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

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

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.