreover, there was a sustained high level of meeting attendance and engagement with the projects, indicating low levels of apathy amongst members. However, a more nuanced analysis revealed struggles of power and disagreements in day-to-day operations. Tasks and actions were notionally allocated during weekly meetings, but these were occasionally duplicated by other members of the group or control of the task was ‘wrestled from them’, indicating disagreements which were unexpressed during formal decision making. As shown in Figure 22 in the Discussion, members can be divided into a number of groups based on their attitudes and intentions, which in some cases led to veiled disagreement around ways of working and objectives.

Laura was part of the Association from an early stage, and as time went by became increasingly influential, and established working groups to improve the Association’s working efficiency. Fabian and Hamish joined in early 2020, and all the three of us started playing roles in different working groups. As logged in our weekly report sheets, we participated in organisational, structural but also content related topics. The beginning of the year was a good way to start our engagement as we facilitated the first meeting of 2020. By bringing in some structure into the meeting we immediately got positive feedback about increased efficiency compared to previous meetings.

Through the university and faculty we were able to benefit from a range of academic and human resources for support and to provide a critical perspective on our research process. We set up an art workshop where architecture students could design a physical structure under the umbrella of NTNU Live Studio, which was unfortunately interrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Having the support of some NTNU professors was also beneficial for the communication with other stakeholders, such as Trondheim Kommune. Overall, these factors increased the legitimacy of the project.

Throughout the project, we paid particular attention to how the Association was operating, and its effectiveness in working towards its vision. Of interest was the application of the ‘consensus’ based system of decision making. As explored by Cunningham (2014), in a consensus-based system agreement is sought and disagreement is negotiated in order to find “collective solutions” (p. 237). In the case study of Cloughjordan Ecovillage in Ireland, he noted the need to make decisions within a reasonable time frame whilst avoiding ‘apathy’ where disagreements go unresolved (p. 246). The Research Group noted that there was little disagreement in formal Association meetings, creating a harmonious environment which led to rapid decision making (but with relatively little discussion or

Former members of Cloughjordan Ecovillage also highlighted “decisions being largely taken in smaller groups and then just brought to the main group for rubber-stamping” (p. 244) and that “every meeting was an emergency meeting” (p. 243) as reasons for them leaving the group. The Research Group noted very similar experiences in the Fargemarka Association, with meetings called at short notice with the possible intention of ‘rubber stamping’ decisions already made by smaller ‘sub groups’. Therefore, despite presence of harmony in weekly meetings, or the lack of visible disagreement, sub-surface disagreements continued to play a role in disrupting activities which had been formally agreed in meetings. In at least one case, this led to a member leaving the Association.

“The group appeared as an action group rather than a housing group. I joined the group with a desire to realise the housing project, but when “opposing” emerged as more important than the case, the work became meaningless.”

- A former member reflects on their reasons for leaving the Association

During the observed period some conflicts emerged mainly between ‘activist’ and more conservative ways of working.

“But I think even though we are quite similar in terms of having similar interests and a similar vision... but the backgrounds of people is just widely different to the point where I feel like it’s sometimes very difficult to talk to people. Cause you have completely different consumptions like in basic things, like how do you organise some things.”

“The group appeared to be somewhat polarized and some members gave the impression that civil disobedience should be the main instrument, without this being written. This created uncertainty. (...) I believe the Fargemarka could have been realized if everyone, not just idealists, but also realists, could be accepted and included to the fullest. I felt that to be a “colourful” group a large part of the palette was missing.”

- Fargemarka members.

For our research, we considered both the degree to which

Combined thoughts about our role in the Association and our joint observations.

the group has progressed towards its published ‘Vision’, as described in the Background chapter, and the extent to which individual intentions of group members are being realised. We noted how quickly the Association formed as a legal entity, reached out to key stakeholders, formed sub-groups, and agreed a list of prioritised tasks – all of which went some way towards achieving the Vision. Individual objectives and priorities such as designing websites, occupying buildings and taking part in art projects, were also achieved to a great extent. However, despite these achievements we observed a lack of cohesion in the group, possibly due to the absence of team-building activities. The group made limited progress towards securing a short term lease or similar arrangement with the Municipality to use the buildings. Furthermore, interactions with other stakeholders never went beyond the ‘discussion’ phase, with little active cooperation or coproduction of outputs. Unfortunately, the Covid-19 pandemic seriously disrupted the progress of the group half way through our research period.

The Vision of the Association was a binding element, but expectations, ways of working and structuring, and previous experiences amongst members were highly diverse. We (as the Research Group) observed that we often acted as a bridge between members, and therefore arguably adopted a mediating role. We gained the trust of a wide range of members, to the point where they were willing to share their thoughts, feelings, and often grievances. During the last meeting before the Covid-19 disruption, we were in a position to propose a ‘conflict-management workshop’ in order to discuss and debate differing expectations and find a common way to communicate about them.

Figure 15: A timeline summerising the happenings in the Fargemarka Boligprosjekt Association from its foundation until the COVID-19 outbreak that slowed down the processes.

“It was a challenging task to research and be a member of the Association at the same time. ”

First weekly meeting facilitated by Muslica

Vision setting

Creating working groups

FEB

Meeting with BOPILOT Meeting with politicians

Meeting with scholars ART workshop Planning a con�lict management workshop

Formation of Fargemarka core team

Meeting with NTNU Live Studio MARCH

Figure 16: The ‘Muslica’ Research Group is interviewing a member of Fargemarka to gather some insights.

Fabian Wildner reflecting on his experience during the research.

INdividual reflections

In accordance with the application of analytical autoethnography, we recognised the significance of our past and present experiences of civic initiatives in the process of research. We also reflected on our impact on the Association, and conversely the impact of the Association on us. In particular, Fabian notes how past scepticism around ‘sustainable’ housing provision and failures in the private and public sectors drove him to embrace a community-level approach; Hamish elucidates his suspicions around the merits of consensus-based models of decision making as a product of past experiences in intentional communities; and Laura explains how she believes core enthusiasts will be vital to keep the Association alive.

I am a Civil Engineer with a long standing interest in housing and community development. The cost and accessibility of housing, both for purchase and rental, is a critical issue in the UK - my home country. The average house price to earnings ratio has been on the increase for many years, and the media regularly reports on the under-supply of housing in the face of rising demand. In contemporary culture, musicians like Kate Tempest illustrate the struggle faced by young people in trying to find meaning in changing urban areas whilst also playing a part in this process of gentrification:

“My streets have been dug up, repaved; New routes for commuters, the landscape has changed... And so I’m moving on; I’ve got it all to play for; I’ll be the invader in some other neighbourhood”

- Kate Tempest, “Perfect Coffee”, from the album Let Them Eat Chaos

Mixing these housing pressures with a breakdown of community cohesion and increased isolation has led me to believe that systems of living together don’t meet the real needs of humans and communities, and are socially unsustainable.

I have sought out different ways of living over the past 10 years from a technical standpoint, such as building with low-impact materials, and a social perspective, through spending time in intentional communities. I have witnessed the functional and dysfunctional aspects of these communities, and in particular how power imbalances and poor decision making structures can cripple or hollow-out a community. The exercise of power and authority is a key and well-recognised reason for the disbanding of international communities internationally (McLaughli 1984), and I consider myself an opponent of the ‘consensus-based’ model, which I believe is vulnerable to anti-democratic exploitation. I believe that well-structured decision-making processes with clear opportunities for participation and leadership are better for sustaining and nurturing communities.

My role in the Association has been as a critical analyser and leader in some working groups. Through my experience, I’ve sought to promote the development of working structures and a shared vision, as well as leading the early stages of the ‘art’ project. I don’t have a critical need for housing at present, and therefore my reason for involvement is primarily ideological.

So far, I’ve noted how the community has been largely dominated by the voices of a few individuals, and there is a sense that some original members of the group sometimes

Figure 17: Hamish Hay

struggle to retain power. Nevertheless, the group has grown at a rapid rate, and I’ve been impressed by the retention rate of new members and their willingness to actively contribute to projects. Challenges I’ve identified so far include an inability to respond to changing events, poor communication between different working groups, and low levels of accountability. My previous experience of intentional communities has been of people uniting around a fairly specific spiritual or ecological vision. However, through Fargemarka I’ve come to believe that motivating and uniting a more diverse group of people, with different intentions, is certainly possible through carefullyplanned power structures.

reason I got involved in Fargemarka Boligprosjekt. I think that the project could be a great opportunity to transmit the things I learned and I value into reality. Also, I feel lucky to analyse the project together with my colleagues from an academic perspective.

My role in the Fargemarka concentrated on various tasks so far. Besides taking over organisational tasks like facilitating meetings I contributed to the ‘structure working group’ and helped to work out an organisational structure for the association. A big variety of smaller tasks like meetings with potential collaboration partners, advertisements, or contributions to other working groups which in the end, together with our reflection meeting for the academic part, summed up in a high working load per week.

After living alone for a couple of years for practical reasons I felt the desire to look out for a shared place. I was annoyed by cooking only for myself and got frustrated by the feeling of emptiness when being at home alone. After all I decided to change my situation and was lucky enough to find four other people – two of them I even did not know before at all – to share a place with. This opened my eyes for a new way of living so that today I barely could imagine living any other way. Whereas I still had my private room and shared other facilities, my girlfriend lived in an even more communal way, with multiple individuals in a single bedroom. Seeing and experiencing this way of living influenced my current values and I questioned the concept of individualism more than ever. Also, my background in urban planning changed my mindset and the ideals. Whilst my interests in my teenager-years were mainly concerned with the newest car-models, for example, today I recognise that this pattern of growth is unsustainable, and am following the developments of the extension of the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and I am delighted about every single new metre of cycle path.

Studying and reading for my studies about current problems on the housing market like the growing supremacy of real estate developers or the decline of social housing gave me a lot of background knowledge. Due to my former working places I had the opportunity to experience both main actors in city development – the private as well as the public sector. Whilst the private showed me how frustrating it is that you are often dependent on investors’ decisions, the public sector showed me the good will but the unwillingness to act or respond rapidly in the face of climate breakdown and crises of loneliness and vulnerability in society. A lot of good concepts and plans that are overflowing from phrases about “sustainable” and “inclusive” development but the actual implementation is mostly missing. The desire to act in a more radical way which challenges existing systems and ways of working is the main

Regarding the way how Fargemarka operates there are positive as well as negative aspects to mention. I was always very positively surprised by the consistency of members that came to the weekly meeting. It was great to see that this diverse group of people had a common goal in mind and spent many Sundays discussing together about the ongoing procedure. This positive diversity led at the same time to difficulties in the way how Fargemarka was operating so far. In my opinion, conflicts came up because of different attitudes and notions against structuring. Whereas some people were advocating for non-hierarchical, flat structures of decision-making, others were used to working in a more formally structured way, as most associations might work. Even if a common vision was formulated in January, it served for the communication with the Municipality and was no guarantee that all members’ values were represented by it. However, through the participation in the Fargemarka project I developed the know-how to help me and others maintain more successful initiatives in the future.

I am an Urban Ecological Planning master student with a Civil and Environmental Engineering background, originally from Hungary. I grew up in the busy streets of Budapest, although I spent several months every year in the village of my grandparents. I moved to Norway in 2009, and have been living here since then. My interest in community living started when I moved to a boarding school, after finishing high school in Norway at the age of 19. Coming from a “big city life” in Budapest, I appreciated the immediate presence of nature in Norway. In the folk school, I studied Yoga and Martial Arts together with other teenagers, living in a strong community with shared meals, tasks and equipment. During this year, I came to realise

Fabian Wildner

Laura Flóra Podoski

Figure 18: Fabian Wildner

Figure 19: Laura Flóra Podoski

the value and the strength of the collective. Being a part of something bigger, creating a sense of community and taking responsibility, had a big impact on my life and future choices I have made. Later on, I started travelling around the world, exploring different communities in Europe, India and South America. I have been engaging myself voluntarily in events about sustainable living, where I always re-experience the strong community spirit and the power of collaboration. When it came to my studies, first I studied civil and environmental engineering, and then eventually Urban Ecological Planning, in order to learn more about the bigger picture. The main motivation behind my studies is the creation of sustainable habitats for people, where they can live in harmony with nature and each other.

Since I wish to live in a sustainable community myself, I engage myself in projects both locally and internationally to gain even more experience and knowledge. I became one of the few people that initiated a more structured and organised work with Fargemarka, my drive being both personal and professional. Hoping for a permission for action from the authorities, I established contacts and started a dialog with the Municipality of Trondheim, where I earlier have been active regarding other projects. I see it as fortunate looking at this project both from a personal point of view, as well as from an academic perspective, hoping that it will serve the

Evaluation of the questionnaire

In order to develop a ‘narrative’ and explore the ranges of viewpoints amongst Fargemarka members, we sent out a Google Questionnaire.

realisation and longevity of Fargemarka.

In my opinion, me and my colleagues have been playing a very important role in the life of the Fargemarka Boligprosjekt so far. We have arranged many meetings, initiated sub projects and actions, and developed structures for the association. Each of us has individually contributed to the project, as well as in collaboration by reflecting, reviewing and brainstorming on the processes. I observed that there is a clear core group consisting of 5-10 enthusiasts, that have been driving the processes. In case of the absence of one or more of these core members, the process tends to stagnate. I am afraid that this could lead to an unsustainable future of Fargemarka, as the system is not able to sustain itself without the specific core enthusiasts. Another concern I have is the consensus, where decision making processes take a very long time, even with a relatively low number of people. From my standpoint, if Fargemarka wants to grow into a community of 50-100 members, it needs better organisational structures, models and routines, especially when it comes to conflict management and decision making processes.

The survey included questions about planning in Norway, the organisation and structure of the Fargemarka Association and individual intentions. The survey was introduced to members with the following text:

“As previously mentioned in our Fargemarka Sunday

Meetings, we (Fabian, Hamish and Laura) are students in Urban Ecological Planning at NTNU. As part of a course, we’re examining Fargemarka from the perspective of different planning theories. In particular, we want to understand the role of self-governance and insurgent planning in creating strong communities in a more fragmented society!

We hope that our research will support Fargemarka in promoting new ways of living not just within Trondheim, but around the world. It would be a great help for us, if you as a member of Fargemarka Boligprosjekt could help us by filling out this questionnaire!

It is of course anonymised, and we will share the results with you as soon our course is finished.”

17 out of 20 core members replied, a response-rate of around 85% whereas 52% of the answers came from participants who identified as female. Most of the respondents are between 19 and 30 years old.

When asking about the planning in Norway, there is a reasonable level of trust towards the Trondheim Municipality and its approach to Fargemarka. This is an interesting aspect since there was no formal or written commitment or support from the Municipality towards Fargemarka yet. The reason for this result is assumed to be the general high level of trust in

Norwegian authorities. On the other hand, participants noted a lack of financial support for self-built homes, as well as for community services. 29% of respondents saw their current housing as ‘very’ or ‘moderately unaffordable’, and 47% find their current housing situation only ‘moderately affordable’.

“If I had lower rent I would be able to save up more for building a home, some time in the future.”

- Answer of a participant.

When it comes to the current security of housing, the results were quite balanced between ‘secure’ and ‘insecure’. However, all participants agreed that Norway does not have sufficient experimental and alternative housing projects yet.

The results from questions about the Association itself showed that most people joined Fargemarka Boligprosjekt because of a desire to live communally, participate more in their living environment, or because Fargemarka represented many of their core values. Even if in the academic context Fargemarka can be labelled as an ‘intentional community’, the survey showed that the term does not seem to be as popular or known – 47% of the participants would define Fargemarka as a ‘collaborative housing project’.

The general level of satisfaction with Fargemarka’s way of operating averages 6.4 points out of 10. Satisfaction with power distribution is similar. An average of 8.4 out of 10 points were given when we asked to what extent inputs from members would be taken into consideration. These results overlap with our observations that a lot of members attend the weekly meetings and also express their feelings and contribute their ideas. Despite this, our observations indicated that it is mainly the same small core group of members who are leading the meetings and have the greatest influence.

“Flat structure was sought, but in reality three participants had more executive power because they joined all groups and had the final say.”

- Interview with a member

When asked about the reasons that people would leave Fargemarka, ‘lack of actions’ was mentioned as the main fear, possibly due to the relatively small number of actions carried out so far. Another mentioned reason was an inability to contribute to the Association. The observations of our research team overlap with those results. Despite the regular attendance at meetings, members might not have found a clear role or been allocated specific responsibilities and tasks. The skills amongst members were not mapped, making it difficult to distribute tasks on the basis of their abilities.

Summary of highlights

Level of trust towards the Trondheim Municipality = 5/10

Explainable as we had neither negative nor positive responses from the Municipality so far.

$47% of members are living only in moderately affordable situation

Rather low level of felt power distribution amongst members

Balance between feeling of in-/security regarding current housing situation

88% want to remain members in one year time from today

Figure 20: The ‘Muslica’ Research Group tried to look into all different aspects of the Fargemarka Association in order to reveal its secrets.

DISCUSSION

Addressing our research question with the combined outputs of our methods.

Defining the Association as an urban experiment

It has been discussed whether Fargemarka can be considered a cohousing community, an intentional community or even an activist community, and ultimately it draws on elements of all of these. Fargemarka members brought different skills and experiences and participated with very different intentions and ways of working. Therefore, it was impossible to categorise the project under a single academic domain. On the one side, theories of insurgent planning and activist planning highlight major aspects in the way the group functions, particularly with reference to ‘rebel action’ amongst some members. On the other hand, cohousing, and intentional community values are also strongly represented in the ways the group operates, especially amongst those who desire co-production with the Municipality. Elements of self organisation and self governance are also evident in the group, and help to explain

OCTOBER 2019

Start of squatting action

how the coincidence of attitudes between the Association and Municipality leads to emergence of different forms of participation in planning.

Evolution of the Association

Based on our observations and reflections, and considering academic theory, we considered three hypothetical scenarios for the development of the Association, as shown in Figure 21. If the ‘squatting’ action had continued in the form of sustained rebel action (Scenario A), it appears unlikely that the Municipality would have been willing to negotiate a formal settlement. Forced evictions might have occurred and it would have been difficult to gain wider support in Trondheim. On the other hand, if the Association had rapidly ended the squatting action and adopted a collaborative approach (Scenario C), and if the Municipality had adopted a deliberative one, it is possible that a short-term lease could have been agreed. This could have allowed the Association to build recognition and support in Trondheim, supporting the development of a longer-term settlement. In reality, the path can be described as something between these two extreme scenarios (Scenario B). The eventual outcome will partially depend on the coincidence of attitudes between the Association and the Municipality.

Intentions within the Association

Figure 22 illustrates how different people within the Association had different desires, ways of working and measures of success, as recorded through interviews and observed in meetings. The ‘Exchange Students’ were interested in short-term involvement, and for many of them success would mean contributing to direct actions such as art projects, or events. ‘Activists’, on the other hand, were more invested in long-term involvement, and success would, in addition to

January 2020

Rebel action continues, more houses occupied, no communication with Municipality.

House occupation ends. Ideating about alternative approaches starts.

Negative Scenario

Given Scenario

Positive Scenario

House occupation ends. An Association gets founded which adopts a collaborative approach to raise awareness around the empty houses.

NOVEMBER 2019

First letter of eviction from Municipality, The area must be evacuated within A common vision gets formulated, negotiations for using the empty houses.

Fargemarka is well known and has Negotiations with the Municipality approach.

long-term occupation of the buildings, be influencing planning systems in Trondheim. ‘Families’ and ‘Local Adults’ were more interested in a structured, collaborative and long-term way of working, whilst the so-called ‘Regulars’ were primarily interested in finding somewhere to live. As the Research Group, ‘Muslica’, we were most interested in analysing links between the group, wider systems of planning and other more general truths.

Challenges and opportunities

Through analysis within three academic domains, investigation of case studies and immersive autoethnographic research, the Muslica Research Group has gained insights into broad social phenomena. These have been synthesised into opportunities and challenges that could be applied beyond Fargemarka to other urban experiments.

Rebel action and collaboration

Authorities frequently fail to cooperate with nascent urban experiments that go against traditional systems of planning, risking ‘negative effects’ that go unchecked. The laissez faire attitude of the Municipality towards the disused buildings of Østmarka risks creating community blight. This creates a challenge for the Association, which wishes to gain legitimacy whilst actively provoking change. However, through a careful synthesis of rebel action and collaboration, there is an opportunity to move the Municipality to action as shown, for example, in Tromsø, where the Municipality was provoked by citizen dissatisfaction into adopted a deliberative approach

Vision and guideline setting

A challenge for the Association is the diverse range of individual intentions and attitudes within it. Defining a stronger vision at an early stage in the process could have

helped resolve disagreement or communication issues later on. This could help ensure all members are aligned towards a common goal, and could help them work more effectively together. Furthermore, by defining clear goals and examining different future scenarios the Association can be better prepared for different potential outcomes.

Organisational structure and decision-making

A flat, consensus based structure presents a challenge to timely, effective democratic decision making and a fair distribution of power. There is an opportunity to use smaller working groups that give people opportunities to raise their voices and contribute equally. It will also help getting things done, so that not only the most active members are responsible for the different tasks. It empowers people allowing them to take responsibility. It can also be important that there are clear decision making processes established, so that the Association is ready when disagreements arise.

Contributing to wider society

The challenges faced by urban experiments are often similar, but through sharing successes and failures there is an opportunity for them to become more effective. Urban experiments can contribute and inspire other civic initiatives, and wider society through the pooling of experience and knowledge.

Municipality, who adopt a directive approach. within three weeks.

The squatters are removed from buildings by force. Members leave the Association due to dissapointment around the approach.

There is still no response from the Municipality but the group prepares limited actions to stimulate them into adopting a directive or directivedeliberative approach.

A B

formulated, and sent to the Municipality to begin houses.

has broad support all over the city. Municipality have begun, who adopt a deliberative

A short-term lease is successfully negotiated, and the keys are handed over. Membership increases dramatically as interested in the Association grows.

MARCH 2020

C

Figure 21: A hypothetical scenario of Fargemarka’s evolution.

MOREACTIVE LESS ACTIVE

Create an intentional community and challenge current systems of planning

Taking responsibility for direct actions, and requiring a �lat structure of governance

Long-term

“Desires”

What this group wants to achieve through the Fargemarka Association

“Ways of working”

How this group tends to engage and work within the Association

Diverse reasons, typically looking for a place to live

Desire representation, but also moving the project forward

Short-term and long-term

“REGULARS” FARGEMARKA ASSOCIATION

Contribute towards the development of the dwelling community

Rational development of ideas based on skills

Long-term

Figure 22: The diagramm illustrates the various identified member-groups with shared ‘Desires’ and ‘Ways of working’.

“MUSLICA”

RESEARCH GROUP

Challenging systems of planning and linking theory to practice Structuring, facilitating and re�lecting, connecting the project to the academics

Short-term

Short-term

“EXCHANGE STUDENTS”

Interested in shorter-term actions where they can contribute Prefer actions, and less interested in strategy and negotiation

“LOCAL ADULTS”

Create a collaborative community driven by local needs

May prefer clarity, hierarchy and representation. Prefer to work in Norwegian. May struggle to work with “Activists”

Long-term

Figure

conclusion

There is a need for alternative planning approaches to face global challenges. Fargemarka Boligprosjekt can be an example for the application of participation into planning processes.

Theprocess of carrying out action research was challenging and insightful for the Research Group, despite the interruption from the Covid-19 global pandemic. Analytic social science gains “insight into some broader set of social phenomena than those provided by the data themselves” (Anderson, 2006, p. 387), and therefore it was necessary for the Research Group to consider their analysis, and the research question, in the context of three broader academic domains and interpretations of planning in the global context. Driving Fargemarka’s process through personal interest whilst working through the university gave the Research Group a unique perspective, and allowed them to integrate both academic theory and actions.

The Fargemarka Boligprosjekt Association unifies elements of the discussed theory. It tries to challenge established systems and shows alternative ways and modes of planning whilst attempting to align with the Municipality’s development goals, the New Urban Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals.

Harnessing non-traditional planning theory has supported the identification of key opportunities for nascent urban experiments. Through action-research, the Muslica Research Group hopes to have demonstrated analytically sound signposts for different stakeholders to create sustainable and meaningful communities of care.

The words of Turner give hope for Fargemarka Boligprosjekt, highlighting that autonomy in the built environment not only provides exceptional value for money and high levels of utility in proportion to resources invested, but creates aesthetically satisfying and culturally meaningful environments (Turner, 1976).

Amankwaa, A., Koli, S., Podoski, L., Rouzières, Y. (2019) Romolslia. Trondheim: Faculty of Architecture and Design

Anderson, L. (2006) Analytic autoethnography, J. Contemp. Ethnogr., 35(4), pp. 373-395. doi: 10.1177/0891241605280449.

Anitra Nelson, F. S. (2018) Housing for Degrowth: Principles, Models, Challenges and Opportunities

Arnstein, S. R. (1969) A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Planning Association, 35, pp. 216-224.

Arup (2020) Green cities: ReLeaf initiative plants trees in Greater Manchester. Available at: https://www.arup.com/ projects/the-total-value-of-city-re-leaf (Accessed: 17.03. 2020)

Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M. and Schaps (1997) Caring school communities, Educational Psychologist, 32, pp. 137–151.

Bugeja, M. (2006) Interpersonal divide: The search for community in a technological age Journal of Communication, 56(4), pp. 864-866.

Cheryl R. Ellebrock, S. M. K. (2010) Creating a Ninth-Grade Community of Care, The Journal of Educational Research, 103(6), pp. 393-406.

Czischke, D. (2018) Collaborative housing and housing providers: towards an analytical framework of multistakeholder collaboration in housing co-production, International Journal of Housing Policy, 18(1), pp. 55-81. doi: 10.1080/19491247.2017.1331593.

Denshire, S. (2014) On auto-ethnography, Current Sociology, 62(6), pp. 831-850. doi: 10.1177/0011392114533339.

Dimitrova, M. (2020) Italian municipalities allowed to lease buildings to artists for redevelopment. Available at: https:// www.themayor.eu/en/italian-municipalities-allowed-tolease-buildings-to-artists-for-redevelopment (Accessed: 05.04 2020).

Fargamarka Boligprosjekt (2020) Vision. Available at: https:// fargemarka.no/en/index.html#1-Vision.md (Accessed: 10.05.2020).

Finn, D. (2014) DIY urbanism: implications for cities,

Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 7(4), pp. 381-398. doi: 10.1080/17549175.2014.891149.

González, E. R. et al. (2012) The grassroots and New Urbanism: a case from a Southern California Latino community, Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 5(2-3), pp. 219-239. doi: 10.1080/17549175.2012.693125.

Harvey, D. (2003) The right to the city, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), pp. 939-941. doi: 10.1111/j.0309-1317.2003.00492.x.

Healy, E., Arunachalam, D. and Mizukami, T. (2016) Social Cohesion and the Challenge of Globalization, in Healy, E., Arunachalam, D. and Mizukami, T. (ed.) Creating Social Cohesion in an Interdependent World: Experiences of Australia and Japan. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 3-31.

Hillier, J. (2007) Stretching Beyond the Horizon: A Multiplanar Theory of Spatial Planning and Governance. Ashgate Publishing.

Hillier, J. (2008) Plan(e) speaking: A multiplanar theory of spatial planning, Planning Theory, 7(1), pp. 24–50.

Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities New York: Vintage Books.

Jenks, E. B. (2005) Explaining Disability, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 34(2), pp. 143-169. doi: 10.1177/0891241604272064.

Kathryn M. Mccamant, C. D. (1994) Cohousing: a contemporary approach to housing ourselves. Ten Speed Press.

Kelly, J. J., Jr. (2004) Refreshing the heart of the city: vacant building receivership as a tool for neighborhood revitalization and community empowerment, Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law, 13(2), pp. 238.

Kotus, J. and Sowada, T. (2017) Behavioural model of collaborative urban management: extending the concept of Arnstein’s ladder, Cities, 65, pp. 78-86. doi: 10.1016/j. cities.2017.02.009.

Kozeny, G. (1995) Intentional communities: Lifestyles based on ideals, Communities directory: A guide to cooperative living, pp. 18-24.

Lietaert, M. (2010) Cohousing’s relevance to degrowth theories Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), pp. 576-580.

Lockyer, J., & Benson, P. (with Burton, D., Felder, L., Hayes, D., Jackey, E., & Lerman, A.). (2011). “We try to create the world that we want”: Intentional communities forging livable lives

in St. Louis (CSD Working Paper No. 11-02). St. Louis, MO: Washington University, Center for Social Development.

Lydon, M. (2015) Tactical Urbanism. Island Press/Center for Resource Economics : Imprint: Island Press.

Martinez López, M. A. (2013) The Squatters’ Movement in Europe: A Durable Struggle for Social Autonomy in Urban Politics, Antipode, 45(4), pp. 866-887. doi: 10.1111/j.14678330.2012.01060.x.

Maruyama, G. and Van Boekel, M. (2014) Action Research: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/obo/97801998283400149.

Miraftab, F. (2016) Insurgent Planning: Situating Radical Planning in the Global South. University of Illinois UrbanaChampaign.

OECD (2010) Paying for Biodiversity : Enhancing the CostEffectiveness of Payments for Ecosystem Services. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Pickerill, J. and Chatterton, P. (2006) Notes towards autonomous geographies: creation, resistance and selfmanagement as survival tactics, Progress in Human Geography, 30(6), pp. 730-746. doi: 10.1177/0309132506071516.

Pruijt, H. (2013) Squatting in Europe, Squatting in Europe: Radical spaces, urban struggles, pp. 17-60.

Rauws, W. (2016) Civic initiatives in urban development: selfgovernance versus self-organisation in Planning practice. (Essay), Town Planning Review, 87(3), pp. 339. doi: 10.3828/ tpr.2016.23.

Robb, K. (2016) Sustainable developments in question as off-the-plan buyers get greenwashed. Available at: https:// www.domain.com.au/news/sustainable-developments-inquestion-as-offtheplan-buyers-get-greenwashed-20160722gq8qw7/ (Accessed: 22.03.2020 2020).

Sager, T. (2016) Activist planning: a response to the woes of neo-liberalism?, European Planning Studies, 24(7), pp. 12621280.

Sager, T. (2018) Planning by intentional communities: An understudied form of activist planning, Planning Theory, 17(4), pp. 449-471. doi: 10.1177/1473095217723381.

Sandercock, L. (1997) Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities. Wiley.

Sargent, L. T. (1994) The Three Faces of Utopianism Revisited, Utopian Studies, 5(1), pp. 1 - 37.

Schussler, D. L. a. C., A. (2006) An empirical exploration of the who, what, and how of school care, Teachers College Record, 108, pp. 1460–1495.

Strongin, F. (2010) Imagining the Intentional Community Counterpublic.

Torill Nyseth, J. P., Trine Holm (2010) Planning beyond the horizon: The Tromsø experiment, Planning Theory, 9(3), pp. 223-247.

Trondheim Municipality (2019) Byutviklingsstrategi for Trondheim - strategi for areal- og transportutvikling fram mot 2050.

Turner, J. F. C. (1976) Housing by people: towards autonomy in building environments. Marion Boyars.

United Nations (2015) Sustainable Development Goals. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs (Accessed: 01.05.2020).

United Nations (2017) New Urban Agenda. Available at: http:// habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/NUA-English.pdf (Accessed: 01.05.2020).

Yamamoto, A. D. (2017) Why agonistic planning? Questioning Chantal Mouffe’s thesis of the ontological primacy of the political, Planning Theory, 16(4), pp. 384-403. doi: 10.1177/1473095216654941.

Zérah, M.-H., Chakravarty, S. and Negi, R. (2016) Space, Planning and Everyday Contestations in Delhi. New Delhi: New Delhi: Springer India.

Figure 24: Panorama of the buildings in Østmarka.

Please find on the following pages the ‘weekly record sheets’ - a documentation of our conducted work.

Weekly Record Sheet

29th January 2020

What did we do this week?

1. Weekly meeting focussed on vision setting, structure and defining sub project groups

2. Arrangement sub-meeting with project groups: vision, structure, pr, event and economy

3. Facilitating weekly group-meeting

4. Finished & submitted draft of course-outline

5. Arranging meetings and establishing contacts with BoPilot (Randi Narvestad and Vidar Vollan), NTNU LIVE, Tore Øivin, Aksel Tjora, to build links between NTNU & Fargemarka project

6. Read literature about governance with Municipality in Christiania

7. Reaching out to Jan Bang to integrate permaculture into the project and other resources

8. Research about group dynamics, structural theories

Was it effective?

1. Successfully reformed subproject groups - tasks got distributed over the week with one responsible person each, organizing the working groups

2. Members are increasing

3. Personal interest from individuals working at Kommune BOPILOT, Miljødirektoratet and architects

4. Power relations not totally distributed in group, lack of debate

What did we learn?

1. Hybrid semi formal land ownership arrangements with municipality in Christiania

2. Dimensions of group dynamics:

a. Decision making

b. Power and rules

c. Dimensions of the identity

3. The difficulties about making choices about the vision

4. Things are running parallely

5. Making rules is challenging - how will everyone agree

6. How do we make decisions - who has decision making power

7. We have to have clear and strong visions, so that ppl can put their personal interests aside for the bigger collective vision

Reflecting on theories

Power

● How to keep flat structure but also develop a structure that works in terms of decision making and efficient progress.

● What is the validity of power imbalance between 'veterans' and 'newcomers' to an organisation?

● What is the role of ego in group dynamics?

Self-organisation

● There are many models for organisation, which can take a long time to stabilise

To do’s until next time

1. More actions are needed

2. Making sub project groups with “responsible member”

3. Make a group/person “HR” for including and coordinating new ppl

4. Theories

a. Group dynamics

b. Power distribution

c. Hybrid arrangements with municipal governments

d. Bedzet and Bykuben (recommended from Jan)

Weekly Record Sheet

5th February 2020

What did we do this week?

Meetings and events

1. Working on organisation-process/structure

a. Fabi created structure diagram

2. Vision Group meeting

3. Marketing / PR / Communication Group

4. Sunday Weekly Coordination Meeting (Sunday 2nd)

5. Meeting with Randi from NTNU /Bopilot

Readings

1. Fabi did readings on urban self-governance and self-organisation (Rauws Selfgovernance versus self-organisation). Would be interesting to try and fit Farge into this model.

2. Hamish read about housing project in Ireland - viable systems model (Exploring the efficacy of consensus-based decision-making: A pilot study of the Cloughjordan Ecovillage, Ireland)

Was it effective?

1. Structures meeting didn’t achieve objective of developing a proposed structure in the meeting and sharing before the Coordination Meeting

2. Structures meeting wasn’t able to gather research outcomes from all participants

3. Vision group successful in presenting draft Vision in coordination meeting

4. PR Group had different objectives which made it difficult

5. Weekly Coordination Meeting didn’t achieve all objectives but had clear actions

6. Bopilot meeting very successful in sharing the visions of each group and potential avenues for working together

What did we learn?

1. Individuals can struggle to devolve decision-making power to others when they feel so invested.

2. There is a virtual ‘core group’ which may find it practically difficult to share power

3. Meeting needs leader and agenda

4. Important to incorporate different personalities in meetings - those who prefer structure and those who have lots of creative energy. Important for people to be able to comment on the agenda in advance, and for the meeting to be arranged by the

convener, timer keeper and minute-taker.

5. Domino effect of meetings not achieving full objectives

6. Boligstiftelsen is working on similar projects with Bopilot on empty housings

Reflecting on theories

Power

● Power can be informally invested in ‘core group’

Self-organisation

● Hard to agree

● The ‘consensus’ model can work well or it can be extremely damaging depending on group dynamics and topics of discussion

● We are rather “urban-self-governance” then “self-organisation”

To do’s until next time

1. List of what we want from Bopilot

2. Reaching out to different groups:

a. Immigrants, elderly, children, minorities, handicaped ppl, psychiatric St Olavs, redcross, caritas,

3. Finalise the email to Eierskapsenheten and Byplanleggingskontoret

4. Upload all notes from our theories

5. Find and share more theories around self-organisation of intentional communitieswhere they have failed and succeeded

6. Having scheduled meetings

7. Art project with NTNU LIVE

Weekly Record Sheet

12th February 2020

What did we do this week?

● Meeting for Art-project with NTNU-Live

○ Art-group-meeting

○ Creating poster for open-call

● Weekly meeting

● Meeting with politicians (MDG & SV)

● Meeting with Tore Sager

● Meeting with BoPilot @kommune

● Finalizing formal letter to municipality

● Meetings in individual working groups

● Reached out to Senterpartiet and Arbeiderpartiet

Was it effective?

● First brainstorming in art-group resulted in an open-call that should reach out to interested people (architects/designers/…). NTNU Live is supporting our idea and is also spreading the word.

● Weekly meeting resulted in some brainstorming exercises. Smaller group made discussions easier, and the structure was presented.

What did we learn?

● ...balancing act between activist-structures and conventional models needs lots of discussions.

● Meeting with BOPILOT resulted in the feedback that it is very important that we work towards politicians

● We need to focus on a more diverse target group for the project

● Organisational structure will be an essential topic in future.

● It is important for politicians and bureaucrats that Fargemarka operates with a formal structure! - trust building process

How does it relate to our theories?

● Trust building towards authorities

● Trust building towards the neighbourhood

● How to reach out to different (especially vulnerable) groups

To do’s until next time

● Distribute vulnerable groups contact, make research about possible stakeholders.

● Short and long term “fremdriftsplan” with numbers on finance

● Arrange plan for involvement of contributors.

● Reach out to right wing politicians?

Weekly Record Sheet

12th February 2020

What did we do this week?

● Meeting for Art-project with NTNU-Live

○ Art-group-meeting

○ Creating poster for open-call

● Weekly meeting

● Meeting with politicians (MDG & SV)

● Meeting with Tore Sager

● Meeting with BoPilot @kommune

● Finalizing formal letter to municipality

● Meetings in individual working groups

● Reached out to Senterpartiet and Arbeiderpartiet

Was it effective?

● First brainstorming in art-group resulted in an open-call that should reach out to interested people (architects/designers/…). NTNU Live is supporting our idea and is also spreading the word.

● Weekly meeting resulted in some brainstorming exercises. Smaller group made discussions easier, and the structure was presented.

What did we learn?

● ...balancing act between activist-structures and conventional models needs lots of discussions.

● Meeting with BOPILOT resulted in the feedback that it is very important that we work towards politicians

● We need to focus on a more diverse target group for the project

● Organisational structure will be an essential topic in future.

● It is important for politicians and bureaucrats that Fargemarka operates with a formal structure! - trust building process

How does it relate to our theories?

● Trust building towards authorities

● Trust building towards the neighbourhood

● How to reach out to different (especially vulnerable) groups

To do’s until next time

● Distribute vulnerable groups contact, make research about possible stakeholders.

● Short and long term “fremdriftsplan” with numbers on finance

● Arrange plan for involvement of contributors.

● Reach out to right wing politicians?

Weekly Record Sheet

17th February 2020

What did we do this week? Was it effective?

1. Tue 18th Feb. Hamish and Fabian met with Shamita Chaudhary and agreed future collaboration and meeting with Kommune on 13th March. Effective as gives us more leverage over Kommune to negotiate a lease-rental agreement.

2. Weekly meeting. Effective as engaged three new useful members including elected member of Kommune and former resident of Ostmarka. However lack of actions completed from previous week.

3. Kunst-stuff:

a. Hamish met with Franziska to discuss structure for NTNU-Live-Kunstprosject. Effective as found useful case studies and comparisons in German cities and (raumlabor). Tromso Case Study.

b. Fabian & Laura created flyer for “call-for-contribution” for students + neighbourhood. Not yet effective

c. All created poster to engage students in the project. Not yet effective.

4. Wed 19th - interviewed psychologist Tore Fallet. Effective as highlighted need to work with hospital and potential benefits for them. Tore to attend Sunday meeting.

5. SP and RP political parties are ‘interested’ and are waiting for further communication.

6. Revised Project Proposal, reduced number of questions, added to and structured literature. Effective as starting to focus more on academic research questions.

What did we learn?

● Finding project partners can add leverage for negotiation with Kommune

● Lack of responsibility for delivering on actions

How does it relate to our theories?

● Lack of responsibility taken for actions could relate to flat-structure. Learning from literature ‘Leadership and Power in Intentional Communities’ of the need for “focalisers” or sub-leaders in each group.

○ Flat structures take energy for self-organisation and can take energy away from external actions

○ Consider a rotating system of leadership

○ Does the need for a flat/centralised structure change over time?

To do’s until next time

● Put up physical posters for call for contributions

● Raise issue of hierarchy vs a flat structure in delivering. Consider having ‘focalisers’ for each working.

Weekly Record Sheet

26th February 2020

What did we do this week? Was it effective?

1. Weekly meeting - presentation from Tore Salge about “Warnings and challenges intentional communities”. Shamita joined the meeting and gained support for her ‘Co-Living’ project.Very effective, as it underlined different challenges and possible ‘conflict topics’ that we have already been talking about.

2. Connected with a Professor of Transformation in Architecture (Tore Trondeide) - can advise us on activist planning, things that can go wrong etc. Possible academic collaboration with his course.

3. Kunst-Live-Mote - agreed plan for the Kunst workshop, assigned tasks and agreed vision. Potential conflict over the location of the workshop and slightly diverging visions. Effective.

4. Meeting with Alanna Lennon and Annika: PhD students examining the sustainability of local communities adjacent to Ecovillages/Intentional Communities. Gained some literature and possible future insights.

5. LITERATURE:

a. A1) Could Community-Public-Partnerships between municipal authorities and intentional communities contribute to sustainable development?

i. Defining CPP

ii. Examples from Christiania

b. A2) Can vacant or abandoned buildings serve as an initiator or tool for community housing provision and create a sustained narrative for neighbourhood revitalisation?

i. Focus on ‘meanwhile’ spaces - vacant spaces facilitated by the municipality

1. Trondheim, Vienna, Gorlitz (Germany)

2. Information on the benefits/ long-term impacts

3. Community land trust model (residents, neighbourhood, municipality)

a. Has Svartlamon considered such a model

c. B1) How can a diverse intentional community work towards winning the trust of planning authorities?

i. Ordered articles by Diana Leaf Christiansen

To do’s until next time

● Add to questionnaire (google survey)

● Think about the research questions if we can make them more autoethnographic - ask David and Rolee about that

● Conflict Workshop?

○ Consider it as a follow-on from the workshop

○ Wait to hear back from posts, contact ppl

○ Record in log book

● Brainstorming about film-storyline / Contact Oda for filming? Add to the storyboard.

Weekly Record Sheet

4th March 2020

What did we do this week? Was it effective?

1. Identified need for facilitation workshop to share individual visions. Researching potential facilitators. Found one potential facilitator from Gibberish for NOK 5000

2. Weekly Sunday meeting

a. Facilitation workshop well received by all

3. Coordinating Art NTNU-Live Workshop and creating promotional materials (Facebook post, poster, emailing key partners etc)

4. Research auto-ethnographic research techniques

a. Closely relates to our project - to include personal framing experiences and interviews.

b. Course coordinators (David + Rolee) are supportive. To carry out theory mapping and essay structure planning

5. Bi-weekly meeting with David and Rolee

a. Consider making it a publishable article

What did we learn?

● Some individuals feel the need to be in control / in charge especially when this is a normal role for them. This can create innate conflict or a ‘messy’ situation. This creates the need for ‘boundaries’ for these individuals.

● Facilitation workshops can create space for quieter voices to be heard.

● When we have joint ownership of a ‘brand’ there needs to be a system for ensuring events associated with it are ‘on brand’

● Given the timescale of our academic research, relating it to literature at this stage is difficult. And auto-ethnographic approach can provide more interesting and useful insights.

● Patience

● Delegation is vital for getting things done

How does it relate to our theories?

● Relating our existing research to:

○ Self-organization and self-governance

○ Insurgent placemaking (claimed/invented and invited spaces)

○ Intentional communities

To do’s until next time

● Ask Brita about conflict-management workshop - Fabi

○ See if students on 15-credit course would be interested

● Have theory-domain mapping session- All

● Laura contacts Kristian Mjoen the leader of the FN center of the TRD municipality, and Bert who made the video of Romolslia fieldwork - Laura

● Apply for funding 5000 kr conflict-management workshop - Laura

● Research Broset - Laura

● Organise relevant theories into folder - Hamish

● Add to questionnaire (google survey)

● Brainstorming about film-storyline / Contact Oda for filming? Add to the storyboard.

Weekly Record Sheet

18th March 2020

What did we do this week? Was it effective?

1. Dealt with internal ‘crisis’ concerning allegations with one of our members. Attended private meetings and a group meeting to agree on an appropriate response as an association.

2. All started writing final report sections

3. Drafting questionnaire for Fargemarka Members

4. Agreed a report structure and broken down sections between us

5. The Coronavirus restrictions have limited our ability to carry out most activities.

a. The site ‘walkaround’ on Saturday and the second part of the NTNU-Live workshop have both been cancelled. It’s unclear how we can maintain engagement and renew the great relationships we made during the first workshop without face-to-face contact. This is something we’re still working on.

b. Appointments got cancelled: meeting with PhD Student of circular economy for possible cooperation.

What did we learn?

● There is a need to distance Fargemarka as an association from some of the actions of individual members where we don’t have proper procedures in place for dealing with them.

● Decision making in time-critical situations is extremely difficult with a consensus-based structure and can result in some acrimony between group members.

● Hard to keep association running in times of crisis.

To do’s until next time

● Complete the questionnaire for Farge members

● Complete the film storyboard

● Need to find a way, how Fargemarka can survive the crisis-period

(From last week)

● Find Brøset contact and discover why it wasn’t taken forward by Kommunen

● All to add proposed questions to questionnaire (google survey)

● Brainstorming about film-storyline / Contact Oda for filming? Add to the storyboard.

● Follow up with Finance on sourcing 5000kr for Gibberish to host conflict management workshop

● Ask Brita about conflict-management workshop - Fabi

○ See if students on 15-credit course would be interested

Weekly Record Sheet

25th March 2020

What did we do this week? Was it effective?

1. We had a film-møte!

a. Agreed on general idea and basic concept together with Oda who is a filmmaker and would be cooperate with us.

b. We are asking members of Fargemarka to cooperate!

2. We created a Google-questionnaire and will send it out to the members as soon as it’s translated into Norwegian

a. We want to get to know motives of members

b. About their housing situation

c. How they define Fargemarka…

3. We agreed on a joined statement in relation to the sexual allegation-cause.

4. We had correspondence with the project “Brøset” in order to have an exchange-meeting soon

What did we learn?

● Difficult to activate members during Corona times…

● It would be important to go on with weekly meetings also in order to correspond to our shared values of a community

To do’s until next time

- Propose agenda for online social meeting on sunday → Laura + Hamish

- Shoot scenes for short film

- Create working groups and delegate tasks

- Arrange online meeting with Brøset Eli

- 2-3 in depth interviews - who and about what?

- Final Report

- Expand and separate out ethnography section (Hamish)

- Review Insurgent Planning section and suggest edits (Hamish)

- Re-write Introduction and split with background (Laura)

● Follow up with Finance on sourcing 5000kr for Gibberish to host conflict management workshop

● Ask Brita about conflict-management workshop - Fabi

○ See if students on 15-credit course would be interested

Weekly Record Sheet

2nd April 2020

What did we do this week? Was it effective?

1. We had a meeting with David to review the draft of our report. We agreed to:

a. Defining our research questions

b. Split Theory and Applications to Fargemarka

c. Finish individual reflections sections (pulling information out of our weekly record sheets)

d. Extend auto-ethnography part

2. Organised first weekly online meeting

a. Opportunity for re-connecting and socialising

b. Reminder of actions from the working groups

c. Discussion of future actions

3. Processed with film-making

a. First site-visit @fargemarka / Location scouting

b. Filming two interviews with members

What did we learn?

● Life is weird but STILL GOING ON

● People have a need for connection during this crisis

● A lack of contact created coordination challenges

To do’s until next time

● Organise interviews for the film:

○ Karin (Fabian)

○ Alise (Hamish)

○ Muslica

○ Line?

○ Alessandro/Palmira/Franzi?

● Interpretive dance day - find a day and send out email to all of Fargemarka

● Report tasks

○ Defining/Brainstorming our research questions (ALL) (within a week)

○ Split Theory and Applications to Fargemarka (ALL). Ensure they are all the correct length.

○ Finish intro (Laura)

○ Finish individual reflections sections (pulling information out of our weekly record sheets) (ALL)

■ Your background and who you are

■ Your beliefs around housing and community

■ Your role in Fargemarka and long-term vision for involvement

■ Whether it operates as you expected

■ Challenges you identified in the project…

○ Extend auto-ethnography theory part (HAMISH)

○ Write a paragraph on the outcomes of the survey (FABI)

■ Sending out mail again!!

○ Send updated report structure and research questions to David

Weekly Record Sheet

15th April 2020

What did we do this week?

● Film interviews - still on-going

● Theory and Applications split

● Intro finished (Laura)

To do’s until next time

● We are writing a report!

● Scheduling film_interviews (FABI shouts out to ppl)

○ Norwegian older people

● Finish splitting theory and applications (FABI)

● Review reflections section (Fabi)

● Small paragraph about muslica explanation (5/6sentences for back of first page)

● Finish auto-ethnography section (Hamish)

● Organise background section (Laura)

○ Review intro and background section (Hamish)

● Continue writing survey summary (Hamish)