U3 i Quaderni #13

i QUADERNI #13 maggio_agosto 2017 numero tredici anno cinque

URBANISTICA tre giornale on-line di urbanistica ISSN:

2531-7091

Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee Anti-gentrification in (Southern) European cities Edited by Sandra Annunziata Commentary by Loretta Lees

• Tonia Katerini | • Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo | • Left Hand Rotation | • Agustin Cocola-Gant & Daniel Pardo, ABTS |

• Dimitra Satitsa & Sandra Annunziata | • Andrej Holm | • Daniel Sorando | • Margherita Grazioli & Carlotta Caciagli |

1

• Mara Ferreri | • Thomas Maloutas | • Pietro Saitta | • Lidia Manzo |

giornale on-line di urbanistica journal of urban design and planning ISSN: 2531-7091

Comitato di redazione Editor: Giorgio Piccinato Editor in chief: Nicola Vazzoler Secretary: Francesca Porcari Editorial staff: Simone Ombuen, Anna Laura Palazzo, Lucia Nucci iQuaderni: Elisabetta Capelli, Sara Caramaschi, Lorenzo Barbieri Rubriche: Flavio Graviglia Social e comunicazione: Viviana Andriola, Domenica Bona Graphic design: Janet Hetman Comitato scientifico Thomas Angotti, City University of New York Oriol Nel·lo i Colom, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Carlo Donolo, Università La Sapienza Valter Fabietti, Università di Chieti-Pescara Max Welch Guerra, Bauhaus-Universität Weimar Michael Hebbert, University College London Daniel Modigliani, Istituto Nazionale di Urbanistica Luiz Cesar de Queiroz Ribeiro, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Vieri Quilici, Università Roma Tre Christian Topalov, École des hautes études en sciences sociales Rui Manuel Trindade Braz Afonso, Universidade do Porto

http://www.urbanisticatre.uniroma3.it/dipsu/ ISSN 2531-7091

La qualità scientifica del Quaderno è garantita da una procedura di peer review ad opera di qualificati referees anonimi esterni.

Progetto grafico / Nicola Vazzoler Impaginazione / Giulio Cuccurullo Data di pubblicazione: Roma, dicembre 2017 In copertina: illustrazione ad opera dell’artista Antonia Santolaya, approfondisci il progetto grafico del numero a p. 131 edito da

con il supporto di

per informazioni

ROMA

TRE

2

UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

#13

maggio_agosto 2017 numero tredici anno cinque may_august 2017 issue thirteen year five

in questo numero in this issue Tema/Topic >

Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee

Anti-gentrification in (Southern) European cities a cura di / edited by Sandra Annunziata

Sandra Annunziata_p. 5 Anti-gentrification, an anti-displacement urban (political) agenda

Anti-gentrification, un’agenda (politica) urbana anti-espulsione

Prima Parte/First Part > Le esperienze degli attivisti/The experience of activists Tonia Katerini_p. 17 The grabbing of private property and the struggle against auctions in Greece

L’esproprio della proprietà privata e la lotta contro le aste in Grecia

La Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo_p. 25 Pratiche di resistenza a scala di quartiere.

La Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo

Practices of resistance at neighbourhood scale.

The case of Libera Repubblica of San Lorenzo

Left Hand Rotation_p. 33 La práctica visual como táctica contra-narrativa de la gentrificación

Visual practices as counter-narrative to gentrification

Agustin Cocola-Gant & Daniel Pardo, ABTS_p. 39

Resisting tourism gentrification: the experience of grassroots movements in Barcelona

Resistere alla gentrification turistica: le esperienze dei movimenti urbani a Barcellona

3

Seconda Parte/Second Part > Tra attivismo, analisi delle politiche e ricerca/ Between activism, policy analysis and research Dimitra Satitsa & Sandra Annunziata_p. 51 Attempts to prevent displacement: housing policies in time of austerity in Athens and Rome

Tentativi di prevenzione all’espulsione: politiche abitative in tempi di austerità ad Atene e Roma

Andrej Holm_p. 63 Berlin: anti-gentrification between protest and program

Berlino: anti-gentrification tra protesta e programma

Daniel Sorando_p. 71 El estallido de las Resistencias contra la gentrification en España

The outbreak of resistances against gentrification in Spain

Margherita Grazioli & Carlotta Caciagli_p. 79 The right to (stay put in) the city: il caso di Porto Fluviale a Roma

The right to (stay put in) the city: the case of Porto Fluviale in Rome

Terza Parte/Third Part > Nodi teorici ed epistemologici/Theoretical and epistemological challenges Mara Ferreri _p. 89 Beyond ‘Staying put’: reflections on discursive strategies in recent anti-gentrification movements

Oltre lo slogan ‘Staying put’: riflessioni sulle strategie discorsive di recenti movimenti anti-gentrification

Thomas Maloutas _p. 95 Gentrification and the barriers to its global reach. A short commentary

Gentrification e i limiti alla sua espansione globale. Un breve commento

Pietro Saitta_p. 103 Gentrification o speculazione? Note analitiche sugli abusi di un termine

Gentrification or Speculation? Analytical notes on the misuses of a concept

Lidia Manzo_p. 111 Resistances to gentrification: the case for diversity

Resistenze alla gentrification: note sulla diversità

Commento/Commentary > Loretta Lees _p. 121 Resisting gentrification in (Southern) European cities

Resistenze ai processi di gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee Apparati/Others >

Profilo autori/Authors bio p. 126 Parole chiave/Keywords p. 130

4

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Anti-gentrification, an anti-displacement urban (political) agenda Anti-gentrification, ovvero una agenda (politica) urbana anti-esplusione A cura di / Edited by Sandra Annunziata,

Honorary Research Fellow, Department of geography, University of Leicester, UK

This edition of the Quaderni focuses on anti-gentrification practices and challenges which have been on the rise in public debates in many cities of the European South in recent years. It presents a variety of practices carried out in several European cities and presented by activists and/or by academics who met and engaged in a collective dialogue on the topic1. In the first part of the Quaderni, activists highlight their experience of involvement in practices against evictions, austerity, commodification of urban space for touristic uses and speculation in various cities. In particular, they were asked to share2, their experience, repertoire of practices and proposals for action. In the second part of the issue, scholars stress the theoretical epistemological challenges, spotlight the ambiguities, contradictions and conflicts that this subject presents. In some cases, the researchers locate themselves halfway between academia and activism, critically engaging in conversation with activists, or directly involved in housing protest and/or alternative housing policy design. The result is a polysemy of voices, a collective effort, that enrich our understanding of what it means to resist gentrification.

The noun anti-gentrification is here employed with different aims, as a general framework for describing the complex regime of expulsions taking place in European cities. This enables the authors to consider as anti-gentrification a broad range of different practices of resistances all sharing a common claim: the permanent access to urban space (and housing) for vulnerable and precarious social groups and communities, which would otherwise be expelled by (hard and soft) processes of urban transformation. This framework also substantiates the exercise of prefiguration, imagination and enactment of practical actions aimed at countervailing displacement and placing social solidarity at the centre of the urban agenda.

I must mention three distinctive traits pertaining to the line of research from which this issue of the Quaderni stem from3. The first aspect is that this work is aligned with a radical critical approach to gentrification, which assumes from the beginning the perspective of those being excluded and marginalized. I follow Marcuse in his claim: “If the pain of displacement is not a central component of what we are dealing with in studying gentrification - indeed, is not what brings us to the subject in the first place - we are not just missing one factor in a multi-factorial equation; we are missing the central point that needs to be addressed.” (2010: 187). The second aspect is that I deliberately assume a position that lies in-between a particularistic approach to the study of the phenomena, that focuses on the specificities of each context

5

1_ The authors of the essays

took part in the workshop “Stay Put, a transnational dialogue for the creation of an anti-gentrification manual for South European cities” at the University of Roma Tre, Architecture Department, October 26-27 2016. I asked an additional paper to Andrej Holm due to his long lasting experience in anti-gentrification practices and housing policies in Berlin.

2_ All the papers of this journal have been subject to a blind peer review, however the activists paper are here presented without any claim of meeting academic paper standards.

3_ I am referring to the comparative research project Anti-gentrification policies and practices in Sothern European Cities. supported by a European Marie Curie IEF FP7-People-2013, grant id. 625691, and developed by the author in collaboration with Professor Loretta Lees at the University of Leicester.

(Maloutas 2017) and a universalistic approach based on a critical understanding of the political economy of housing, with a tendency to extract and spotlight the regularities and the proportions that the phenomenon has assumed on a global scale (Lees et all 2015, 2016). The third aspect worth mentioning is that I choose to explore the anti-gentrification discourse and practices within a specific geographical context, the European cities, and in a specific time, the years that followed the economic crisis. European cities, particularly in the European south, display a complex regime of expulsion, that is legitimized and justified by a permanent austerity climate, as well as the rise of anti-displacement practices and discourses with explicit or implicit reference to gentrification processes (Annunziata and Lees, 2016). I thus deliberatively choose to add the reformist echoes of housing policies in Berlin (described by Holm) and anti-gentrification practices in London (in Ferreri) as a way to strengthen by contrast the singularity of the anti-gentrification discourse in Southern Europe.

Critical accounts to the process of gentrification have already highlighted the fact that to deal with this phenomenon equals examining its effects, namely the urban expulsion of fragile, vulnerable and low-income social groups.

The terms of the anti-gentrification discourse and practices can be referred mainly to: a demand for prevention and, where necessary, for countering urban expulsion in all its forms – direct, indirect, exclusive (Marcuse 1985a) and symbolic (Janovshka 2016); the demand for possibly long-term and sustainable rents (Newman and Wyly 2006; Hartman 1984); an indiscriminate opportunity for all citizens to benefit from public urban assets. For a long time however, practices of resistance and alternatives have occupied a marginal space in the literature on gentrification. Lees and Ferreri (2016), starting from a set of anti-gentrification struggle in London, have updated the debate deepening our knowledge of the repertoire of practices and skills set in motion to counter the process of displacement.

Housing scholars argued that Southern and Northern European cities in some cases have displayed a set of ‘endogenous factors’ that have represented elements of inertia for gentrification processes, the so called gentrification barriers (Ley and Dobson 2008; see also Maloutas on Athens, Holm on Berlin and Sornado on Madrid in this issue). Among these barriers we can recognize: a relatively affordable housing system such as in the case of Berlin; the presence of public housing in central areas as well as rent regulations still in place, for instance in the historical centre of Madrid; the diffusion and the fragmentation of property all seen as factors of inertia to large development project. Moreover, it is also important to mention that in many South European cities the historically determined relation between social groups and urban space has led to a low level of residential segregation or to types of vertical segregation that intensify social diversity in urban areas (Barbati and Pisati 2015 for Italy, Leal 2010 for Spain, Maloutas and Karadimitriu 2001 for Greece).

Because of these factors, gentrification outside the paradigmatic cases in the

6

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

European North (such as London) initially presented itself at a slow pace and in a hybrid form, combined with other traits of urban change and described as gentrification-like processes (Janoschka et all 2014). However, urban policies in the last decades played an important role in boosting a process where it barely existed. Gentrification practices in South European cities have been described in relation to tourism development policies (Cocola Gant 2014); urban regeneration schemes that implies demolition of entire neighbourhoods (Arbaci, Tapada 2012, Dalgado 2011 and Portelli 2015 for Barcelona); redesign of public space and commercial plans implemented with the aim of enhancing central areas and related consumer practices (Janoschka and Sequera, 2015 for Madrid; Alexandri 2015 for Athens); sale policy of public housing in city centre (Herzfeld 2009).

Moreover, after the burst of the global financial crisis, European cities have been the epicentre of public debt crisis and have been transformed into experimental zones for testing forms of acute economic austerity that in turn have produced a set of necessary justifications for strengthening predatory practices of dispossession. This process is carried out through land-grabbing, privatizations, placement of collective and private assets on the financial market also by scaling up gentrification operators such as real estate funds and global corporations (Alexandri and Janoschka 2017). In this climate, the antibodies to gentrification are themselves at risk of being expelled: social centres, housing occupations and all those contexts that have traditionally nourished alternatives to the commodification of urban space and housing (Cattaneo and Martìnes 2016) have been evicted or are under eviction themselves. Consequently, the topic is at the centre of public debate, making it possible to question the specific responsibilities of policy decisions4.

At the political heart of these considerations lies the fact that during the most acute phases of the gentrification processes, preventive measures have already failed and have proved to be inadequate. Policies designed to reinstate a balance between different groups living in a city would require huge collective effort, high levels of social solidarity and the implementation of highly unpopular measures for mitigating and regulating the market. However, after decades of disappearance from blind neoliberal political agendas, an orientation toward progressive housing policies is (timidly) arising as testified by the case of Berlin in this issue.

The anti-displacement paradigm is in fact not new in the field of progressive planning and housing policies and gentrification study (here the reference is owned to American scholars Marcuse 1985a, b and Hartman 1984). In 1984 Chester Hartman summed up with the slogan ‘the right to stay put’ a set of practices and policies for guaranteeing long-term enjoyment of housing for vulnerable social classes, one-parent households, single persons and ethnic minorities. For Hartman however the slogan ‘stay put’, a key word in the anti-gentrification discourse, is something more than ‘to stay still in a place and 4_ See the Guardian on the “What is your city doing resist expulsion’. A translation (e.g into Italian) of the expression conveys a topic to resist gentrification?” sense of ‘being aware’, of observation and of critical interpretation of what is https://www.theguardian. com/cities/2016/sep/9/city-resist-gentrification-displacement.

7

happening in our surroundings. This slogan reinforces the concept that resistance does not imply stillness, on the contrary, it evokes action intentionally directed and the exercise of prefiguring a change (Saitta, 2015).

However, placed in the grip of unpopularity, anti-gentrification measures are destined to occupy the political space of radical incrementalism, a practice able to correct the targets and the main flaws in a system without however questioning its foundations 5. On the contrary, the theoretical corpus of Hartman’s progressive planning is built on active prevention of displacement, on the de-commodification of urban assets and on the right to use and access urban space. The handbook Displacemnt how to fight it? (Hartman, Keating and LeGates, 1982) outlines a set of actions to be carried out with the aim of blocking expulsion. The proposals for community based development presented in this text are valid assumptions still today: avoid demolition and privatization of public residential housing; build campaigns to raise awareness about speculative developments and capital-intensive projects (see Saitta for a critical account on the difference between gentrification and speculation); limit the change of use of property respecting neighbourhood’s social composition; establish eviction-free zones and design alternative projects for urban regeneration. The papers in this issue comment several action in this sense: the referendum for a rent legislative proposal in Berlin (Holm), critically evaluate land use changes as for the case of the Stop Hotel in Madrid Lavapiés (Sorando), measures for mitigating tourism and for preserving low-income housing especially in historical city centres (Cocola Gant and Assemblea de Barris per un Turisme Sostenible), The validity of this approach is also proven by the housing agenda presented by many anti-eviction platforms throughout Europe (Colau and Alemanì 2012; Osservatorio DESC 2013; European Action Coalition 2015) and by the repertoire of actions carried out by committees of citizens campaigning against the demolitions of council estate in London (see Ferreri commenting the realization of the Handbook Staying Put: An Anti-gentrification handbook for council estates in London, in this issue), or against demolition of historical buildings in Rome (Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo in this issue).

5_

This thesis is presented in Gallaher, 2015, who studied the conversion from lease agreements to ownership.

According to Gallaher the practice of condo conversion contributes to the increase of opportunities for tenants to stay in their neighbourhoods.

The text does not, however, focus on the issue of who can not afford ownership or who choses not to.

A critical revision of the gentrification resistance practices (Annunziata and Rivas 2016) has enabled us to identify some of the recurring traits and skills placed at the core of a specific request for prevention (in the form of legislative reform of rent laws, new generation of public housing and housing allowances) as well as a heterogeneous set of practices and legal bricolage aimed at gaining time, or counter narratives that elaborate counterproposal against mainstream regeneration culture (see Left Hand Rotation in this issue). The common denominator of these practices seems to build awareness, an internationally and overtly oriented effort to stay put that strategically mobilizes visibility. However, in the current situation this is not the only form of resistance to processes of expulsion. In fact, a strategy of invisibility is equally plausible; informal practices in search of informal support networks are the most frequent practices of survival and everyday life resistance to the acuteness of processes of dispossession and destitution (Lees,

8

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Annunziata and Rivas, 2017). From this perspective, a theory of resistances to gentrification can benefit from new studies considering the anti-displacement issue by examining not only cases of collective action but also the micro scale of everyday life and of practice of resistance that critically engage with diversity in gentrifying neighbourhoods (Manzo in this issue) and the formation of identities in postmodern society. We are all, no one excluded, involved. The question of what we can do about the phenomena concerns us more than we may realize.

Today increase of urban displacement due to the economic crisis, the emergence of a (new) housing crisis represent a turning point in the critical analysis of the phenomenon as well as in practices that mitigate it. It is not a coincidence that in the anti-eviction discourse, the topic of how to contrast displacement is central to practices of civil disobedience such as the anti-austerity and anti-auction movements in Greece (described by Katerini in this issue) the housing squatting movement in Rome (Caciagli and Grazioli in this issue). The prevention of homelessness is at the centre of measures implemented by the EU with the aim to combat poverty (European Commission 2015) and by cities dealing with old and new housing emergencies (Annunziata and Siatitsa on Rome and Athens in this issue).

Gentrifying urban spaces in European cities thus represent dynamic fields where new proposals for action can flourish. They are ‘political’ spaces where a constant renegotiation of social and spatial rights is at play. However, despite the effort to appear coherent and with a united agenda at the European level, anti-displacement practices are highly differentiated in their conceptualization of the problem as well as in their repertoire of actions.

The framework provided by this special issue of Quaderni allows us to consider them together and to assess their potential to define the contents of a possible anti-displacement agenda tailored to the situations of emergency in the cities we inhabit.

9

references Alexandri G. e Janovska M. 2017, “Who Loses and Who Wins in a Housing Crisis?

Lessons From Spain and Greece for a Nuanced Understanding of Dispossession” Housing Policy Debate, DOI:10.1080/10511482.2017.1324891 Alexandri G. 2015, “Unraveling the yarn of gentrification trends in the contested inner city of Athens” in Global Gentrifications op cit.

Annunziata, S. e Lees, L. 2016, Resisting austerity gentrification in Southern European cities, Sociological Research Online, vol.21, no.3, pp.5-10 Annunziata, S. e Rivas-Alonso, C. (in press) “Resisting Gentrification”, in L. Lees and M. Phillips (eds) The Handbook of Gentrification Studies, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Arbaci S e Tapada-Berteli T. 2012, “Social inequality and urban regeneration in Barcelona city centre: reconsidering success”, European Urban and Regional Studies vol.19, no. 3, pp. 287-311.

Barbagli M, e Pisati 2013, Dentro e fuori le mura. Città e gruppi sociali dal 1400 a oggi, Il Mulino, Bologna.

Cocola Gant A. 2016, “Holiday Rentals: The New Gentrification Battlefront”, Sociological Research Online, vol.21, no. 3, pp. 10-15 Colau A. e Alemany A. 2012, Vidas Hipotecadas, de la burbuja inmobiliaria al derecho a la vivienda, consultato a Maggio 2017 http://afectadosporlahipoteca. com/2012/12/10/vidas-hipotecadas-descarga-libro-plataforma-afectados-hipoteca/ Commissione Europea 2016, “Promoting protection of the right to housing.

Homelessness prevention in the context of evictions” Office of the European Union, Luxemburg.

Delgado, M. 2011, Violenza urbana e Violenza urbanistica a Barcellona, in Palidda S. (ed) Città Mediterranea e Deriva Liberista, Mesogea, Messina.

10

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

European Action Coalition 2015, Resisting Eviction Across Europe, consultato a Maggio 2017 sitohttps://housingnotprofit.org/files/EvictionsAcrossEurope.pdf Gallaher, C. 2016, The politics of Staying Put, Condo Conversion and Tenants Right to Buy in Washington DC. Temple university press, Philadelphia.

Hartman, C. 1984, ‘The right to stay put’ in C. Geisler and F. Popper (eds) Land Reform, American Style Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, NJ, pp.302-318.

Hartman, C. Keating D. e LeGates R. 1982, Displacement: How to Fight It, National Housing Law Project, Washington DC. Herzfeld M. 2009, Evicted from Eternity. The Restructuring of Modern Rome University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Janoschka, M. 2016, “Gentrification Displacement Dispossession: Key Urban Processes Within the Latin American Context”, INVI, vol. 3, n.88, pp. 17–58.

Janoschka M., Sequera J. e Salinas L. 2014, “Gentrification in Spain and Latin America? a Critical Dialogue”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 1234-1265.

Leal J.M. 2010 (ed), La politica de vivienda en Espana, Pablo Iglesias, Madrid.

Less L., Annunziata S., Rivas C. 2017, Resisting Planetary Gentrification: the value of survivability in the fight to stay put, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1365587 Lees L., e Ferreri, M. 2016, “Resisting gentrification on its final frontiers: Learning from the Heygate Estate in London (1974–2013)”, Cities, vol.57, pp.14–24 Lees, L., Shin, H. e Lopez-Morales, E. 2016, Planetary gentrification. Polity Press, Cambridge Lees L., Shin H., e Lopez-Morales E. (eds) 2015, Global Gentrifications: uneven development and displacement Policy Press, Bristol.

Ley, D. eDobson, C. 2008, “Are there limits to gentrification? The contexts of impeded gentrification in Vancouver”, Urban Studies, vol.45, no.12, pp.2471–2498.

Maloutas T. 2017, “Travelling concepts and universal particularisms: A reappraisal of gentrification’s global reach”, European Urban and Regional Studies, DOI: 10.1177/0969776417709547 Maloutas T. e Karadimitriu N. 2001, Vertical social differentiation in Athens: alternative or complement to community segregation?”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research vol.25, no.4, pp. 699-716.

Marcuse, P. 2010, “A note from Peter Marcuse”, City, vol.14, no.1-2, pp. 187–188.

Marcuse P. 1985a, “Gentrification, abandonment and displacement: connection, causes and policies responses in New York City”, Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law, vol.28, no.1–4, pp. 195–240.

Marcuse, P. 1985b, To Control Gentrification: Anti-Displacement Zoning and Planning for Stable Residential Districts, New York University Review of Law & Social Change, vol.13, no.4, pp.931–952.

Martínez, M. e Cattaneo P. (eds) 2016, The Squatters Movement in Europe, Commons and Autonomy as alternatives to capitalism, Squatting Europe Collective. Pluto Press, London.

Newman, K. e Wyly E. 2006, “The right to stay put, revisited: gentrification and resistance to displacement in New York City”, Urban Studies, vol.43, no.1, pp. 23-57.

Observatorio DESC, Plataforma de Afectados por la Hipoteca 2013, Emergencia habitacional en el estado español, Barcelona. Consultato in Maggio 2017 http:// afectadosporlahipoteca.com/2013/12/17/informe-emergencia-habitacional/ Portelli, S. 2015, La ciudad horizontal. Urbanismo y resistencia en un barrio de casas baratas de Barcelona. Ediciones Bellaterra, Barcelona.

Saitta, P. 2015, Resistenze. Pratiche ai margini del conflitto quotidiano. Ombre Corte, Verona.

Sequera J. e Janoschka M. 2015, “Gentrification dispositive in the city center of Madrid”, in Global Gentrifications op cit.

11

Particolare del progetto grafico a cura di Antonia Santolaya pubblicato a p. 131

12

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Anti-gentrification nelle cittĂ (Sud) Europee

Anti-gentrification in (Southern) European cities

>

13

Particolare del progetto grafico a cura di Antonia Santolaya pubblicato a p. 131

14

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Le esperienze degli attivisti

The experience of activists

>

15

Particolare del progetto grafico a cura di Antonia Santolaya pubblicato a p. 131

16

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

The grabbing of private property and the struggle against auctions in Greece today L’esproprio della proprietà privata e la lotta contro le aste in Grecia

Con questo contributo provo a descrivere un’esperienza di attivismo nata in Grecia negli anni recenti in cui sono direttamente coinvolta. In particolare mi concentrerò sul movimento anti-aste che è cresciuto in seguito alla crisi economica in risposta ad un processo diffuso di pignoramento di terre e beni di proprietà pubblica e privata a causa di debiti contratti con istituti di credito. Il pignoramento si presenta in Grecia come una pratica orizzontale di espropriazione che verrà descritta come una strategia di accumulazione che trova giustificazione nel discorso sull’austerità.

Introduction This paper concerns the issue of indebtedness in Greece and the related anti-auction movement.

In recent years the country has been hit by four memorandums – or government bailouts – and a programme of austerity has ensued. This precarious and unstable situation has given rise to a diverse opposition movement, including groups opposed to the auction of properties. I am an activist belonging to this opposition movement and by writing this paper I seek to share my own personal experience of the challenge we face in Greece. I also Tonia Katerini > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > The grabbing of private property and the struggle against auctions in Greece today 17

@ Tonia Katerini |

explain how we (as a movement) frame the relationship between housing and debt as a process which seizes land and property, as well as how we challenge this practice. During the last six years the Greek population has been confronted by a widespread process of property repossession which, in more general terms, equates to the seizure of both public and private (which this paper is particularly concerned about) land and property.

The name of the movement that I am part of is “plestiriasmi-stop”. This organisation is firmly opposed to the repossession of private property and related auction in courts. In this paper I argue that the opposition movement makes an important contribution by facilitating public debate about the protection of homeownership, particularly as a fundamental human right within a property-owning society. Moreover, opposition groups provide support to those suffering from debt and demand that their debts be cancelled. This acts as a form of opposition to the post-neoliberal practice of using debt as a means of controlling people.

Housing and indebtedness in Greece Access to housing: from family savings to forced indebtedness Homeownership has a strong tradition in Greece. Historically, access to housing was relatively easy: family savings were invested in a construction sector that was extremely informal and comprised of small, family-owned building companies. The traditional Greek housing system enabled people to pay for and build their own homes which secured access to private property for a significant number of Greeks, as well as immigrants. Furthermore, this system compensated for (and/or justified) an almost complete lack of social housing, as well as the economic insecurity faced by many people due to unstable economic conditions. Significantly, since historically the prices of land and buildings were relatively stable or increasing, the act of investing family savings into one or more houses was considered a form of social security.

However, during the 1990’s the traditional Greek housing system was transformed. Prior to this period only a very small minority of Greek people were aware of loans and so-called ‘plastic’ money (the credit card). This changed in the 1990’s when people started to take out loans. In this regard, Greeks were won over by the aggressive marketing campaigns of banks. As a result, house prices rose and the profit made by banks increased from 20% in 1990, to 60% in 2000 and as high as 200% after Greece hosted the Olympic Games in 2004. Before the start of the crisis in 2009, a significant number of citizens were finding it extremely difficult to access the housing market without borrowing money. This left thousands of people with no choice but to enter the precarious state of indebtedness.

Implementation of austerity measures and the production of debt The austerity policies imposed in Greece over recent years have severely impacted house prices. These policies have also indirectly contributed to a sharp increase in the number of indebted households (from 5% of all households in 2010 to 52% today). Another consequence of austerity is that a significant number of households became reliant on borrowed money to survive but consequently became over-indebted (and therefore they were unable to pay-off the debt). This had a direct impact on the economic stabi-

18

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

lity of the banking sector and provided justification for the current process of property seizure. Such a process can be seen as a corrupted form of wealth redistribution. In this sense, the financial wealth gained by the middle and lower middle classes in the last half of the twentieth-century has been snatched by financial institutions and powerful economic elites. Put simply, those in the upper echelons of the economy exploited the people and took advantage of the ‘poor’ profitability during the financial crisis. This process of exploitation was achieved through the implementation of legislative tools and austerity policies which took several forms and are highlighted below: 1.

Tactics of manipulation through deleveraging. In this regard, banks which in the previous twenty years had promoted and offered all sorts of loans and ‘plastic’ money - thus inciting increased expectations of high living standards - asked for their money back to cover their capital deficiencies. This happened during a period in which property prices were falling. The result was negative equity between outstanding debts and the value of properties during a period in which austerity measures had already impacted personal incomes. This challenging situation made it impossible for many people to pay back their loans which in turn (after two months of non-payment) became “RED” ( non-performing loans).

2.

Introduction of a horizontal (direct and indirect) tax regime. The tax regime introduced as part of the first Greek bailout package had a direct impact on the cost of living as well as housing costs. Particularly damaging was the severe increase in VAT (value-added tax), which was even imposed on essential goods. In addition, this regime introduced indirect taxes on all private properties, even if the owners made no profit from them. The new system also ignored the market value of properties after the crisis. This led to horizontal private debts for the majority of citizens who found themselves without a job yet paying a mortgage.

3.

A new legislative framework for the management of non-performing loans and the auctions of private property. This caused indebted people to fall into extreme poverty when deciding to give priority to loan repayments.

4.

Conversion of the insurance system into a new taxation system without the appropriate reforms, which resulted in the loss of the reciprocity character that the system used to have.

The combination of these practices and legislative tools gave rise to the idea that indebted homeowners were the people who would pay for the financial crisis, thus leading to the seizure of properties. The impacts of this were not only significant socially – such as the increase in the number of working poor – but also in terms of the long-term effects on the housing system (mainly based on homeownership) and on land-use policies related to the organisation and transformation of the built environment. In a country such as Greece, which has a highly-dispersed population and fragmented ownership of the land, the tendency to centralise significant investments in large projects can definitely benefit from the concentration of property, land and critical public assets under one unified ownership authority.

Tonia Katerini > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > The grabbing of private property and the struggle against auctions in Greece today 19

20

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Fig.1_ Leaflet produced by The birth of an anti-auction movement Prior to the implementation of the second Greek bailout package private the anti-auction movement. property was protected against debt-induced repossession by a law which was ratified in 2009. The law included three factors which established the conditions for whether a property could be seized: the income of the family, the amount of debt owed and the value of the property. Through this law around 90% of homeowners were protected. However, towards the end of 2013 this piece of legislation was repealed. The risk of people losing their home (and in some cases second home) triggered the growth of a large anti-auction movement. Consequently, in 2013 we started a public debate regarding this reform, organised assemblies and prepared people for the implementation of the new law. Our first step was the production of a 25-page leaflet containing vast amounts of information about debt; the policies of banks operating at a national and international level; the context in which the debt was created in the first place; and international action taken against bank repossessions and consequent evictions – particularly in the context of Spain which was already facing a similar problem to that of Greece.

From the beginning, our main purpose was to challenge and reverse the dominant idea that those suffering a heavy debt burden were personally responsible for their perilous situation and that consequently there was no need for a law protecting private property. In this regard, we made a small brochure called “Answers to the Seven Most Frequently Asked Questions About Debt”. The brochure tried to subvert the main arguments concerning the banks, public interest and their connections with mortgage repayments.

At the same time, we contacted all of the other opposition groups in Athens.

This included collectives such as neighbourhood assemblies and solidarity initiatives which had proliferated after the crisis (Arampazi 2016). The intention was to create an alliance with a broad enough scope capable of challenging property seizures. This marked the beginning of the Stop Repossessions network which encompasses more than 40 different groups from across Greece (http://pleistiriasmoistop.blogspot.gr/).

As well as deconstructing the main narrative about indebtedness, we continue to offer legal support to those in need and organise meetings and demonstrations in different neighbourhoods and cities to give voice to the problem. However, the most effective form of action has been to challenge auctions directly in the courts. This has, since the beginning of our work, been a weekly intervention performed directly in courts in which auctions were taking place. In this sense, we are trying to stop the auction process by using our bodies (by being physically present in court), making noise, making videos, as well as picketing. Throughout these years we have managed to stop thousands of auctions. The movement has discussed many things (and is still discussing them) concerning the best means of action, types of interventions, the auctions which we should stop and the auctions which we should allow to go on (for example, in the cases of auction of companies which owe money to their workers we decided not to intervene). Because our actions occur directly in the courts we have not faced eviction and we have not engaged in anti-eviction resistance. Evictions are more common for tenants. Unfortunately, tenants are poorly organised in Greece and in general they do not resist evictions. Typically, they ask for more time to pay their outstanding rent or for support in moving out. Although the government is promising a form of protection for homeowners, recent research from the Tonia Katerini > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > The grabbing of private property and the struggle against auctions in Greece today 21

Bank of Greece on the housing problem reveals that more than 900,000 families are at risk of homelessness due to ‘red’ loans, rent arrears and inadequate housing conditions.

In the years which followed the crisis other groups concerned about housing emerged. These organisations have a range of political approaches and the ways in which they assist indebted people varies. Their policies differ from class-oriented approaches which focus on the protection of the main family home of the poorest people in society, while others seek to protect all homeowners. The latter is our approach. We feel that we should not allow any auctions because this has led to the seizure of many Greek properties and the majority of Greek family homes by foreign capital.

In 2014 and 2015 an informal agreement between the Greek government and the banks established a form of suspension of repossessions concerning all ‘first’ homes (in other words, the house in which the individual or family is living in as their main home). However, at the end of 2015 this agreement ended. Currently, the only tool that Greeks have to protect the homes in which they live in is by going to the courts and following the procedures of the so-called ‘Personal Bankruptcy Law’ (law 3896/2010 that has since been revised by law 4316/2015) and asking the court for protection. As part of this process the court asks the household to allocate a significant part of the income towards covering living costs. The rest of their money and property assets go towards the repayment of the debt. This is, of course, a useful tool for many families. However, a significant number of people cannot access this protection for a number of reasons: i) the financial cost of appealing to the court; ii) the long and bureaucratic process; iii) the severe psychological distress associated with potentially losing your home. In this sense, it is a process which is extremely difficult to access for people lacking money. Furthermore, as part of this law, even if an individual does manage to protect their first home they are still at risk of losing other properties which may be an essential part of their life (for example, a holiday home or a family home that is rented out to boost a pension pot; a house passed on by grandparents to their grandchildren for them to live in; a store in which someone works in etc.).

The situation today As mentioned above, the opposition movement has been relatively successful. However, our struggle against what we call a “ generalized process of property grabbing” has not ended and the problem is far from being solved.

The number of indebted people is growing (there has been a 13% increase in the past year) and we lack proper legislation to address the needs of Greek society – a community so crippled by austerity policies that families can rarely generate any surplus capital to pay back the debts which they owe. The Troika and other related international institutions have pressed the Greek government to find a way of stopping the anti-auction movement. Without property seizures – which effectively consists of taking property from individuals and giving it to financial institutions – the entire repossession plan fails. The Greek government tried to intimidate the opposition movement with the police and by arresting activists and sending them to court. This, however, did not stop us.

22

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

It is not a coincidence that a requirement of the latest Greek memorandum of May 2017 declared that the government should implement a new auction process. In this sense, instead of a public auction in court, the new process will be in the form of an electronic auction that will occur directly in the offices of the notaries. This creates a new situation which the movement must challenge and we are urgently trying to ban this top-down procedure. The opposition movement is currently developing ideas about how to tackle this procedural change. Our main argument is that this new method goes against basic human rights since it violates the principle of a transparent public process. We now want to increase our visibility and to include as many people as possible that are at risk of losing their homes.

The opposition movement has also been strengthened through the creation of a broader alliance such as the United Initiative Against Auctions (http:// noauctionsgr.blogspot.gr/). Our narrative and our target audience has been improved and widened by focusing our protest against all those responsible (such as the Greek government, banks, notaries etc.) for this terrible situation. Importantly, we are a member of an international alliance called ‘The European Action Coalition for the Right to Housing and the City’ (https:// housingnotprofit.org/en), and by being internationally connected we are able to share our experience and learn from similar movements from across Europe (see, for instance, our collective work titled Eviction Across Europe, 2015).

Today, more than 30% of Greek citizens are facing extreme poverty and are being deprived of their basic human rights. For many, homeownership is a means of security. Losing a property leads to a “naked life”, as it has been accurately described by Giorgio Agamben. For this reason, the struggle against the seizure of private property is a struggle for social justice, dignity and life.

references Agamben G. 2005, State of Exception, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Arampazi A. 2017, “Contentious Spatialities in an era of austerity: everyday politics and ‘struggle communities’ in Athens, Greece”, Journal Political Geography, DOI 10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.03.010 Lazzarato M. 2012, The making of the indebted man, MIT University Press, Boston.

INE GSEE 2015, “Κοινωνική επισφάλεια και έλλειψη στέγης στην Αθήνα”, Μελέτες (Studies)/ 39 accessed in May 2017 http://ineobservatory.gr/wp-content/ uploads/2015/12/MELETH-39.pdf European Action Coalition for the right to housing 2015, Eviction Across Europe, accessed in May 2017 https://housingnotprofit.org/files/EvictionsAcrossEurope.pdf

web page http://pleistiriasmoistop.blogspot.gr/ http://noauctionsgr.blogspot.gr/)

Tonia Katerini > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > The grabbing of private property and the struggle against auctions in Greece today 23

Particolare del progetto grafico a cura di Antonia Santolaya pubblicato a p. 131

24

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Pratiche a scala di quartiere.

La Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo Practices of resistance at neighbourhood scale. The case of Libera Repubblica of San Lorenzo With this paper as Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo (LRSL), we will present the premises, motivations, and objectives that motivated its origins as an experience of self-government in San Lorenzo, Rome. We will present our engagement in practices of collective knowledge production such as the document “Volontà di sapere” drawn as an alternative response to the current local development plan (Progetto urbano San Lorenzo). The LRSL is, in fact, testimony of a violent, ongoing process of gentrification and displacement of local resident and historical business and a tendency toward the development of luxurious (and for temporary uses) apartments in San Lorenzo, a fraction of the city which is characterized by empty plot of land, ex-industrial and productive sites. The LRSL interpret the current urban policies and transformations as far away from any sort of social and cultural development for the area. What type of regeneration is possible under a regime that eradicate historical site and the materiality of historical memories? We believe that the territorial network of LRSL can be capable to ban and countervail the current trends by networking, valorisation of social practices, affirming the primacy of the common over private interest, claiming democratic public decision of the transformation of the city.

Come Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo accogliamo con gioia questo invito come occasione di scambio e confronto e, ringraziando chi lo ha pensato e desiderato, proviamo a descrivere ciò che ci muove e come ci muoviamo insieme. La LRSL nasce in un quartiere in cui il fenomeno della gentrification opera da molto tempo, con ondate più o meno forti. È una rete, un mondo possibile, un’assemblea di autogoverno che si confronta con i grandi temi urbani, entrando nel merito di ognuno, costruendo pensiero e proposta. Ha un proprio inno e riconosce come sede il Nuovo Cinema Palazzo in Piazza dei Sanniti, occupato pacificamente nel 2011 da una moltitudine resistente al progetto di un Casinò per rivendicare il ripristino della tradizionale vocazione La Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Pratiche a scala di quartiere. La Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo 25

@ La Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo |

# Partecipazione | # Rigenerazione urbana | # Attivismo sociale | # Partecipation | # Urban regeneration | # Social activism |

Fig.1_ Festeggiamento del 25 culturale. Quando nacque nel 2013 la LRSL decise finalmente di percorrere Aprile 2017 in Piazza dei Sanniti, la strada che il quartiere di San Lorenzo indicava, per lavorare finalmente giornata di Liberazione. insieme, in tanti e diversi, sul territorio che in tanti e tante si era contributo a definire. Abbiamo preso molto sul serio le previsioni urbanistiche che ne anticipavano il futuro fisico. Abbiamo preso sul serio gli interventi urbani come le trasformazioni fisiche, anche puntuali, le demolizioni e le nuove costruzioni attuate in assenza di un progetto unitario e condiviso, che sia capace di restituire loro il senso e lo scopo. Abbiamo preso sul serio anche i fenomeni urbani apparentemente orfani, e invece figli di rendita e interesse privato, come l’innalzamento degli affitti dei locali e la sparizione del commercio locale. Abbiamo preso sul serio i movimenti di grandi operatori immobiliari come la ormai privatizzata Cassa Depositi e Prestiti che ha puntato lo sguardo sulla Ex Dogana1 per una sua immediata valorizzazione immobiliare2. Abbiamo preso sul serio l’arroganza degli speculatori che privatizzano spazi di uso collettivo, perfino strade e parchi; che affittano in nero camere sovraffollate agli stessi studenti e migranti che poi denigrano; che preferiscono lasciare in stato di abbandono i loro beni, perché infine ogni proposta sia meglio del niente. Abbiamo preso sul serio l’adozione di delibere in nome della valorizzazione finanziaria che hanno come effetto lo sgombero di quelle associazioni culturali, di volontariato e centri sociali che nel tempo hanno saputo far rivivere negli usi e nelle attività, manutenendolo e migliorandolo, un patrimonio pubblico e privato altrimenti in disuso.

Anche per questi motivi la LRSL si è costituita, rivendicando poteri e auto1_ Per saperne di più si riman- nomia sul proprio territorio. Nella Dichiarazione d’Indipendenza scrive: da agli articoli in bibliografia.

“I cittadini e le cittadine di San Lorenzo, considerando l’incapacità del go2_ Dopo l’uso intensivo per verno e delle istituzioni tutte a difendere i loro diritti, decidono di dichiarare grandi eventi, i locali della in maniera solenne la volontà di sottrarsi al giogo del potere statuale della Ex Dogana, prima pubblici, verranno demoliti per la gran Repubblica Italiana e di proclamarsi Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo”. Infatparte, per ospitare uno stu- ti l’ascolto di chi vive e abita il territorio, a dispetto della eventuale buona dentato privato del gruppo alberghiero olandese https:// www.thestudenthotel.com/

26

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

volontà dell’amministrazione, sembra relegato a sistemi di comunicazione Fig.2_ Vista della voragine poco efficaci. La partecipazione, per come si è definita nel tempo, è relegata nello scavo di Sabelli Trading, ad una mera informazione, a posteriori, delle decisioni sul territorio prese al posto delle Ex Fonderie a monte e altrove. Inoltre, le trasformazioni urbane presenti nel quartiere Bastianelli in via dei Sabelli. testimoniano che le politiche urbane e i dispositivi edilizi attuativi sono pensati per evitare la processualità della pianificazione collocandosi immediatamente nell’azione. Ad esempio il Piano casa appena terminato, perpetrato nel tempo da giunte regionali di tutti i colori, è stato in realtà uno strumento ideato per stimolare un mercato immobiliare privato in difficoltà, senza però considerare utilità e bisogni del territorio e in barba alle progettualità dell’amministrazione stessa.

In questa condizione storica, con un apparato amministrativo debole se non contraddittorio su diversi livelli, le varie anime della LRSL sono, nelle differenze, unite dalla convinzione che l’autogoverno possa essere risposta ai bisogni urbani, sociali, dell’abitare e del vivere in comunità. La consapevolezza, ormai maturata negli anni, è quella di aderire ad un progetto che desidera gestire le risorse presenti sul territorio come Beni comuni, per sottrarle alla speculazione, allo sfruttamento, all’abbandono, e per orientarle invece verso usi benefici e collettivi.

Mai come in questi ultimi anni il quartiere di San Lorenzo è sotto attacco. È al centro delle polemiche urbane su movida e spaccio, mentre vive una stagione di grave pena dal punto di vista della manutenzione e della qualità urbana. In questi tempi la sua natura identitaria, anche fin troppo nostalgica, è giocata in senso reazionario, come ultimo baluardo contro il cambiamento – di qualsiasi segno, in effetti. Da questo punto di vista l’esperienza di contaminazione che il quartiere sperimenta nel quotidiano, lasciandosi attraversare da ingenti flussi legati alla mobilità nella città, costituisce una vera e propria minaccia. Si dimentica invece, selezionando memoria e realtà, che proprio La Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Pratiche a scala di quartiere. La Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo 27

Fig.3_ Vista dall’alto di parte la chiusura geografica del quartiere, stretto tra Università La Sapienza, il Cidella Particella 26 da Via dei mitero del Verano, la ferrovia e le Mura aureliane, ha permesso che si sviVolsci, preziosa area verde luppasse una dimensione urbana minuta, e spazi pubblici ben definiti tali da pubblica ma interclusa e di costituire luoghi di incontro, di lavoro, di studio, anche di conflitto. Dunque fatto privatizzata. La LRSL ne la capacità di contaminarsi, di costituire un riferimento per la città, è l’occavuole fare un parco. sione che ne ha determinato salvezza e riproduzione. Non a caso il quartiere è storicamente connotato come un luogo popolare di resistenza e di lotta, ma anche di sperimentazione culturale, politica e sociale e, soprattutto, di convivenza. In questo solco si possono riconoscere, ad esempio, le esperienze del sindacalismo promosse dai lavoratori di ieri e di oggi; l’esperienza di adattamento del proletariato; l’esperienza internazionalmente riconosciuta della prima scuola di Maria Montessori a Via dei Marsi; l’esperienza traumatica del bombardamento e il riscatto dal nazifascismo; e ancora, l’esperienza delle lotte studentesche, delle donne, dell’associazionismo, dei centri sociali, delle palestre popolari. Nel settantesimo anniversario del bombardamento, il 18-19-20 Luglio 2013, abbiamo voluto segnalare nel quartiere, come segno di riconoscimento, i luoghi dove sono avvenute esperienze significative apponendo targhe parlanti in ceramica.

Certo, l’attualità dei nostri giorni ha visto cambiare molte cose; non il desiderio di discutere, incontrarsi e agire il proprio destino. Lontani dalla pretesa identitaria, quasi diritto di nascita, come premessa alla presa di parola sul quartiere, nell’Assemblea sovrana la LRSL esprime un ricco ventaglio generazionale tra abitanti, cittadini e cittadine, militanti dei centri sociali, genitori e genitrici, studenti e studentesse e molto altro ancora. Si discutono temi, presentando difficoltà e proposte per ogni caso, relativi alla cultura e al divertimento, alla salute e alla produzione. Si è immaginato di costruire una rete di commercianti contraddistinti da un “bollino” che ne attestasse l’attività virtuosa, in cui ad esempio non si praticasse il gioco d’azzardo. E ancora, di trovare il modo di rendere la Repubblica neo costituita libera da

28

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

sfratti, affitto in nero e sfruttamento. Si è proposto poi di mettere mano tutti insieme al Progetto Urbano San Lorenzo che, non ancora approvato dopo 6 anni, avrebbe potuto costituire uno spazio di regolamentazione dell’attività edilizia e di stimolo per la definizione di nuovi spazi verdi attrezzati, di cui il quartiere soffre la mancanza3. Sono nati così i “circoli” tematici: urbanistica e abitare, cultura e welfare, commercio e lavoro, verde e scuola, e infine, democrazia e autorganizzazione della LRSL. A questi gruppi si è affiancato nell’ultimo anno il lavoro del giornalino, La Libera 4, utile supporto fisico alla comunicazione delle tematiche su cui si decide di intervenire. I gruppi si incontrano con cadenza settimanale e ridefiniscono ogni volta gli argomenti da trattare; i report delle discussioni vengono fatti circolare. All’occorrenza, sono state disegnate mappe del quartiere, utili per rendere visibili e orientare le conoscenze di ognuno.

Il lavoro sul Progetto urbano ha prodotto poi un testo organico intitolato “La Volontà di Sapere5”. Per scrivere questo testo, che da una parte costituisce il nostro manifesto, dall’altra dimostra le competenze dal basso in materia di trasformazione urbana (appunto, il “prendere sul serio”) abbiamo studiato la proposta del Comune e fatto le nostre osservazioni. È stato importante chiarire che la riqualificazione del quartiere, per noi necessaria, non avrebbe dovuto passare attraverso progetti di speculazione edilizia, mascherati da rigenerazione urbana, che annientano l’equilibrio complessivo del territorio, già sottoposto a grandi pressioni, a scapito delle relazioni presenti e del tessuto sociale vivo e prezioso che connota il quartiere, ma anche fragile e raro.

Piuttosto, l’azione pubblica nel quartiere avrebbe molto senso e importanza se orientata a migliorare l’esistente, sia dal punto di vista infrastrutturale, che culturale e sociale. Abbiamo discusso in vari incontri del nostro testo alla presenza di Franco Purini, Paolo Berdini e Mara Cossu, per confrontarci rispettivamente sui temi dell’architettura, dell’urbanistica e dell’ambiente.

Negli ultimi anni, il processo di gentrification, che agisce a San Lorenzo attraverso l’espulsione degli abitanti e delle attività storiche e la messa a profitto di storie e relazioni, ha avuto forte impulso e si è reso sempre più evidente.

Questo fenomeno è in effetti legato a una prassi, che è l’abbandono di spazi e luoghi. E ancora a una terza condizione, ovvero la mancanza di fondi e forze pubbliche per la manutenzione e la riqualificazione urbana. Il caso di San Lorenzo ben si presta dunque ad una trattazione critica del fenomeno di gentrification, quella per cui pratiche di ricambio sociale, produzione dell’abbandono, disinteresse delle istituzioni si auto rafforzano reciprocamente e preparano il terreno per l’ancoraggio del fenomeno stesso (Marcuse 1985; Slater 2011). Per questo attività ordinarie come la sostituzione di uno scivolo in un parco, sembrano essere divenute impossibili. Così, con il passare del tempo, gli spazi pubblici attrezzati si dequalificano, chiudono perfino (come la biblioteca comunale del quartiere) gli edifici invece, colpevolmente vuoti, vanno in rovina e diventano pericolosi.

Vale la pena porre l’attenzione su un nuovo strumento della gentrification: la demolizione di beni architettonici di interesse collettivo e conseguente cancellazione della memoria di cui sono testimonianza materiale. Ricordiamo a chi legge che San Lorenzo da Piano Regolatore Generale è propriamente “città storica”6; gli interventi ammessi sono finalizzati alla “valorizzazione delle qualità esistenti”, per tendere alla “conservazione dei caratteri peculiari” e tipologici relativi al tessuto individuato. Il caso delle Ex Fonderie Bastianelli7 tradisce queste premesse. Sono state demolite per costruire La Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Pratiche a scala di quartiere. La Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo 29

3_ Si pensi solo che il Cimite-

ro del Verano è conteggiato tra gli standard urbanistici come verde urbano; di certo, nonostante la sua bellezza indiscussa, non viene usato dai bambini e le bambine del quartiere per goderne.

4_ Il pdf de La Libera è scaricabile dal sito della LRSL. 5_ Il pdf del testo è scaricabile dal sito della LRSL. 6_ Piano Regolatore del Comune di Roma, Norme Tecniche di Attuazione, Titolo II: Sistema Insediativo - Capo II: Città storica - Articolo 24 e Articolo 25.

7_ Sulle Ex Fonderie Bastianelli si consiglia di leggere: http://www.dinamopress. it/news/le-ex-fonderie-bastianelli-come-vivere-sullorlo-del-precipizio; e la rassegna: http://www.liberarepubblicadisanlorenzo.it/ ex-fonderie-bastianelli/

Fig.4_ Vista dall’alto dell’area miniappartamenti con un permesso del tutto irregolare. Il permesso fu prima demolita dell’ex smorzo in annullato con una sentenza del TAR Lazio, ma solo a demolizione avvenuta, e Piazzale del Verano. Al tessuto- poi accolto ma vincolato ad alcune condizionalità. Le Ex Fonderie sono oggi logistico produttivo in crisi si un baratro vertiginoso nel quartiere; dimostrano che quello che si sacrifica è sostituiscono inesorabilmente un’idea di città, insieme alla vocazione produttiva e artigianale del quartiere. miniappartamenti.

Quali politiche arrivano nei territori a supporto del miglioramento della qualità della vita di chi vi abita? Quali servizi sono pensati per la collettività?

In questa direzione ci si muove solo per confermare il quartiere come polo di transito e di passaggio, di cui fare esperienza specifica e limitata per poi subito dimenticare. Il “quartiere ribelle”, depurato dalla sua anima sociale, costituirà solo un simulacro vuoto di senso. Piuttosto, bisogna partire da un’analisi più profonda, per determinare le scelte amministrative verso la creazione di un modello di città basato su nuovi strumenti di democrazia diretta, per la riqualificazione culturale, sociale ed economica del territorio.

Farsi forti di esperimenti e pratiche sul territorio che nulla hanno a che vedere con la vuota conservazione del passato come ideale identitario, ma che anzi sono immerse nel presente e partecipi nella costruzione del futuro. Come LRSL continueremo non solo a costruire reti e forme di resistenza sempre più larghe e forti, ma a praticare mutualismo e solidarietà, a pretendere giustizia sociale e cura del territorio, a costruire cultura e spazi di condivisione per respingere solitudine e arroganza. Riempiremo di attività e di vita collettiva gli spazi e le strade che gli interessi speculativi, pubblici e privati, vorrebbero silenti e vuoti. Tutti insieme continueremo a costruire questo progetto affinché le trasformazioni della città appartengano a chi la vive veramente.

30

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

bibliografia Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo, 2013, Volontà di sapere, consultato a Luglio 2017 nella pagina: http://www.liberarepubblicadisanlorenzo.it/la-volonta-di-sapere/ Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo 2013, Dichiarazione di Indipendenza, consultato a Luglio 2017 nella pagina: http://www.liberarepubblicadisanlorenzo.it/dichiarazionedi-indipendenza/ Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo 2016, La Ex Dogana di San Lorenzo, consultato a Luglio 2017 nella pagina: http://www.liberarepubblicadisanlorenzo.it/2016/05/10/ la-ex-dogana-di-san-lorenzo/ La Libera, 2017, giornale di quartiere consultato a Luglio 2017 nella pagina: http:// www.liberarepubblicadisanlorenzo.it/lalibera/ Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo 2016, Le ex Fonderie Bastianelli: come vivere sull’orlo del precipizio, in Dinamo Press, consultato a Luglio 2017 nella pagina: http://www.dinamopress.it/news/le-ex-fonderie-bastianelli-come-vivere-sullorlo-delprecipizio Gainsforth S., Marchini R., Sotgia A., La ex Dogana di San Lorenzo. Un nuovo modello di rendita, in Operativa, consultato a Luglio 2017 nella pagina http://operaviva.info/ la-ex-dogana-di-san-lorenzo/ Marcuse P., 1985, “Gentrification, Abandonment and Displacement. Connection causes and policy responses in New York City”, Urban Law Journal, vol. 28, pp.

195–240 Slater T., 2009, “Missing Marcuse: On gentrification and displacement”, City vol. 13, no. 2-3, pp. 292-311

La Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Pratiche a scala di quartiere. La Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo 31

Particolare del progetto grafico a cura di Antonia Santolaya pubblicato a p. 131

32

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

La práctica visual como táctica contra-narrativa de la gentrificación

@ Left Hand Rotation |

Visual practices as counter-narrative to gentrification

The paper deals with visual actions that challenge the symbolic apparatus of gentrification, the so called ‘soft’ aspect of the process. The symbolic apparatus of gentrification processes is among the variable that let the process to be so pervasive in urban life and expand so much over the globe.

Part of the problem of this ‘soft’ aspect of gentrification is that resembles a positive, organic process: the only possible alternatives to abandonment. It thus polarizes the discourse between abandonment and re-use and presents the process as inevitable. Discourses and actions that address the symbolic and aesthetic dimension of gentrification are rare. A contribute might come from the critical production of images and videos that allows collective reflections and results in the elaboration of counter narratives challenging the acritical acceptance of the “process of gentrification and displacement”.

Quienes somos y nuestra aproximación a los medios audiovisuales Escribimos como colectivo Left Hand Rotation (LHR), una entidad impersonal no asociada al individuo/autor y que no tiene un enfoque académico sino un enfoque de acción directa sobre el tema de los conflictos urbanos y de la gentrificación. Por esto, el articulo que proponemos está enfocado a contribuir al debate sobra practica anti-gentrificación desde un punto de vista práctico y de propuesta. Por lo tanto el colectivo Left Hand Rotation aborda cada acción bajo la consideración de que la comunidad de recepción no es un espectador, si no parte activa imprescindible en la transformación de la realidad social. La voluntad de las Left Hand Rotation > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > La práctica visual como táctica contra-narrativa de la gentrificación

33

Fig.1_

Acciones Urbanas Absurdas. Madrid. 2008, 2009.

De izquierda a derecha: CapÌtulo 4. Su uso no justificado ser· penalizado.

CapÌtulo 2. Deseo que te guste.

Foto: XXXX.

comunidades de testimoniar su situación posibilita la articulación de la acción.

En cada una de las acciones del colectivo hay una fuerte consciencia de la importancia del registro audiovisual, tanto por su valor como captura en bruto, como por el potencial de cada clip de vídeo de convertirse en unidades de lenguaje cuya combinación y manipulación posibilita la transmisión de mensajes complejos a partir de detalles del cotidiano. La cámara no puede sino registrar el contexto específico en el que se sitúa. Es a través de esas capturas de lo local que el colectivo reflexiona sobre un sistema global complejo.

Determinadas líneas de acción dentro del colectivo ahondan en el poder reflexivo de la imagen manipulada, subvirtiendo la estética de productos audiovisuales mass media, como el video clip musical o el tráiler cinematográfico para la construcción de no-ficciones discursivas.

Esta es la dinámica de una serie de intervenciones en el espacio público, iniciadas por el colectivo bajo el nombre de Acciones Urbanas Absurdas.

El objetivo de las Acciones Urbanas Absurdas es atacar al sentido común que conduce a la asimilación de la ciudad como espacio de control, mediante la situación intervenida y la posterior manipulación del registro audiovisual de la acción, distintos planos discursivos del mismo dispositivo que pretende evidenciar los mecanismos que subyacen bajo la noción de espacio público, combatir el absurdo con el absurdo mediante la cadena: acción – registro – manipulación del registro - difusión. Sin embargo, en un ecosistema mediático cada vez más manipulado, la imagen cruda se presenta como una herramienta reveladora, capaz de modificar la forma preestablecida en que los conflictos se perciben.

En la imagen cruda hay un potencial de conocimiento. Las imágenes,

34

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

como medios de almacenamiento de información, contienen una carga de Fig.2_ Museo de los Desplazados. GijÛn. 2011. conocimiento latente mayor de la que podemos descodificar, pues el moProyecto de acciÛn directa delo es el que determina lo que vemos, y no el tipo de información que la y documentaciÛn ìEsto ye imagen contiene. Así, aunque el acto de filmar sea selectivo y por lo tanto Cearesî. Foto: XXXX. subjetivo, en la naturaleza del material de registro, del video en bruto, hay siempre un residuo de conocimiento objetivo del contexto filmado. No es una coincidencia que en los momentos previos a las grandes convocatorias de las movilizaciones sociales en Estambul y São Paulo las redes sociales se inundaran de comentarios que adviertían de la importancia del registro, alentando a los participantes a encender la cámara1. Horas después comienzaron a llegar las imágenes. Una ciudadanía emancipada de la tutela de los grandes medios de comunicación reconstruyó versiones de los hechos colectivas y poliédricas.

En este contexto de la ciudad como nuevo espacio simbólico del conflicto, dinámicas enfrentadas compiten por la conquista del espacio público a través del acto de filmar y sus consecuencias.

De un lado concebimos el registro como autodeterminación, donde el acceso a nuevas tecnología de la visibilización genera nuevos puntos de vista, y no sólo discursivos. Las cámaras drones, implantadas en pequeños vehículos aéreos no tripulados, planean sobre los manifestantes en Estambul, y nos devuelven una nueva mirada. Del otro lado, el registro como forma de control social, mediante el desarrollo de nuevas tecnologías preventivas invasivas. Cámaras de video-vigilancia, para las que no hay presunción de inocencia, fabrican una imagen donde cada comportamiento no regulado es sospechoso, en un contexto en el que el discurso del poder público se ve invadido por la semántica de la seguridad. La producción de imágenes significativas tiene un impacto real sobre el presente, y la capacidad de empoderar a cada uno de los modelos de sociedad en juego.

Left Hand Rotation > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > La práctica visual como táctica contra-narrativa de la gentrificación

35

1_

Ejemplo de mensaje aparecidos en las redes en el contexto de las movilizaciones de junio de 2013 en Brasil: “Câmera na mão e uma manifestação inteligente na cabeça.

‘Bora todo mundo produzir audiovisuais e expandir o alcance das ruas pelas redes!

Essa manifestação também é uma disputa por imagens e sons. Preparem-se pois, pelo que temos visto, a confusão pode vir por todos os lados.

Não percam nem a calma nem a coragem. Cuidado com as armadilha da violência. Cuidado com os ataques físicos e químicos Nos vemos por lá!”

Fig.3_ Luz.

ProyecciÛn del documental LUZ en S„o Paulo, 2012.

Documental publicado en la plataforma Museo de los Desplazados.

Foto: Fora do Eixo, 2012

MUSEO DE LOS DESPLAZADOS. El registro como práctica de resistencia.

Museo de los Desplazados es un proyecto colaborativo que se construye sobre el potencial del registro para generar conocimiento, salvaguardar la memoria colectiva y evidenciar que la realidad es mutable, insuficiente e inclasificable. Es una plataforma de colaboración que se ofrece como herramienta de reflexión colectiva sobre los conflictos asociados a los procesos de gentrificación.

Gentrificación (aburguesamiento, elitización) es el nombre que se da a determinados procesos de transformación urbana por los que zonas estratégicas de una ciudad aumentan artificialmente su valor, provocando el desplazamiento de la población económicamente vulnerable. Para este grupo la vivienda deja de ser accesible en el área revalorizada. Son progresivamente empujados hacia las periferias o zonas deprimidas, incapaces de seguir pagando por su derecho a la ciudad (Lefebvre 1968) (Harvey 2008).

El aparato material y simbólico de la gentrificación afecta especialmente a la memoria colectiva barrial, imposibilitando la reconstrucción del pasado, provocando la pérdida de la identidad local. Los desplazados son los afectados últimos por el proceso de gentrificación. Sin embargo, en su dimensión simbólica la gentrificación también provoca un desplazamiento de subjetividades, de formas de convivir, de formas de apropiar el espacio fragilizadas frente a la hegemonía cultural, y es interpretada como una expresión y parte de las múltiples prácticas biopolíticas que gestionan determinados modelos de conducta y civilidad neoliberal (Sequera y Janoschka, 2014) La gentrificación simbólica es especialmente visible en procesos impulsados por el turismo y/o la cultura, que aceleran la transformación de un barrio como enclave de consumo exclusivo y de producción cultural, llegando

36

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

incluso a ahogar la actividad residencial y los servicios de primera necesidad.

La plataforma de colaboración Museo de los Desplazados identifica la forma de archivo, previa renuncia a su aspiración de definición totalitaria de los elementos y tipologías desplazadas, como herramienta de acercamiento y empatización hacia todo aquello que se pierde en procesos que, como el de la gentrificación, suponen la creación de espacios excluyentes y de segregación social. Frente a la creación de comunidades cerradas, proponemos el Museo de los Desplazados como una plataforma abierta, incompleta, en continuo proceso de desarrollo y necesariamente colectiva. Es en esa colectividad también dónde decidir si es éste un archivo de lo que hay que olvidar o recuperar.

El material generado en la plataforma confirma que no hay dos procesos de gentrificación iguales en su desarrollo. Proponemos trabajar desde lo local, desde la especificidad que estos procesos alcanzan en cada contexto, para identificar las herramientas que cada comunidad genera para abordar el conflicto global.

En este contexto, en esa especificidad, el registro audiovisual se convierte también en una herramienta de diagnóstico, de producción de conocimiento a través de la observación. La difusión abierta de los materiales de procedencia colectiva facilita el acercamiento a realidades locales de las que no tenemos vivencia directa.

La metodología de participación de la plataforma comienza con la voluntad de los individuos o comunidades afectadas de evidenciar su situación. De esta manera, colaboradores locales generan un material de registro necesariamente subjetivo, pero cargado de potencial conocimiento específico objetivo. Si bien se pide a los colaboradores una aportación textual que contextualice el caso a documentar, es imprescindible la aportación de material audiovisual: vídeo, fotografía, sonido, o cualquier otro tipo de representación audiovisual de la información. Las palabras tienen un relativamente pequeño “ancho de banda” como contenedoras de conocimiento en comparación con el exceso de información de la imagen, y es ese “conocimiento fílmico” (Palm 2011) el que finalmente conforma el archivo.

El colectivo Left Hand Rotation ha contribuido también a la plataforma generando material de registro y producción de piezas audiovisuales a través del proyecto/taller “Gentrificación no es un nombre de señora” 2.

La metodología utilizada en el taller conlleva en todos los casos una primera fase de análisis del contexto en contacto con agentes locales, una segunda 2_ Entre diciembre de 2010 fase de exposición de conceptos y debate con la comunidad local, y una úl- y abril de 2017 el taller “Gentima fase de intervención y registro del espacio urbano en conflicto. En ésta trificación no es un nombre última fase se generan una serie de materiales audiovisuales y de registro en de señora” se impartió, de interrelación con los perfiles potencialmente en peligro de ser desplazados, forma completamente gratuien acciones que implican documentación de los procesos de gentrificación ta, en doce ciudades, que por o acercamiento de la información a esos perfiles, en forma de documen- orden cronológico fueron: tales, mapas psicogeográficos, piezas de no-ficción discursiva, entre otros. Bilbao (Estado Español), Gijón

Left Hand Rotation > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > La práctica visual como táctica contra-narrativa de la gentrificación

(Estado Español), São Paulo (Brasil), Brasilia (Brasil), Madrid (Estado Español), Valencia (Estado Español), Lisboa (Portugal), Bogotá (Colombia), Murcia (Estado Español), A Coruña (Estado Español), México DF (México) y Porto (Portugal).

37

bibliografìa y sitografia Colectivo Left Hand Rotation, Plataforma de colaboración Museo de los Desplazados, acesibe: http://www.museodelosdesplazados.com Colectivo Left Hand Rotation, Gentrificación no es un nombre de señora: http://www. lefthandrotation.com/gentrificacion Harvey, D. 2008, The right to the city, New Left Review, n.53. np.

Lefebre, H. 1968, Le Droit à la ville, Anthropos, Paris.

Sequera J. y Janoschka M. 2015, “Gentrification dispositive in the city center of Madrid”, in Lees L. Shin H. and Lopez-Morales E. (eds) Global Gentrifications: uneven development and displacement, Policy Press, Bristol.

38

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Resisting tourism gentrification: the experience of grass-roots movements in Barcelona Resistere alla gentrification turistica: le esperienze dei movimenti urbani a Barcellona Questo paper esplora l’impatto del turismo a Barcellona e le modalità di resistenza al turismo messe in atto dall’ Assemblea de Barris per un Turisme Sostenible (ABTS) (Assemblea per un turismo sostenibile). Le pratiche di resistenza che presenteremo sono dovute al fatto che le politiche del turismo urbano a Barcellona si siano negli anni rivelate una forma di gentrification, che ha avuto come effetto diverse forme di espulsione. Due autori, un attivista e un ricercatore, discuteranno delle pratiche di ABTS contro Airbnb e alberghi, sostenendo che la prevalenza di destinazioni d’uso turistiche di beni immobili mini il diritto all’abitazione di residenti autoctoni, e pratiche di riappropriazione dello spazio pubblico per finalizzarlo a usi comunitari. ABTS ha avuto grande esposizione mediatica a livello locale, nazionale e internazionale, al punto che il governo cittadino ha riconosciuto l’assemblea come portatrice di un punto di vista civico e come interlocutore stabile in materia di sviluppo urbano. Il paper conclude con una riflessione sulla necessità di andare oltre il presente modello di sviluppo turistico verso un modello di de-crescita del turismo come approccio indispensabile per preservare le città storiche e garantire principi di giustizia spaziale come il diritto alla casa.

Introduction The Assemblea de Barris per un Turisme Sostenible (ABTS) is a grassroots organisation that emerged in Barcelona in 2015 when over 35 collectives from different neighbourhoods unified to resist against what was viewed as a critical threat undermining the right to the city: the growth of tourism. This paper explains why tourism plays a central role in the displacement of residents in Barcelona and shows the way in which the ABTS has responded to such a threat. The paper contributes to a better understanding of (anti)gentrification in Southern Europe (Annunziata & Lees 2016; Annunziata & Rivas 2018) and sheds light on the growing phenomenon of ‘protest and resistance in the tourist city’ (Colomb & Novy 2016).

Agustin Cocola-Gant & Daniel Pardo > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Resisting tourism gentrification: the experience of Barcelona 39

@ Agustin

Cocola-Gant | @ Daniel Pardo, ABTS |

# Tourism gentrification | # Resistance | # Barcelona | # ABTS |

# Tourism gentrification | # Resistenza | # Barcellona | # ABTS |

Fig.1_

Protest against a luxury hotel, January 2017.

Source: ABTS.

1_

Hereafter the researcher will spoke in first person while the member of the assembly will spoke on behalf of the ABTS and so will spoke in third person.

2_ https://agustincocolagant. net/en/short-term-rentals-hotels-and-displacement/

The paper results from a collaboration between an academic (first author) and a member of the ABTS (second author)1. As a critical scholar having previously engaged with gentrification theory I was interested in exploring the impacts of tourism, particularly because social movements in Barcelona were claiming that a wave of speculation and displacement was triggered by visitors and tourism investors, rather than by middle class residents. I interviewed 42 residents and participated as an observer in various grassroots organisations in the historic centre of Barcelona, including the ABTS. But this raises the issue of how academics become involved in gentrification struggles. I believe that our role as critical researchers should not simply involve describing how resistance takes place or participating in struggles as activists, but should also include collecting and producing data that can be used by those who are at risk of displacement. Admittedly, the findings of this research were very similar to what residents and the ABTS already knew. However, as social injustices are only visible if the facts are placed in evidence, the use of data to show how displacement was taking place became a crucial tool for political action. I published an open access report about how the growth of Airbnb and hotels were displacing communities2. The report received considerable media attention and was used by residents and the ABTS to exemplify with ‘facts’ the extent to which tourism was causing inequalities. This confronted the hegemonic view of city leaders for whom tourism was seen as being in the interests of all.

New crisis, more tourism Protests against tourism in Barcelona are not a new phenomenon. On the contrary, protests emerged at the end of the 1990s. In the 1980s, tourism was identified as one of the main objectives for Barcelona’s urban regeneration and, after the crisis of the 1990s, local authorities saw tourism as the ‘easiest’ way of attracting inward investment and consumers. Smith (2005) noted that the search for tourism growth in Barcelona was implemented by a neoliberal process of deregulation and urban entrepreneurialism and,

40

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

importantly, that such a process resulted in a situation in which the needs and satisfaction of tourists were prioritised over those of local residents. In this context of tourism growth, Degen (2004) and García and Claver (2003) observed that residents in the city centre were rebelling, particularly since the tendency was that “among those who use city services, visitors are proportionally on the increase” (García & Claver 2003, p.120).

The neoliberal answer to the post-2008 crisis has been the promotion of further tourism growth, but this time in a more dramatic way. In an example of Klein’s Shock Doctrine, Barcelona City Council activated a new round of flexible policies which (i) relaxed the restrictions which had prevented the growth of hotels in the historic city; (ii) adapted planning regulations suited to the needs of tourism investors as well as the introduction of tax incentives; and (iii) licensed all forms of tourism-oriented commercial activities which resulted, for example, in pharmacies being displaced by tapas bars. In addition, airline companies were further subsidised to fly to Barcelona; the central government introduced less rigid labour regulations which allowed companies to offer cheaper services by undermining working conditions; and this period also witnessed the emergence of Airbnb.

It is in this context of unregulated tourism growth that the ABTS emerged. If at the turn of the century acts of rebellion by residents were only observed in the city centre (called the Ciutat Vella district), the growth of tourism has been paralleled by a burgeoning opposition movement. In fact, the ABTS is now formed of grassroots organisations from almost all of Barcelona’s districts (see also Mansilla, in press). But why is tourism contested? The next section explores this question and discusses the reasons why tourism is seen as a threat that undermines the rights and needs of local residents.

Tourism, a displacing process Recent research in urban studies highlights the way in which tourism may be seen as a form of gentrification (Cocola-Gant 2018; Gravari-Barbas & Guinand 2017). To understand this process, it is worth noting how the so-called ‘new urban tourism’ does not evolve in tourist precincts but rather in residential environments which previously lacked tourist infrastructures (Maitland 2010; Füller & Michel 2014; Quaglieri-Domínguez & Russo 2010). In a context of mass tourism such as in Barcelona, the expansion of tourism into residential areas precipitates pressure from tourism which poses significant risks for residents. In particular, it makes it increasingly difficult for them to consider some neighbourhoods as liveable places. This situation leads to a process of displacement in which residential spaces and facilities increasingly cater to the needs of visitors. Such a process affects housing dynamics as well as neighbourhood life.

Firstly, the growth of tourist accommodation – including both hotels and particularly holiday rentals – is directly linked to residential displacement. In central areas of Barcelona, as there is no space left for new developments, the opening of hotels tends to involve the conversion of residential apartment buildings into tourist facilities. There have been several cases in which residents were evicted from their homes so that hotels could be opened in their place. For instance, what is currently the SOHO Hotel in Barcelona was a residential building inhabited by more than 100 people. Instances of residents being directly displaced has also been documented during the creation of holiday rentals (Cocola-Gant 2016). However, there are other important Agustin Cocola-Gant & Daniel Pardo > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Resisting tourism gentrification: the experience of Barcelona 41

Fig.2_

#UNFairbnb action, March 2017. Source: ABTS.

issues related to the growth of holiday rentals. The first is that it leads to a shortage of housing stock and a consequent increase in house prices. This makes it increasingly difficult for residents to find affordable accommodation. A second point to note is that a significant manifestation of tourism pressure occurs when residents have to share apartment buildings with visitors. The fact that apartment buildings combine both residential and tourist uses is the cause of cohabitation annoyances which for many has been the main reason behind their decision to move out of their homes.

Secondly, the impacts of tourism go beyond the housing market and affect residents at the neighbourhood scale. In other words, it causes daily disruptions which make places increasingly unliveable. Impacts on daily life include a lack of consumption facilities, loss of public space, mobility disruptions, noise and pollution. First, shops and services that residents need on a daily basis have been displaced by consumption services for visitors (Cocola-Gant 2015). This process also involves the substitution of family businesses for franchises. Second, retail change leads to the monopolisation of squares by terraces and bars which consequently prevents residents from using public spaces as gathering places for the community. Third, the large number of visitors and the use of bicycles, segways and other rental vehicles overcrowds public areas and makes it increasingly difficult for pedestrians to move around. This disruption affects the elderly and families with children in particular.

Furthermore, the sizeable number of visitors saturates the public transport network and, at the same time, tourist coaches increase traffic congestion.

Fourth, noise is a notable daily disruption. It is linked to low-cost tourism and ‘party tourism’ but also to the entire machinery of the leisure industry including ambulances, cleaning services using trucks and employing numerous workers, the delivery of supplies for restaurants early in the morning, people pulling noisy suitcases, music and so on. Finally, together with noise, pollution has increasingly become a public health issue. Pollution is caused

42

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

by the cruise industry, aeroplanes and tourist coaches, as well as by the emissions from restaurants. In relation to this, tourism also leads to a considerable increase in water consumption, energy consumption, use of construction materials and waste generation.

These changes undermine the quality of life of residents to such an extent that the most touristified areas are experiencing progressive population loss (López-Gay & Cocola-Gant 2016). Tourism, consequently, is experienced as a process of dispossession. Residents are displaced and substituted by a floating population of transient consumers which, in turn, undermine the sense of community and belonging.

In addition, tourism is contributing to other forms of inequality that are also contested by the ABTS. These are linked to precarious working conditions and high levels of exploitation and discrimination, as well as to the fact that tourism generates considerable costs that are paid for by taxpayers. In conclusion, the tourist industry mirrors other processes of capital accumulation since the benefits are enjoyed by private companies while the damages affect ordinary local people.

Resisting tourism: the experience of the ABTS3 The ABTS is a means of coordination for neighbourhood groups working on collective action against tourism and, in particular, against the Barcelona model of urban entrepreneurialism. Although the Barcelona model was first celebrated in the 1990s – primarily due to the creation of a number of facilities for collective consumption and a governance style from below – it turned into a neoliberal model of city governance in-line with the imperative agenda of interurban competition that has led to different forms of urban inequalities (Delgado 2007; Degen & García 2012). In this context, we are united by our shared criticisms of the official rhetoric which celebrates tourism growth as being inherently positive. Our organisation is an assembly which runs meetings and working groups set-up to complete specific tasks.

In the summer of 2015 we explored the conflicts caused by tourism in each neighbourhood. The recognition of tourism-related conflicts was our first collective piece of work.

The main narratives and strategic vision of the ABTS is to prove that the current model of tourism growth is unsustainable. We oppose the city council’s vision for tourism and suggest that the most basic answer to the current effects of tourism in Barcelona is a planned and regulated system of tourism de-growth. We argue that it is crucially important to reduce the number of visitors and tourist-oriented commercial activities if we are to achieve a fairer city, both socially and environmentally. While the city council suggests that a solution could be to spread tourism to other neighbourhoods so that central areas become less congested, we believe that such policies will merely expand and increase the problem rather than reducing it.

The ABTS carried out targeted mobilisations against the growth of tourism accommodation, including both hotels and holiday rentals. The report published by the researcher of this paper provided us with several examples in which people were displaced as a result of the opening of tourist accommodation. For instance, in January 2017 we ‘occupied’ the SOHO hotel for seve- 3_ This section is written by ral hours which, as mentioned, was built after an investment fund displaced Daniel Pardo on behalf of the Agustin Cocola-Gant & Daniel Pardo > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Resisting tourism gentrification: the experience of Barcelona 43

ABTS. This explains why the author uses ‘we’ as a collective subject.

Fig.3_

Articolo La Stampa 02/05/2017.

44

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

more than 100 residents that were living in the building. We organised a Fig.3_ #UNFairbnb action, march under the slogan “Mass tourism and speculation won’t force us out” March 2017. Source: ABTS. which ended in the lobby of the hotel. More than 100 people were involved in the march, including a musical band (figure 1).

In relation to holiday rentals and the right to housing, we organised two #UNFairbnb actions. For example, members of the ABTS booked unlicensed holiday apartments using the airbnb.com website. They were located in buildings in which all of the residents had been displaced. Once we were inside the apartments we hung banners from the balconies while other members took action on the street. The idea was to publicly denounce the expulsion suffered by residents and to dismantle the social myth regarding Airbnb and its false pretension of a collaborative economy. In this instance the property owners were not simply increasing their incomes by renting their flats – they were professional speculators and owned several apartment buildings in which similar expulsion processes took place in order to accommodate tourists. The #UNFairbnb actions received considerable media attention and caused the city council to examine the properties, leading them to take action against the owners (figures 2 and 3).

The ABTS also participates in the grassroots initiative Fem Plaça (http://femplaca.org). Fem Plaça – meaning ‘square making’ – is a spontaneous rally in which residents ‘occupy’ a square for several hours in order to simply be there, talk and play with their children. The intention is to enable people to visualise the privatisation of public spaces and the effects this has on community life. Instead of demanding that local authorities implement reforms, Fem Plaça organises community-led actions aimed at taking back control of former residential spaces.

In July 2016, we organised the 1st Neighbourhood Forum on Tourism. Over two days – and through public talks, workshops and debates – a great deal of collective work was done in collaboration with experts and activists which were invited from Venice, Mallorca, Camp de Tarragona and Malaga. Dozens of people participated and highlighted the need to confront tourism at an international level. This showed how the ABTS established itself as an important tool for reflection, debates, networking and proposals. The Forum boosted the profile of the ABTS to a European scale and our members have participated in recent mobilisations against the cruise industry in Venice; in meetings aimed at responding to the touristification of Palma de Majorca; and in the “Closing the Island: Reflection on Tourism De-growth” meeting in Ibiza.

Concluding remarks From the dialogue between academic research and activism, we provide an account that strengthens current understandings of tourism as a process of displacement. The acts of resistance used by the ABTS find legitimacy in this framework. After two years of active resistance, we firmly believe that the ABTS has helped to change certain things. In the last few years, public opinion regarding the tourism industry in Barcelona has transformed. It has shifted from an uncritical acceptance of the policies dictated by local elites into a situation in which over 50% of the population wants to limit tourism according to one local survey. We believe that the work of the ABTS and other similar groups has played a crucial role in this change. The ABTS has a Agustin Cocola-Gant & Daniel Pardo > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Resisting tourism gentrification: the experience of Barcelona 45

strong influence on the local, national and international media and the city council now recognises the ABTS as a civic society organisation that needs to be heard. However, we also feel that this is not enough. Ultimately, the main factor in raising awareness of the negative consequences of mass tourism is its endless growth. Although the citizens of Barcelona are increasingly against tourism, the industry is still growing and more rapidly than ever.

This growth is related to the number of people that visit Barcelona4 but, in particular, to the liberalisation of the sector and the expansion of services and spaces which cater to tourists. We want to emphasise, consequently, that moving to a phase of tourism de-growth is a critical necessity if we truly want to protect our places and guarantee the right to the city.

46

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

references Annunziata, S. & Rivas, C. 2018. Resistances to gentrification and displacement.

In L. Lees & M. Phillips, eds. Handbook of Gentrification Studies. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing. (in publication) Annunziata, S. & Lees, L. 2016. Resisting “Austerity Gentrification” and Displacement in Southern Europe. Sociological Research Online, 21(3), p.5. Available at: http:// www.socresonline.org.uk/21/3/5.html.

Cocola-Gant, A. 2018. Tourism gentrification. In L. Lees & M. Phillips, eds. Handbook of Gentrification Studies. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing. (in publication) Cocola-Gant, A. 2016. Holiday Rentals: The New Gentrification Battlefront.

Sociological Research Online, 21(3), 10.

Cocola-Gant, A. 2015. Tourism and commercial gentrification. In The ideal city.

Between myth and reality. RC21 Conference. Urbino: ISA, pp. 1–25.

Colomb, C. & Novy, J. (Eds) 2016. Protest and Resistance in the Tourist City, London: Routledge.

Degen, M. 2004. Barcelona’s Games: the Olympics, urban design, and global tourism.

In M. Sheller & J. Urry, eds. Tourism Mobilities: Places to play, places in play. London: Routledge, pp. 131–142.

Degen, M. & García, M. 2012. The transformation of the “Barcelona model”: an analysis of culture, urban regeneration and governance. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(5), pp.1022–1038.

Delgado, M. 2007. La ciudad mentirosa: fraude y miseria del modelo Barcelona, Madrid: Los libros de la Catarata.

Füller, H. & Michel, B. 2014. “Stop Being a Tourist!” New Dynamics of Urban Tourism in Berlin-Kreuzberg. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(4), pp.1304–1318.

García, M. & Claver, N. 2003. Barcelona: Governing Coalitions, Visitors and the Changing City Center. In L. Hoffman, S. Fainstein, & D. R. Judd, eds. Cities and Visitors: Regulating People, Markets, and City Space. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 113–125.

Gravari-Barbas, M. & Guinand, S. (Eds) 2017. Tourism Gentrification in Contemporary Metropolises, London and New York: Routledge.

López-Gay, A. & Cocola-Gant, A. 2016. Cambios demográficos en entornos urbanos bajo presión turística: el caso del barri Gòtic de Barcelona. In J. DomínguezMújica & R. Díaz-Hernández, eds. XV Congreso Nacional de la Población Española.

Fuerteventura: Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, pp. 399–413.

Maitland, R. 2010. Everyday life as a creative experience in cities. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(3), pp.176–185.

Mansilla, J. In Press. Vecinos en peligro de extinción. Turismo urbano, movimientos sociales y exclusión socioespacial en Barcelona. Pasos. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural.

Quaglieri-Domínguez, A. & Russo, A.P. 2010. Paisajes urbanos en la época postturística. Propuesta de un marco analítico. Scripta Nova: revista electrónica de geografía y ciencias sociales, 14(323). Available at: www.ub.es/geocrit/sn/sn-323. htm.

Smith, A. 2005. Conceptualizing city image change: the “re-imaging”of Barcelona.

Tourism Geographies, 7(4), pp.398–423.

Agustin Cocola-Gant & Daniel Pardo > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Resisting tourism gentrification: the experience of Barcelona 47

Particolare del progetto grafico a cura di Antonia Santolaya pubblicato a p. 131

48

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Tra attivismo, analisi delle politiche e ricerca

Between activism, policy analysis and research

>

49

Particolare del progetto grafico a cura di Antonia Santolaya pubblicato a p. 131

50

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Attempts to prevent displacement: housing policies in time of austerity in Athens and Rome Tentativi di prevenzione all’espulsione: politiche abitative in tempi di austerità ad Atene e Roma

Il paper analizza le principali politiche implementate negli ultimi anni in un regime di austerità economica rispettivamente in Italia e in Grecia con un focus su Roma e Atene. Una condizione prolungata di austerità ha assunto forme diverse e ha avuto impatti differenti nei due casi osservati. Entrambi i contesti si trovano però a dover affrontare una severa crisi abitativa che è stata trattata negli ultimi anni in chiave meramente emergenziale. Le autrici provano a decifrare quale spazio di riflessione per l’innovazione e per la prevenzione di situazioni di disagio abitativo estremo si sia creato nella presente congiuntura e quali le principali sfide queste città si trovano a dover affrontare in materia di abitazione.

Introduction The scope of our paper is to analyse housing policies implemented after the crisis in relation with their potential to prevent housing deprivation, displacement and eviction. We will focus on Italy and Greece and on their capital cities, Rome and Athens, severely impacted by seven years of austerity policies and housing distress. Austerity assumes different forms and is impacting Italy and Greece in different ways. However, a common point for departure in this comparative paper is that these countries well exemplify the terms of the (new) housing crisis and the ‘intensification’ of a problem affecting many communities around Europe. Housing scholars seems to Dimitra Siatitsa & Sandra Annunziata > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > housing policies in time of austerity in Athens and Rome 51

@ Dimitra Siatitsa | @ Sandra Annunziata |

Table 1_ Housing Tenure in agree that the crucial point of the (new) housing crisis is not related to lack Europe in 2014 with focus on of supply, but rather to the erosive effects of impoverishment, unemployownership with outstanding ment and indebtedness that challenge access to housing and, even worst, mortgages. Source EUROSTAT. threaten with eviction tenants in rental housing as well as homeowners with mortgages. Italy and Greece are among the European countries with traditionally high homeownership rates with moderate outstanding mortgages (Table 1). However, a generalized access to homeownership did not prevent the housing crisis to occur. A political economy of housing based on ownership reduced the capacity of the housing systems (characterized by low rate of public housing) to accommodate the new housing demands generated after the crisis (Savino 2015; Maloutas 2014; Satitsa 2016). In fact, among the most significant impact of the crisis, Italy and Greece are experiencing a severe housing distress and the increase of housing precariousness affecting a wider range of social groups: impoverished low middle classes, young precarious workers, elderly people and migrants adding new challenges to the chronic housing deficit. Moreover, emergency-style treatment of housing distress has become common practices (and threat) in the cities under study (Annunziata 2017a, Arapoglou et al. 2014).

Given these premises, the paper explores the most recent innovations in housing policies in Rome, Italy and Athens, Greece, assuming a specific focus on durable tenancy and housing stability considered to be fundamental components for the prevention of displacement (European Commission 2016). Also international studies on how to prevent eviction, displacement and homelessness have proven the importance of housing policies and prevention measures as a way to face the current increase of housing deprivation (FEANSA 2011, 2007).

Rome is a special case in the geography of the Italian housing crisis. It is the city with the larger number of eviction orders, the highest social housing demand, the richer public residential stock, the longer housing movement

52

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Greece

Italy

EU (28)

Population (2011) (1)

10,816,286

59,433,744

-

Housing stock (2011) (1)

6,384,353

28,863,604

-

4,122,088

24,501,477

-

35.2%

17.6%

-

Total ownership (2015) (2)

75,1

72,9

69,4

Ownership with mortgage (2015) (2)

14,1

16,8

26,9

Rent, market (2015) (2)

19,8

15,4

19,8

Rent, reduced or free (2015) (2)

5,1

11,7

10,9

Social rental housing % of total stock (2006) (3)

0%

5,3%

-

Main residences (2011) (1) Secondary or vacant (2011) (1)

Social rental housing % of rental stock (2008) (3)

0%

28%

-

Total outstanding residential loans (mil, 2016) (4)

61,397

368,179

6,981,540

Residential loans as % of GDP (2016) (4)

34,9

22

47,1

Residential loans to disposable income ratio (2016) (4)

53,3%

32,6%

77,6% (2015)

Residential loans per capita (eur, 2016) (4)

6,893

7,268

16,838

in Europe and last but not least a city with a predominant role of Tenants Table 2_ Comparative Unions in housing discourses. The crisis in Rome has been instrumentally de- housing data analysis in Greece scribed as housing emergence1 and normalized as a matter of housing crisis and Italy Sources: (1) Census management. The current state of housing distress challenge not only the 2011 ISTAT, ELSTAT, (2) EUSILC, (3) CECODHAS City and Housing Authority’s capacity to meet the new demand, it is also EUROSTAT, 2012, (4) EMF HYPOSTAT 2017 calling for a changing paradigm in housing policies and in measures to prevent evictions.

Athens is by far the largest city in Greece inhabited by almost 50% of the population and consequently it is where social problems are expressed more harshly. Rapidly urbanised through processes of self-construction and self-promotion with little direct state intervention, Athens developed a 1_ The term was introduced dense multi-functional fabric and a particular structure of small-scale, frag- by the regional law n.2/ 2000, mented and social dispersed ownership of land. Access to housing has been which determined the state accommodated through individual quasi-commercialised processes and no of emergency for those living public housing. Important urban movements have developed, mainly around in squats and evicted houissues of public spaces, but very little with a housing agenda. Housing prob- seholds have priority in the lems emerged in recent years are related to acute income reduction, unem- allocation of public housing. ployment and general impoverishment. Greece records extremely high rates 2_ According to EUROSTAT Greece has the highest of housing cost overburden in all types of tenure2, excessive over-indebted- (2015) rates of housing cost overbur3 ness , housing precarity, inadequate conditions of living and energy poverty. den (40,9% while 11,3% EU28), A deep destabilisation of previous mechanisms for the access to housing has reaching 95,8% for poor houoccurred, calling for - but also opening the way for - a new model in housing seholds (below 60% of median policy, nevertheless obstructed by the constant adjustment regime that the income).

3_ Over-indebtedness of country is under.

The paper will discuss several measures implemented so far in the two cities and will compare two neighbouring countries that share some similarities in respect to housing regimes (e.g. homeowner’s society, familial welfare), but also many differences in respect to proprietary structure and social conflicts.

This will enable us to learn by differences and by different geographies as

Dimitra Siatitsa & Sandra Annunziata > Anti-gentrification nelle cittĂ (Sud) Europee > housing policies in time of austerity in Athens and Rome 53

households has culminated along with the rise in unemployment, non-serviced loans reached more than 40% in 2016 (from 4% in 2009). Households are also accumulating debts towards the public (due to over-taxation, inability to pay social security funds or utility companies).

Fig.1_ Housing camp protest well as to challenge some of the assumptions that characterize the Southern in Rome in 2015, Italy European macro region in respect to housing.

Housing policy agendas in the two countries after the economic crisis As a result of the global financial crisis, which in Italy and Greece was translated into a Sovereign Debt crisis with consequent implementation of austerity policies, housing distress is on the rise and it is mainly interpreted as a crisis of affordability, namely the impossibility to meet the cost of living (in any type of tenure, homeownership or market rented housing). As a way to cope with the situation, targeted and temporary measures have been implemented both in Italy and Greece. These attempts did not lead to a structural policy reform, they represent however the starting point for an enquiry on the premises upon which housing policies are implemented, their effects and potentials.

The case of Italy and Rome In Italy the housing crisis is not new. However, rather than a structural crisis, it has been perceived and described as an emergency and temporary problem mainly related with affordability. This interpretation framed the measures implemented by the State in the recent years. These have been based on: temporary laws that protect indebted homeowners, emergency-style housing solution for those experiencing severe housing distress and eviction, special taxation regimes and incentives aimed at reducing the financial burden of property owners, targeted housing allowances for tenants. Among the countries that have the highest GDP/Public Debt ratio in Europe (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain) the rising indebtedness for access to housing is the main factor determining the features of the new housing crisis globally: crisis-induced mortgage insolvencies and repossessions (Rolkin 2013). In Italy several factors have mitigated mortgage insolvency. Italian household’s indebtedness rely less on mortgages, and private debt levels are low when compared with Eu average (Table 2).

54

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

This is related to the specific role of family networks in accessing housing where familial savings are mobilised as a part of long-term investment strategies. The stability of the mortgage system was also guaranteed by a direct act of the Parliament (the Law n. 3/2012) that allowed families who could no longer honour their debts to restructure the agreement.

The Italian housing distress is rather characterised by the skyrocketing of tenant’s evictions due to rent arrears; a phenomenon that has become a national emergency. In the years following the crisis the demand for rent accommodation increased; at the same time also the number of eviction notices has grown and among the number of notices enforced, 88.8% were for rent arrears4. The issue has been a matter of National debate and in 2014 the Government approved a New National Housing Plan (NHP) which introduced a specific measure called the ‘No fault’ Eviction Fund. The fund foresaw a territorial agreement between the Prefect, the City, Tenants and Proprietary Unions and the allocation of financial aid to cover rent arrears and stop the evictions process. However, the criteria for the allocation of the fund reduced its capacity to prevent eviction. The main obstacle has been a reductive interpretation of the concept of “non-guilty” households, mainly those who lost a stable job as a result of the economic recession. Whilst precarious workers who lost their income-earning capacity during the crisis have been pushed aside. Beside, in 2015 the anti-eviction moratoria, possible under the current regional housing framework were ultimately suspended leaving tenants with limited protection5.

The increase of evictions in Rome is resulted in a housing emergence, namely the system is not capable to absorb the new demand. Under the emergency regime the city has the duty to re-house evicted household in public housing in temporary accommodation (Centri Assistenza Alloggiativa Temporanea, CAAT). However, in recent year the cost and management of this policy tool has been part of a scandal about in the allocation costs of temporary accommodation6. After the scandal the City decided to move beyond temporary solutions, however the alternatives currently on the table do not seem sufficient to provide housing for those facing severe housing distress7. A proOnly in 2015 in Rome there posed alternative is a targeted housing allowance (Buono casa) based on 4_ were 10.263 eviction requests, the concept of ‘second opportunity’. The city is directly in charge of paying among which 2.726 have been the owners who agree to sign a contract with households currently living in enforced. The figure increahousing emergence, evicted or under eviction. The measure is challenging sed +6.11 % in 2017 (Source: Mithe potential ‘social’ use of private property and it is promising in the long nistry of Internal Affairs 2017). run. However, for the moment very few contracts have been signed: private 5_ The Law 200/2003 allows owners are sceptical both with the institutions and with evicted tenants (An- anti-eviction moratoria for certain categories of «disadnunziata 2018). vantaged» tenants in areas

high levels of houIn 2014 an intense confrontation between the Regional governments, hous- suffering sing distress. ing movements and Tenants Unions resulted in a Housing Emergency Plan 6_ The scandal burst in Rome (HEP) (Regional Decree 18/2014). The plan foresees the production of public in 2015 and concerned temhousing for those waiting for the allocation of public housing, those currently porary accommodation for living in temporary accommodation and those currently living in squats. The evicted people as well as the new housing stock is planned to be produced throughout self-rehabilitation system of refugee’s recepprograms, and the rehabilitation of existing public properties8. The confron- tion. In 2017 the Court has tation with housing movements has however been severely undermined in condemned 41 people for the of graft for public recent years. The current political realm seems not recognizing anymore the exchange contracts. added social value of autonomous and self-organized housing squats and it 7_ A recent estimation of is severely criminalising the terrain where housing alternatives are produced. the housing demand forese-

Dimitra Siatitsa & Sandra Annunziata > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > housing policies in time of austerity in Athens and Rome 55

es 16.000 requests for public housing (Source: Puccini 2016).

Fig.2_

Housing protest in Syntagma Square in 2015, Greece.

8_ For insides on the role of

housing movements in offering feasible housing alternatives see Mudu, 2015 and Grazioli Cagagli in this issue.

9_ Suspension of auctions was initially introduced with a Ministerial Decree in 2009, and extended with law 3869/2011 until 2013. After the liberalisation banks had not followed an aggressive repossession policy, especially for first housing. Furthermore, auctions have been blocked by the constant mobilisation of citizens (stop-auctions movement) and due to prolonged abstention of lawyers and notaries (see Katerini in this issue).

10_ Law 3869/2010, Restructuring of loans of over-indebted individuals and other provisions (so called Katseli Law). It was revised by law 3996/2011, law 4128/2013, latest changes were introduced with the law 4346/2015.

For example, the NHP, whilst providing the regulatory framework necessary to provide tax relief for property owners and prevent stagnation in real estate markets, criminalises alternatives through Article 5, which prohibits the city registration for those currently illegally living in squatted properties. This hinders their ability to lodge a request for public housing, to register for healthcare provision and register their children at local schools. Within this moralistic-austerity climate the city of Rome is currently experiencing the suspension of the HEP and of any confrontation with housing movements and unions. Therefore, the city is severely missing its duty in providing the necessary preventing measure as well as structural reform in the field.

The case of Greece and Athens The economic recession and imposed austerity policies had important effects upon the Greek housing and property system, turning small-scale, fragmented and socially dispersed immobile assets from important resources in the family economy into a burden (Siatitsa 2015). The protection of first residence and small-scale patrimony has become central in the agenda due to the introduction of heavy property and income taxation. A moratorium on auctions (of first housing and any property up to 200.000 euro) for debt towards the banks was introduced unconditionally already in 2009.9 Following that, an insolvency law for physical persons was introduced in 2010, allowing over indebted households to apply to courts for a rearrangement of debt according to their ability to repay.10 With this measure, Greece has avoided the mass foreclosures and evictions experienced for example in Spain, nevertheless the issue of private debt remains crucial.

With the debt crisis a lot of pressure has been put for the liberalisation of this protective framework. The moratorium on auctions was definitely abolished at the end of 2014, the conditions for applying for the insolvency law are now much stricter, a secondary market of loan packages has been instituted, a system of electronic auctions is under way. The issue of private

56

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

debt in Greece is being dealt with analogies with the national public debt, by constantly postponing to the future a viable solution. In a way, households are found amongst the contradictory trends of protective -though precarious- measures on the one hand and a constant threat of eviction or losing one’s assets on the other. Most importantly, they are found within a prolonged suffocating condition impeding the economic recovery, while making impossible any plans for the future (see Kaika and Lamarca 2016 about the socio-political effects of indebtedness).

Despite the crisis, visible homelessness did not increase dramatically due to responsive family, social and solidarity networks. However invisible forms of housing deprivation have culminated, gradually acquiring deep and permanent characteristics (Arapoglou et al. 2015). Answers are directed mainly to the most visible and extreme part of housing deprivation and exclusion, with provisional solutions restricted to the absolutely basic. Housing emergency needs have also increased due to migration and refugee flows, directed towards short-term, transitory solutions (refugee camps, hostels, apartment programme).

A tendency towards a residual, emergency system of poverty management is evident in the expansion of poverty alleviation measures (soup kitchens, social groceries etc.) and provisions for the homeless (night-shelters, day centres, social clinics and pharmacies). Although, at first developed as a spontaneous reaction to the crisis through citizens’ solidarity networks, local governments and the third sector, these measure have been gradually consolidated into a “shadow” philanthropic social state mostly run by NGO’s and funded, apart from state money, to an important extent by foundations (tycoons, philanthropic and international aid organisations), most of them relying on precarious resources (Arapoglou and Gounis 2015). Parallel to that, steps are being made to regulate this emerging field and set mechanisms of coordination and quality control, while Municipalities, despite their debilitation during the crisis, are also trying to develop local social welfare services.

The Workers Housing In order to understand the policies implemented during the crisis to face 11_ Organisation (OEK) was abohousing problems in Greece, we have to take into account the complete ab- lished with the second mesence of any policy framework or instrument for direct public intervention morandum in February 2012 in housing. Historically state policies were mainly directed to the support designated as “small special of homeownership, while family networks, social ties and informal housing purpose vehicle engaged in practices played an important role for access to housing. Since 2012, as part social expenditure that is not of the austerity reforms, the administration has been deprived of the only a priority”, par. 6 art. 1 of the instrument of social housing policy, the Workers Housing Organisation (ΟΕΚ Law 4046/2012.

The poverty threshold in Greek).11 Currently, direct public intervention in housing is restricted to 12_ in Greece was 4.608 euro for targeted allowances (housing allowance for students and uninsured elderly, one person and 9.677 for a faheating allowance) and tax incentives for homeowners (tax exemption for mily with two adult members the first house). and two minor members. The

A housing allowance for people living in extreme poverty12 together with access to free electricity was introduced in 2015 (law 4320/2015)until the end of 2016. Budget constraints have not allowed for the continuation of the measure, although other significant -in terms of spending and paradigm shift- reforms in the welfare system have taken place during the last two years. The most important ones have been the introduction of a nation wide minimum income scheme since February 2017 and access to health for all, namely full coverage for uninsured people and migrants both for treatment Dimitra Siatitsa & Sandra Annunziata > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > housing policies in time of austerity in Athens and Rome 57

threshold for the programme – extreme poverty being defined around 40% of the poverty threshold- was set at 2.400 euros’ annual income for one person up to 6000 euro’s annual income for a family with 4 children and more, which entitles almost 7% of the population. About 30.000 households were entitled to the rent allowance and 90.000 to the free electricity supply.

Table 3_ Housing Tenure in and medicine, since 2015. A housing benefit for tenants and mortgage holdEurope in 2014 with focus on er is being designed and might be implemented from 2019 if funds are availownership with outstanding able. mortgages. Source EUROSTAT.

Innovations are mainly pursued with schemes that would take advantage of Greece’s particular housing and property structure, by using empty and underused existing building stock in the framework of a public policy that would mobilise small-scale owners towards a multi-purpose strategy to provide affordable housing, regenerate downgraded neighbourhoods or redirect the – stagnating - construction sector towards reuse/refurbishment and energy upgrading. The dispersed and in a large extend underused public immobile property -of low real estate interest- could be part of this scheme, that could also boost new models of social and solidarity economy locally.

An interesting example in this direction has been the use of rented apartments from small owners for supported housing programmes either for the refugee relocation housing scheme13 or for homeless support programmes (Housing and Reintegration programme, see Kourahanis 2017). Although implemented without a uniform regulatory framework, neither a long-term scope, it is an interesting experimentation that could set the basis for the development of low cost and supported rented housing.

Finally, it is important to mention the emergence in the last years of a new (for the Greek experience) housing movement. Namely, housing squats for refugees and migrants, especially in the centre of Athens, have multiplied covering the needs of hundreds of refugees, introducing an innovative practice within the solidarity movement. Together with the movement against auctions for debts they constitute a new field of political collective action that could potentially lead to the voicing of more elaborated housing claims.

Conclusion: opportunities and challenges in the observed context As a conclusive remark we would like to explore what the cases can tell to each other, what we can learn, regarding housing policies in a time characterized by severe dispossession and housing exclusion. In Table 2 we summarize strengths/elements of stability, weaknesses and future trends deriving from the policies we have analysed in the two countries.

13_

The programme for the transitory housing of refugees in apartments was launched by the UN in 2016 with the goal to create 20.000 temporary housing places. According to the last UN factsheet (UN 4/7/2017) 14.500 -23% of the 62.000 refugees hosted in the different accommodation schemes in Greece are hosted in apartments supported

by NGO’s and Municipalities mainly in Athens and Thessaloniki.

The strong predisposition to homeownership that characterizes both the Southern European countries under study, represents at the same time a strength and a weakness in terms of policy innovation. The proprietary regime strongly influenced policies in the field of homeownership protection, with a relative stable situation in Italy and a more burdensome one in Greece given the higher levels of over indebtedness. The protection of private property is thus at the core of the agenda, as a measure that will consequently prevent eviction and dispossession of homeowners (mortgage holders or not). In both countries, efforts to protect overburdened tenants are much more limited and ineffective. The introduction of a rent allowance in Greece was very short-term, while in Italy the ‘No-fault eviction’ fund remained mainly a rhetorical gesture, despite its significant potential as a prevention policy; it did not actually reach those in need since precarious labour was not recognised as a hardship situation.

58

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Italy Policy domains Homeownership protection Mortgages and taxation regimes

Tenants protections Housing allowances

strengths and element of stability

weaknesses and future trends

strengths and element of stability

weaknesses and future trends

> temporary laws that protect indebted homeowners > special taxation regimes and incentives aimed at reducing the financial burden of property owners > stability of the mortgage system

> new mortgage law is under discussion and will eventually introduce a threshold on insolvency after which bank repossession will occur. It is estimated that it will impact about 50.000 families.

> moratiorium of auctions until 2014 > personal insolvency law > first residence protected for about ⅔ of homeowners

> gradually liberalised and constantly under negotiation with lenders > high taxation on property (capital destruction and wealth extraction) for public debt repaiment

> New National Housing Plan (NHP) (Law 27/2014) which introduced a specific measure called the ‘no fault’ eviction fund

> Suspention of anti-eviction moratoria (Law 200/2003)

> Humanitarian bill (l.

4325/2015) rent allowance (directly to the landowners) and free electricity for those in extreme poverty

> Evictions for rent arrears are not documented

> Targeted housing allowance (Buono casa) based on the concept of ‘second opportunity’.

emergency accomodation and poverty management

Greece

> Emergency-style housing solution for those experiencing severe housing distress and eviction

> Insufficient allocation for housing allowance, limited target > Increase in forced eviction for rent arrears

> Rent allowance for lower-middle classes designed for 2018

> lack of trust from property owners toward public administration >re-house evicted household in public housing in temporary accommodation (Centri Assistenza Alloggiativa Temporanea, CAAT) rented by the city

> expansion of poverty alleviation measures (soup kitchens, social groceries etc.) and provisions for the homeless (night-shelters, day centres, social clinics and pharmacies)

> Law that makes eviction easier (express eviction) > (insufficient) housing allownaces for tenants, limited target

> conteinment of extreme destitution > need for more structural reforms in housing support

> supported housing for refugees and homeless in rented apartments

public housing

>production/provision of social housing (re-furbisment, self-repair, acquisition)

> lack of strategic vision, implementation case by case

> no public housing > discussions about the use of other type of public property for housing

> Housing Emergency Plan (HEP) (Regional Decree 18/2014). The plan foresees the production of public housing

housing movements

> historical housing movement as shock absorber

> criminalization of houisng squat and contraction of space for negotiations

>emerging movements against auctions and refugee squats

Dimitra Siatitsa & Sandra Annunziata > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > housing policies in time of austerity in Athens and Rome 59

> prevalence of homeownersip is strong > potential for more elaborated housing claims

The main difference however between the two cases is that the housing system in Italy is still managed by public housing authorities which do not exist anymore in Greece. Consequently, in the latter a set of regulations and competencies have been eradicated and partially substitute by philanthropic institution. It is thus difficult to imagine how a policy field that requires important public financial resources, administrative competences, but also societal support such as housing, can be developed under very strict austerity constraints. A very simple lesson in this respect is that whether non-functional, with management problems and slow in assimilating the required changes - the Italian housing authorities are still fundamental agents for the implementation of new housing schemes.

This is particularly true if we consider that, in both cases, the challenge is to increase the public housing supply by re-using and rehabilitating the unused stock, which requires strong management and competencies. In this respect the most significate innovation has been the Italian self-rehab program. In Greece the debate over the the re-use of empty property is still very premature (and very challenging) and is mainly oriented towards the need to prevent property concentration, reactivate the construction sector and develop a tool for urban upgrading, rather than targeting a long-term housing policy.

The growing of an emergency system of poverty management and informal approaches towards housing is probably the most urgent issue. In Athens responses to the refugees’ crisis (mainly in the form of emergency camps and new shelterization) has challenged the public housing discourse in general and represents a factor of stress over the already existing housing distress.

In Rome the production of a housing emergency has been instrumental for the management of informality in past years, however this has led to an unsustainable situation. Both cases stress the need to go beyond emergency solutions, that only contribute to the containment of destitution and impoverishment, towards structural solutions.

Finally, we can detect innovative gestures that arise from the role of property owners in the provision of housing, such as in the case of second opportunity for evicted and marginal population. This approach takes advantage of the characteristics of the Southern European housing system, namely the particular property and urban structure. The current conjuncture challenges the stability of the housing system in the two proprietary societies we analysed, but at the same time generates potentials for important changes that might start from the consideration of the social value of property against dispossession and financialisation of housing.

60

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

references Arapoglou V. and Gounis K. 2015, “Poverty and Homelessness in Athens: Governance and the Rise of an Emergency Model of Social Crisis Management”, GreeSE Paper No.90, Hellenic Observatory, LSE. Arapoglou, V, Gounis. K. and Siatitsa D. 2015, Revisiting the Concept of Shelterisation: Insights from Athens, Greece, European Journal of Homelessness, 9 (2) 137-157.

Annunziata, S. 2017a, Una finestra di policy in clima di austerità permanente: imparare delle piattaforme antisfratto. Roma, Atene e Madrid a confronto, Paper presented at the Italian Society of Urbanism, Roma 2017, Annunziata S. 2017b, “Sfratto e antisfratto a Roma in clima di austerità” paper presented at the conference Roma in Transizione, Gran Sasso Science Institute, 3-4 Aprile 2017, L’Aquila.

European Commission 2015 Pilot project. Promoting protection of the right to housing - Homelessness prevention in the context of evictions, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxemburg.

FEANTSA, 2011, “FEANTSA Policy paper. Impact of anti-crisis austerity measures on homeless services across the EU”. http://www.feantsa.org FEANTSA, 2017, The Second Overview of Housing Exclusion in Europe 2017, available at: http://www.feantsa.org/en/report/2017/03/21/the-second-overview-of-housingexclusion-in-europe-2017?bcParent=27 FEANTSA, 2016, Homelessness in Greece, FEANTSA Country fische, available at: http://www.feantsa.org/download/greece-cfsh-nov-2016final3873627622951940527.pdf Garcia Lamarca, M., & Kaika, M. 2016. Mortgaged lives: the biopolitics of debt and housing financialisation.Transactions - Institute of British Geographers, 41(3), 313327.

Gerull, S. 2014. Eviction due to rent arrears: A comparative analysis of Eviction in fourteen countries, European Journal of Homelessness, vol. 8, n. 2, pp. 137-155 International Monetary Fund (2013) Technical note on the financial situation of Italian Households and not financial corporations and risk to the banking system, IMF County Report, 13/348.

Kourachanis N. 2017, Homelessness Policies in Crisis Greece: The Case of the Housing and Reintegration Program, European Journal of Homelessness, 11 (1) Maloutas T. 2014, Social and Spatial impact of the crisis in Athens, from clientelist regulation to the sovereign debt crisis, Région et Dévelopment n. 139, pp149-166.

Mudu, P. 2014. Housing and homelessness in contemporary Rome, CH 4, in Global Rome: Changing Faces of the Eternal City, Isabella Clough Marinaro and Bjørn Thomassen (eds). Indiana University Press: Indianapolis. 62-80.

Puccini, E 2016, Verso una politica della casa, dall’emergenza abitativa romana ad un nuovo modello gestionale, Roma: Ediesse.

Rolnik R., 2013. Late neoliberalism: The financialization of homeownership and housing rights. International Journal for Urban and Regional Research, 37, 1058– 1066.

Savino, M. 2014, Crisi e Città, in Laura Fregolent and Michelangelo Savino (eds) Città e Politiche in tempo di crisi, Franco Angeli, Milano. pp 37-72.

Siatitsa, D. 2016, “Changes in Housing and Property under the Austerity Regime in Greece: challenges for the movement and the left” in Schonig, B. and Schipper S. (eds) Urban Austerity. Impacts of the Global Financial Crisis on Cities in Europe, Theater der Zeit, p. 145-160.

Dimitra Siatitsa & Sandra Annunziata > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > housing policies in time of austerity in Athens and Rome 61

Particolare del progetto grafico a cura di Antonia Santolaya pubblicato a p. 131

62

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Berlin: anti-gentrification between protest and program

@ Andrej Holm |

Berlino: anti-gentrification tra protesta e programma

Negli ultimi dieci anni Berlino è diventata la capitale della crisi abitativa tedesca. Cambiamenti demografici, strategie di investimento alterate e la battuta di arresto dello Stato nei confronti di politiche per l’abitare sociale non hanno avuto solo l’effetto di aumentare drasticamente il costo degli affitti ma hanno anche portato ad una crisi abitativa strutturale. La gentrification non è più solo un fenomeno che riguarda singoli quartieri ma è diventata una normalità per porzioni vaste dell’area urbana di Berlino dove movimenti sociali urbani e iniziative locali hanno combattuto il processo di gentrification per anni. Le loro proposte sono state integrate nelle strategie e politiche delle più recenti coalizione di governo cittadino (SPD, DIE LINKE, GREENS) formatesi in seguito al cambiamento di governo nel 2016. Il paper commenta questa fase di innovazione nelle politiche di housing a Berlino analizzandone le potenzialità e i limiti per una possibile politica della casa anti-displacement.

The Berlin housing crisis Until a few years ago Berlin was considered to be among the most affordable European metropoles for housing. This was possible thanks to a high percentage rates of public and social housing stock, extensive construction activity, and substantial public funding programmes. All of these factor limited the profit expectations of private investors and guaranteed affordable rents in almost all parts of the city. The dynamics of gentrification were spatially confined to a few selected neighbourhoods of the East Berlin urban core.

Andrej Holm > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Berlin: Anti-Gentrification between Protest and Program

63

However, in the last years Berlin has been transformed into a city with a structural housing crisis. Reasons for these changes lie in the population growth of the past decade, very limited new housing construction, and above all a neoliberal decimation of social housing. The privatisation of more than 200,000 public housing units into the hands of mainly financial funds (Uffer 2011), the termination of funding programmes for new social housing units, and the liberalisation of building and tenancy laws have transformed Berlin’s housing market into an arena of profit expectations (Holm 2011).

The growing gap between existing rent-controlled tenancy agreements and the realisable rent levels from new tenants, in particular, has resulted in enormous displacement pressures as owners are now able to generate significantly higher rental income from new tenants without any additional investments. Turning rental property into owner-occupied property, utilising refurbishment notifications and other reasons to ask for the enforcement of a faster eviction are all signifiers of an intensification of displacement pressures, which is caused by the rent gap. Incentives for modernisation and the danger of displacement are, by far, no longer restricted to clearly localised neighbourhoods. Gentrification has become the new urban norm for vast parts of the urban core and, over the past few years, has begun to affect quarters outside the usual geographical marker of the inner urban core, the S-Bahn Ring (Holm 2013).

Gentrification and displacement are thus part of this structural housing crisis. In total, more than 100,000 housing units are needed in order to supply every household in needs with proper accommodation. The supply deficit is even higher if we consider the amount of affordable housing1, in this fraction 150,000 additional units would be necessary to accommodate low-income earners (Holm 2016). Due to the rapid closure of funding programmes for social housing, apartments with rent control and secure tenancies are particularly in short supply, consequently an increasing number of people are seeking accommodation but are almost entirely excluded from the market.

The city-wide rent increase mean that every move of home (even into significantly smaller apartments) comes with higher financial pressure2. Many households are too poor to be displaced and try to compensate for these higher rents with over-occupation, subletting, and the reduction of other vital costs. Displacement from a neighbourhood in Berlin is accompanied by a displacement of one’s living standards.

1_

Affordability is defined in Berlin as the costs of an apartment not exceeding 30% of a household’s net income.

2_ As a response to the housing market development, the number of house moves within Berlin decreased significantly between 2007 (350,000 internal moves) and 2015 (275,000 moves) despite rising population numbers (Amt für Statistik 2016).

New wave of tenants’ protests in Berlin A wave of housing political protest emerged in response to these developments and displacement pressures. Since 2010, citizens started to actively mobilize for the access to housing and against displacement. In addition to the ongoing struggles of several former squats, we can distinguish several types of mobilisation: interventionist street protests, neighbourhood initiatives, organised housing cooperatives, and subject-specific campaigns.

Interventionist street protests originated in the protests against the controversial investment project MediaSpree, which intended to transform the banks of the River Spree into a landscape of concrete office buildings (Dohnke 2013). In this case a series of smaller, campaign-like protests have formed against luxury new-builds (Crossland 2009) and the temporary siting of international cultural projects in Berlin Kreuzberg (Kompatsiari 2017, p. 57; Vartanian 2012). The activities of these interventionist street protest

64

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

consisted in demonstrations, poster campaigns, the disruption of official events, as well as targeting buildings with paint bombs and stones. Far more specific and continuous are the activities of the group Stop Evictions Berlin which has organised protests against forced evictions since 2012. The group draws on a combination of self-organisation, public relations works, and civil disobedience to stop forced evictions3. The initiative’s ability to mobilise is considerable, e.g. in February 2013 more than 1,000 people took part in a blockade of a forced eviction in Kreuzberg. Despite the fact that the eviction was eventually successful due to police deployment that lasted several hours, the Stop Eviction Berlin’s position for future conflicts was strengthened by this event. Many landlords shying away from such sustained attention, and cancelled evictions before that the Stop Eviction Campaign would announce protest. The interventionist street protests primarily focus on a specific reason for mobilising and do not pursue any agenda of policy reform besides abstract demands (‘No wholesale of the city’, ‘Rent is not for profit’). 3_ Around 6,000 forced eviare pursued each year However, the activities against forced evictions, with their demand to the ctions in Berlin. In particular, in city housing associations and the Social Welfare Office of suspending evictions, centre districts with their are an exceptions. high rents for new tenants, landlords increasingly justify

Neighbourhood initiatives and local associations have formed in approxi- the termination of a tenancy mately fifteen neighbourhoods of the urban core to critically observe the agreement not only with rent changes in their residential areas and to support neighbours in their argu- arrears but with lesser causes as ‘contravention of houments with landlords. Many of the neighbourhood initiatives document cas- such se rules’, ‘obstruction of buil4 es of displacement and changes to their neighbourhood on their websites . ding work’, or a ‘breakdown The initiatives investigate not only the displacement of tenants but also the in trust’. The courts and adconstruction of new housing projects, increasing touristification, as well as ministration report that lanthe conversion of rental property into holiday lets5. A fairly new area of con- dlords far less often agree to cern for these neighbourhood organizations is the defence of long-estab- out of court settlements and lished local shops against displacement. Shops catering for day-to-day needs, mutually agreed resolution. higher the expectation in particular, often have to make way for catering businesses, small boutique The of profit due to a change of shops, and flagship stores. In Kreuzberg, neighbourhood initiatives were suc- tenant, the more uncomprocessful in preventing the displacement of a grocer, a bakery, a bookstore and mising the owner’s inclination a florist. These local associations organized meetings with several hundred to evict (Berner et al. 2015). participants, petitions and demonstrations that successfully putted pressure 4_ Different grassroots on the owners and the local district to provide long-term security for the mapping projects on displabusinesses. In addition to providing information in and for the neighbour- cement and gentrification: t t p : / / w w w. w e m - g e h o e hood, to being present in conflicts and making an often personal address to hrt-kreuzberg.de/index.php/ the owners, many initiatives also aim to confront local district policy. Arising karte-verdraengungsprozesfrom actual conflicts in the neighbourhood, these neighbourhood initiatives se, https://moabit.crowdhave created a series of demands to reform policy. Many initiatives, such as map.com/, http://www.bisupport the extension of protected neighbourhoods and demand a ban on zim-kiez.de/blog/2015/06/24/ holiday lets, as well as demanding the increased application of the municipal k a r t e - d e r - v e r d r a e n gung-in-so36-map-of-displaright to first refusal Vorkaufsrecht 6. cement/ 5_ A survey of internet plaMore than 100 organized housing groups have been set up city-wide to en- tforms such as Airbnb shows force their right to housing. Besides legal attempts to avert rent rises, refur- that around 25,000 apartbishment and the conversion of rental into owner-occupied property, many ments in central Berlin are housing cooperatives went public and addressed specific political demands used as holiday lets and are to the district administrations and the Local Government. While protests of thus missing from an urgenthousing groups has mainly remained fragmented, the tenant struggles were ly needed supply of housing able to establish a series of demands for political reform in the ensuing public (http://www.airbnbvsberlin. de/). debate. In 2011/12, for instance several groups produced a joint catalogue 6_ Vorkaufsrecht is a speof demands (‘The dossier on rent policy’) addressed to the state government cial right to intervene into Andrej Holm > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Berlin: Anti-Gentrification between Protest and Program

property transactions and to take properties into public hands.

65

(http://mietendossier.blogsport.de/). Their demands included: a cap on refurbishment, a stronger protection against conversion into ownership, the restriction of demolitions, and a re-communalisation of already privatised housing stock. Social housing tenants have, since 2012, organised a series of events and a conference to develop proposals for social housing reform (Hamann et al. 2016). The quality of the proposals and their underlying ideas was so advanced that the city administration appointed several spokesperson of the housing groups to take part to an expert commission for social housing reform. While mobilising for a city-wide referendum on rents, a cooperation of numerous initiatives developed a legislative proposal (‘Housing supply bill’) in order to fundamentally reform public and social housing (Braun 2015).

A number of more strongly institutionalised initiatives have become established in recent years as a further element of the new tenants’ protests in Berlin. With subject-specific expertise and political dialogue, these institutionalised initiatives take the form of subject-specific campaigns and seek to influence different instruments of urban and housing policy. One of them is the ‘Initiative: Thinking the City Anew’ which was formed by a circle of young architects, town planners, and cultural workers in 2011 as a broad alliance for re-orientating real estate policy in cooperation with different organisations. The initiative’s central demand is to utilise the development and allocation of public real estate in Berlin as an instrument for the promotion of social and cultural diversity. Following a decade of austerity and public real estate being routinely sold to the highest bidder, the initiative calls for a moratorium on sales, more transparency in real estate policy, and to restrict any future real estate allocations to land subject to hereditary leaseholds.

The initiative convene a round table on real estate policy which has for many years provided a regular and consistent forum for discussion between these type of initiatives, the Berlin Senate, political parties, and organisations. In contrast to the otherwise usual means of participation, the initiative puts forward a committed goal (to develop guidelines for Berlin’s real estate policy) and sets the agenda. The concept of ‘Transparent real estate’ was adopted by the Senate in 2014 and is directly based in the discussions of the round table (Initiative Stadt Neudenken 2014). The initiative City from Below also aims to influence urban policy in Berlin. Originating in the demand to obtain public real estate from the Federal State (the Dragonerareal in Kreuzberg) for municipal use, the initiative so far has developed a series of proposals on how municipal planning can be done with meaningful neighbourhood participation. It aims to develop a model of how the ‘best ideas of self-organised projects can be brought together with the best characteristics of municipal housing supply’ (https://stadtvonunten.de/). The initiative promotes a different construction policy in Berlin by way of public events, participation in various subject-specific political committees, and direct discussions with those politically responsible.

The city belongs to you: from an election campaign motto to a coalition agreement The economy of valorisation and the geographical expansion of gentrification have created new forms of housing protest in Berlin. Despite the largely fragmented form of individual struggles, collectivising the housing question has nonetheless contributed towards the politisation of housing and, with a series of reform proposals, has defined the political standards of housing for future governments.

66

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Ahead of the election for the Berlin Parliament in September 2016, the future coalition partners had already developed closer cooperation with a series of tenants’ initiatives. While the Greens and DIE LINKE as parties of the opposition coordinated aspects of their parliamentary work with social movements, the SPD was forced to cooperate with a successful petition for the first stage of the Rent Referendum. DIE LINKE introduced in their election campaign posters the slogan ‘The city belongs to you’ and tried to put that promise into practice after the election. During the coalition negotiations, individual emissaries of the parties were in discussion with tenant activists from housing groups, neighbourhood groups and subject specific campaigns.

The latter were able to influence the goals of the coalition to the point of the phrasing specific passages of the government program. The opening towards an urban society, as promised during the election campaign, was initially realised, and the handwriting of the ‘street’ has become visible in the government programme. Under the heading ‘Affordable housing for all’, the new coalition’s political goals for housing were detailed in more than ten pages of the coalition agreement (SPD; Die Linke; Bündnis 90/Die Grünen). The central demands of the urban political movements of recent years in respect to housing encompasses the following objectives and will likely influence the design of housing policy in the future.

Real estate policy. Until now real estate was mainly regarded as an instrument of debt liquidation and arranged accordingly by resorting to a policy of selling to the highest bidder. In future, the sustainable and strategic management of urban land should be pursued as a goal. Public land for housing construction should be solely given to state-owned housing associations, cooperatives and social housing associations. The allocation criteria for sales or lease agreements have to be shaped in such a manner that 30% to 50% of the inhabitable space created falls under rent controls and offers tenancy protection. For the establishment of new building sites, the model of cooperative site development will be applied in order to force private companies to offer at least 30% of the inhabitable space as rent controlled and tenancy protected units.

Social housing. The remaining housing stock of around 100,000 social housing units from earlier funding periods have to be protected from premature termination of their social aims and for the long term. A comprehensive reform also aims to reduce rent levels and to orientate them according to the tenants’ income. Picking up the claim to municipalize the social housing stock pilot projects should be promoted with the acquisition of privately-owned social housing through residents’ cooperatives.

Public housing. According to the conditions of the coalition agreement, the six state-owned housing associations with their approximately 300,000 units should, from now on, become the central pillar of social housing supply; 60% of the tenancy agreements for this stock should be given to households with low income (below the threshold for housing benefits, according with the certificate of eligibility for housing). Rent rises should be limited to 2% p.a. and the costs of refurbishment are only admissible up to 6% of the annual rent. With these agreements, the future government programme also took on board the demands of tenant initiatives such as Tenants Forum Pankow and the Rent Referendum.

Securing housing and protection against displacement. Another key area of

Andrej Holm > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Berlin: Anti-Gentrification between Protest and Program

67

future housing policy lies in the more rigorous application of instruments based in tenancy and urban planning law to protect against displacement and to limit property speculation. The abuse of apartments as holiday lets and vacancies should be more strongly sanctioned than before (for instance by limiting or prohibit uses change). For future demolition permits, there should be regulations in place for appropriate replacement of housing. Furthermore, a charter to protect neighbourhoods, regulations for conversions, and municipal rights to take over private properties have to be extended and designed more effectively. Here, too, the demands of neighbourhood initiatives, support groups for those affected, and tenancy rights organisations have been adopted by the new Government Coalition.

Since the new coalition came into government in 2016, first steps have been taken in the realisation of a new housing policy. However, the realisation of many of these plans is delayed due to the slow moving wheels of the administration, initial tensions between the coalition partners, and the resistance of housing companies to put into practice new obligations. These difficulties demonstrate how important the work and the protests of a whole set of initiatives and grassroots movements are in seeding up processes of change and law reforms. Even under the conditions of a progressive government the following rule applies: only political pressure from below, the calling out of grievances and the highlighting of solutions can secure a solution for social housing supply.

68

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

references Amt für Statistik 2016, Fort- und Zuzüge über die Bezirks- und Landesgrenzen in Berlin, 2008 bis 2015, nach Anzahl der Personen und Bezirken. Amt für Statistik BerlinBrandenburg, Berlin.

Berner L., Holm A., Jensen I. 2015, Zwangsräumungen und die Krise des Hilfesystems, Humboldt University, Berlin.

Blecha, Thomas/rbb24 2017, Abriss oder Erhalt: Was wird aus dem Haus der Statistik? Accessed in May 2017, www.rbb-online.de/politik/beitrag/2017/04/plaenehaus-der-statistik-berlin.html Braun S. 2015, “Grassroots push law to ease Berlin housing crisis”, in DW, accessed in May 2017, http://www.dw.com/en/grassroots-push-law-to-ease-berlin-housingcrisis/a-18520497 Crossland D. 2009, “Berlin’s Bohemians wage war on rich”, in The National, accessed in May 2017, http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/europe/berlins-bohemianswage-war-on-rich Dohnke J. 2013, “Spree Riverbanks for Everyone! What remains of ‘Sink MediaSpree’?”, in Bernt M. Britta G., Holm, A. (eds.) The Berlin Reader. A Compendium on Urban Change and Activism, transcript, Bielefeld, pp. 261-274.

Hamann U. et al. 2016, und deswegen sind wir hier, Spector Books, Leipzig.

Holm A. 2011, Wohnungspolitik der rot-roten Regierungskoalition in Berlin2, in Holm, A. Lederer K, Naumann M. Linke Metropolenpolitik. Erfahrungen und Perspektiven am Beispiel Berlin, Westfälisches Dampfboot, Münster, pp. 92-112.

Holm A. 2013, “Berlin’s Gentrification Mainstream”, in Bernt M. Britta G., Holm, A. (eds.), The Berlin Reader. A Compendium on Urban Change and Activism, transcriptVerlag, Bielefeld, pp. 171-187.

Holm, A. 2016, Sozialer Wohnraumversorgungsbedarf in Berlin, accessed in May 2017, www.sowi.hu-berlin.de/de/lehrbereiche/stadtsoz/forschung/projekte/berichtwohnraumversorgungsbedarf-berlin-holm-2016.pdf Initiative Stadt Neudenken 2014, Runder Tisch zur Neuausrichtung der Berliner Liegenschaftspolitik, Accessed in May 2017, http://stadt-neudenken.tumblr.com/ Runder%20Tisch Kompatsiari P. 2017, The Politics of Contemporary Art Biennials: Spectacles of Critique, Theory and Art, Routledge, New York & London O’Sullivan F. 2016, “The Uncertain Future of Berlin’s Squat Houses”, in CITYLAB, accessed in May 2017, https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/01/berlin-squathouses-raids-police/424608/ SPD, Die Linke, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen 2016, Berlin gemeinsam gestalten.

Solidarisch. Nachhaltig. Weltoffen. Koalitionsvereinbarung 2016-2021, accessed in May 2017, https://www.berlin.de/rbmskzl/_assets/rbm/161116-koalitionsvertragfinal.pdf Uffer S. 2011, The Uneven Development of Berlin’s Housing Provision, PhD-Thesis at LSE, London.

Vartanian H. 2012, BMW Guggenheim Lab Cancelled in Berlin Due to Supposed Threats of Violence, Accessed in May 2017, https://hyperallergic.com/48743/bmwguggenheim-lab-berlin-cancelled/

Andrej Holm > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Berlin: Anti-Gentrification between Protest and Program

69

Particolare del progetto grafico a cura di Antonia Santolaya pubblicato a p. 131

70

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

El estallido de las resistencias contra la gentrificación en España

@ Daniel Sorando |

The outbreak of resistances against gentrification in Spain

Gentrification has recently become a widely used term by both Spanish urban grassroots movements and media. The reason is the current strength of the processes of investment and displacement within inner-city neighborhoods which were characterized by a social mix at the beginning of the century. In this article, the author argues that the factors which prevented the massive gentrification of the main Spanish cities have vanished due to the crisis. As a result, many practices against gentrification are arising within Spanish cities.

Cuando se publicaron en España los primeros libros sobre la gentrificación, tanto en el ámbito académico como en el destinado al debate público1, la mayor parte de periodistas preguntaron en qué consistía este fenómeno. En 1_ Junto con una consolidada tradición en el estudio acacambio, dos años más tarde la pregunta es cómo puede combatirse. El tér- démico de la gentrificación mino ya no se emplea sólo en algunos departamentos universitarios. Por el (García-Herrera 2001; Janocontrario, numerosos movimientos sociales han comenzado a utilizarlo para schka, Sequera & Salinas 2014; denunciar diversos desplazamientos en las ciudades españolas. Al respecto, Duque 2016), destacan recienla creciente repercusión mediática de estas protestas da cuenta de su éxito. tes publicaciones que han contribuido en la divulgación En este artículo se responde a dos preguntas ligadas a estas nuevas resisten- de un término que ha llegado cias: ¿en qué contexto se produce la emergencia de la gentrificación en la a consolidarse en el debate Daniel Sorando > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > El estallido de las resistencias contra la gentrificación en España

público (García-Herrera y Sabaté 2015; VV.AA. 2015; Sorando y Ardura 2016).

71

Fig.3_

Acciones contra el turismo en Madrid.

agenda pública española? ¿Y cómo condiciona dicho contexto las resistencias que la combaten?

El contexto: La gentrificación en España La vivienda ha sido un aspecto central en el debate político y social de la última década en España. No obstante, el núcleo de estas polémicas no ha sido la gentrificación sino la burbuja inmobiliaria (López y Rodríguez 2011).

En este contexto, la Plataforma de Afectados por la Hipoteca (PAH) se ha consolidado como la principal resistencia frente a la más grave consecuencia de la burbuja: los desahucios (Colau y Alemany 2012). Si bien los desahucios se han concentrado entre la población más empobrecida, su localización está dispersa en el territorio urbano español2. Sin embargo, a la sombra del urbanismo expansivo de la burbuja fueron acumulándose las condiciones de posibilidad de un nuevo tipo de desplazamientos espacialmente concentrados en los viejos barrios populares de los centros urbanos. El resultado ha sido un proceso de gentrificación que, como se verá, está siendo capaz de esquivar los factores contextuales que parecían vacunar a estos barrios contra el desplazamiento masivo de sus habitantes más precarizados.

2_

El proceso de gentrificación de los centros urbanos españoles presenta pautas específicas que, no obstante, pueden analizarse por medio del esquema teórico del rent gap (Smith 1996). A partir de la Guerra Civil española (1936-1939), los sectores populares de estos territorios fueron sometidos a un proceso de continuo abandono. Restablecida la democracia, estos barrios sufrieron un agudo proceso de estigmatización durante los años ochenta y noventa. En este contexto, la desregulación de los alquileres incentivó el desalojo de los inquilinos todavía protegidos por la antigua legislación franquista. Las prácticas de acoso inmobiliario se desataron y terminaron por vaciar numerosos edificios que, una vez derribados, podían ser poblados por nuevos inquilinos con mayor poder adquisitivo. Destruidas las condiciones de vida de estos barrios, las administraciones públicas desar-

Ver http://viveroiniciativasciudadanas.net/2015/03/10/ madrid-desahuciado/

72

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

rollaron una intensa actividad de regeneración de su territorio durante los últimos años del siglo XX y la primera década del XXI. Siguiendo la diferenciación entre aproximaciones sociales y privadas a las operaciones de regeneración urbana (Bailey y Robertson 1997), las intervenciones de las administraciones públicas españolas se caracterizaron por una aproximación privada en la que la vivienda de alquiler social cumplía un papel residual. Así, si bien la mercantilización del alquiler fue una medida de ámbito nacional, estas inversiones se concentraron en los barrios populares de los centros urbanos españoles (Leal y Sorando 2013).

Este proceso de desinversión-inversión ha producido las condiciones de posibilidad de la gentrificación actual. Y, sin embargo, ciertas características de estos territorios han supuesto importantes frenos a su despliegue: el bajo porcentaje de alquiler y la fragmentación de la propiedad inmobiliaria; el reciente asentamiento de población inmigrante extranjera y empobrecida, el cual ha ralentizado/complementado las formas de explotación residencial en estos barrios; y el estallido de la crisis económica en el momento en que se completó la mayor parte de las operaciones de regeneración urbana. En el siguiente apartado se examina cómo han evolucionado cada uno de estos factores, así como el modo en que han condicionado las prácticas emergentes de resistencia contra la gentrificación en las ciudades españolas.

Las resistencias contra la gentrificación en España En el verano de 2014 el vecindario del barrio de la Barceloneta (Barcelona) comenzó una serie de protestas contra los efectos del turismo desaforado en su territorio. Poco antes, los habitantes del barrio de Gamonal (Burgos), habían frenado unas obras públicas basadas en la especulación y en contra de sus necesidades sociales. Los medios de comunicación recogieron estas movilizaciones entre la sorpresa y la incomprensión3. Tres años más tarde, las resistencias que aquellos movimientos sacaron a la luz ya no sorprenden. Por el contrario, estas prácticas comienzan a componer un conjunto coherente de luchas vecinales contra la mercantilización de los barrios populares. En síntesis, especulación y resistencia están desarrollándose con gran rapidez en los barrios españoles, fruto de cambios en los factores que frenaban el despliegue de las dinámicas de gentrificación en su territorio.

En primer lugar, estas sociedades urbanas están viviendo un cambio decisivo en su modelo residencial. Como consecuencia de las dinámicas de precarización social, la demanda de vivienda en alquiler se ha multiplicado. Por primera vez en décadas, más de la mitad de los jóvenes entre 16 y 29 años, un 52.8%, habitan viviendas en régimen de alquiler en 2016, según los datos de la Encuesta de Condiciones de Vida del Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE). Hasta entonces, un bajo porcentaje de viviendas en alquiler había ralentizado la transmisión de los cambios en el valor del territorio a la renta obtenida por sus viviendas. Tal como explica Beauregard (1990), en aquellos lugares donde los residentes retienen cierto control sobre los procesos de acumulación porque conservan la propiedad de la vivienda, el despliegue de la gentrificación es más lento. Dado que los propietarios han sido renuentes a vender la vivienda donde residen, los afectados por la revalorización de estos barrios se reducían a los escasos inquilinos cuyas rentas del alquiler se incrementaban.

Además, el alquiler ha sido residual y marginal en la sociedad española (Arbaci 2008), de manera que las personas afectadas no sólo eran relativamen- 3_ Daniel Sorando > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > El estallido de las resistencias contra la gentrificación en España

Ver https://labarcelonetarebel.wordpress.com/; https://sombrasenlaciudad. wordpress.com/

73

te escasas sino que, además, su influencia política era ínfima. Esta realidad contrastaba con la realidad de otras sociedades urbanas como la berlinesa o la neoyorkina, donde la mayor parte de su población reside en alquiler.

La consecuencia es que en estas ciudades no sólo las clases populares se ven afectadas por el aumento de las rentas del alquiler sino también amplios sectores de las clases medias, cuya influencia social y política es mucho mayor (Simon 2005). En consecuencia, hace años que la gentrificación se ha convertido en un tema central de la agenda pública alemana y estadounidense (Bernt, Grell & Holm 2013; Jaffe 2015). No obstante, el aumento de hogares que habitan viviendas en alquiler ha cambiado el escenario en España. En la estela de otras movilizaciones de la juventud precarizada, la lucha contra el incremento de las rentas del alquiler se ha convertido en un tema emergente de discusión pública y contestación social.

Al respecto, la constitución de sindicatos de inquilinos supone un hito de las transformaciones urbanas en marcha4. Estas formas de sindicalismo social se añaden a ejemplos tan relevantes como la PAH o las mareas en defensa de los servicios públicos, fortaleciendo así organizaciones de resistencia colectiva contra procesos de desposesión que van más allá del ámbito laboral.

En el caso de los alquileres, el mercado de la vivienda español ofrece una razón para su emergencia. En la medida en que los grandes propietarios (instituciones, bancos, etc.) han sido tradicionalmente escasos, la organización de los inquilinos ha resultado más complicada. En lugar de enfrentarse a adversarios comunes, los inquilinos de las ciudades españolas han tenido que buscar formas innovadoras para trabajar colectivamente ante múltiples pequeños propietarios. Por ello, su colaboración con organizaciones maduras y profesionales como la PAH, con experiencia práctica en la defensa del derecho a la vivienda, es fundamental.

4_

Ver: http://www.inquilinato.org/ ; http://sindicatdellogateres.org/ 5_ Ver: “Los ayuntamientos de Barcelona y Madrid reclaman al Gobierno central que regule el precio de los alquileres” (El Mundo, 23.01.2017) http://goo.gl/if52Ru 6_ “Blackstone construye un gigante de viviendas para el alquiler en España” (Cinco Días, 15.05.2017): https://goo. gl/JRBfRp ; “Los buscadores de edificios de un solo propietario se multiplican” (La Vanguardia, 03.06.2017) https:// goo.gl/G7MzsU

En este escenario, las respuestas institucionales han sido heterogéneas. Por un lado, la última ley de arrendamientos urbanos, aprobada en 2013 por el gobierno conservador del Partido Popular, ha facilitado la rotación de inquilinos al reducir de 5 a 3 años la duración de los contratos de alquiler.

Antes, en 2011 el gobierno del Partido Socialista había aprobado tanto el mecanismo de “desahucio exprés” como la introducción en España de las Socimi, sociedades de inversión especializadas en el alquiler que cuentan con importantes beneficios fiscales. Frente a esta acción legislativa estatal, los nuevos ayuntamientos de las principales ciudades españolas han comenzado a exigir una nueva legislación en materia de alquiler que les ofrezca nuevas herramientas, tales como el control sobre las rentas de áreas específicas de la ciudad5.

Estas políticas de desprotección del inquilino se han aprobado en un contexto de devaluación inmobiliaria que ha abierto una ventana de oportunidad para los inversores globales. En términos comparados, el precio del suelo y las viviendas en los centros urbanos españoles es significativamente más asequible que en otras ciudades como Londres o París. Si a esta estructura se añade la especialización de la economía española en el turismo, se explica el potencial económico de la compra de edificios enteros y desalojo de sus inquilinos para convertirlos en apartamentos turísticos. El resultado es que la tradicional fragmentación de la propiedad en los centros urbanos españoles es sustituida por una progresiva concentración del suelo en grandes fondos de gestión de capitales globales6.

74

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

En síntesis, en ciudades como Barcelona, Madrid o Palma de Mallorca se ha producido un formidable rent gap global, de forma que los fondos de inversión están adquiriendo propiedades devaluadas por la crisis que, en cambio, se hallan en barrios regenerados públicamente y caracterizados por una riqueza patrimonial apreciada por el turismo global (Slater 2015). La consecuencia es la retirada de numerosas viviendas del mercado del alquiler convencional en un momento de gran aumento de la demanda. El resultado es previsible: entre 2013 y 2017, el precio medio del alquiler se ha incrementado en un 59,2% en la ciudad de Barcelona y en un 31,1% en el municipio de Madrid, según datos del portal inmobiliario Idealista. En ambos casos, los centros históricos se han convertido en los distritos donde el alquiler es más inaccesible.

Lees, Bang & López-Morales (2016) explican que la intensidad de la gentrificación varía significativamente según el grado de relación entre los mercados locales y los circuitos globales del capitalismo financiero. En un escenario de creciente penetración de estos circuitos en las ciudades españolas, los gobiernos locales cuentan con recursos y competencias muy escasas. Ante esta situación, diferentes movilizaciones sociales como las iniciadas en 2014 están utilizando nuevos repertorios de denuncia con el fin de alertar a sectores sociales ajenos a los barrios afectados. Estas movilizaciones incluyen multitudinarias manifestaciones bajo lemas como “Madrid no se vende” o “Barcelona no està en venda”7, durante las cuales se señalan con pintura los edificios comprados por grandes capitales con el fin de especular. Expresiones locales de esta ola de protestas son los movimientos ‘Lavapiés ¿a dónde vas?’8 o ‘Fem Sant Antoni’9, ocupados en mapear colectivamente los apartamentos turísticos en estos barrios madrileño y barcelonés, respectivamente; así como la acción política de la ‘Assemblea de Barris per un Turisme Sostenible’ de Barcelona10 (Cocola-Gant y Pardo en esta revista), uno de los actores sociales que han logrado que el gobierno municipal haya aprobado un Plan Especial Urbanístico de Alojamientos Turísticos que regula su apertura según la presión sufrida por los diferentes barrios de la ciudad. Son sólo algunos ejemplo de una lista mucho más amplia de colectivos organizados en barrios de numerosas ciudades españolas, cuyas acciones también incluyen acciones más tradicionales como la okupación social y las iniciativas legislativas populares.

Finalmente, la población inmigrante extranjera residente en España ha comenzado a descender desde el año 2012, momento desde el cual esta población se ha reducido en más de 600.000 personas (un 9,4%) hasta el año 2016, según datos del Padrón municipal del INE. El motivo de este declive se halla en los efectos de la crisis económica sobre sus segmentos más empobrecidos, buena parte de los cuales ha regresado a sus países de origen. El rol de esta población en los barrios más afectados por los procesos de gentrificación es clave, dado que suponen un factor fundamental de resistencia. Al respecto, la mayor parte de las veces estas prácticas no adoptan una forma explícitamente política, como resultado de su débil posición política en términos de ciudadanía, sino que constituyen formas de oposición cotidiana al desplazamiento. Entre estas prácticas destaca la importancia de los circuitos Ver http://500x20.prouede financiación interna o el recurso al hacinamiento, factores ambos me- 7_ speculacio.org/2017/01/barcediante los cuales estas personas son capaces de hacer frente a períodos de lona-no-esta-en-venda/ ingresos insuficientes para pagar la renta del alquiler.

8_ Ver https://lavapiesdonde-

Daniel Sorando > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > El estallido de las resistencias contra la gentrificación en España

vas.wordpress.com/ 9_ Ver https://femsantantoni.wordpress.com/ 10_ Ver https://assembleabarris.wordpress.com/

75

Conclusiones El discurso contra la gentrificación está madurando con gran rapidez entre la población residente en las principales ciudades españolas, como resultado de una acelerada inflación de las rentas del alquiler. En este contexto, nuevos movimientos sociales están oponiéndose a las consecuencias de estas dinámicas mediante repertorios y formas de organización altamente novedosas en el escenario urbano español. Nuevos sindicatos de inquilinos y colectivos anti-gentrificación se han sumado a las plataformas vecinales tradicionales organizadas frente a estos fenómenos. La incorporación de la juventud precarizada, a menudo procedente de clases medias desestabilizadas y formadas políticamente en torno a la constelación del 15M, ha incorporado nuevas estrategias de contestación cada vez más eficaces en la inclusión de estas luchas en la agenda pública.

76

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

bibliografía Arbaci, S. 2008, “(Re) viewing ethnic residential segregation in Southern European cities: Housing and urban regimes as mechanisms of marginalisation”, Housing Studies, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 589-613.

Bailey, N. & Robertson, D. 1997, “Housing Renewal, Urban Policy and Gentrification”, Urban Studies, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 561-578.

Beauregard, R. A. 1990, “Trajectories of neighbourhood change: the case of gentrification”, Environment and Planning A, vol. 22, pp. 855–874.

Bernt, M., Grell, B. & Holm, A. 2013, The Berlin Reader: A Compendium on Urban Change and Activism, Transcript, Bielefeld.

Colau, A. & Alemany, A. 2012, Vidas Hipotecadas: de la burbuja inmobiliaria al derecho a la vivienda, Angle Editorial, Barcelona.

Duque, R. 2016, Procesos de gentrificación en cascos antiguos: el Albaicín de Granada, Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas, Madrid.

Jaffe, S. 2015, “Dear Landlord”, Dissent, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 71- 78.

Janoschka, M., Sequera, J. & Salinas, L. 2013, “Gentrification in Spain and Latin America – a Critical Dialogue”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 1234-1265.

Leal, J. & Sorando, D. 2013, “Rehabilitación urbana y cambio social en las grandes ciudades españolas”. Monografías de la Revista Aragonesa de Administración Pública, vol. XV, pp. 205-236.

Lees, L., Bang, H. & López-Morales, E. 2016. Planetary Gentrification, Polity Press, Londres.

López, I., & Rodríguez, E. 2011, “The Spanish model”, New Left Review, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 5-29.

García-Herrera, L. M. 2001, “Elitización: propuesta en español para el término gentrificación”. Biblio 3W. Revista bibliográfica de geografía y ciencias sociales, vol. 6.

García-Herrera, L. M. & Sabaté, F. 2015, Neil Smith. Gentrificación urbana y desarrollo desigual, Icaria Editorial, Barcelona.

Simon, P. (2005), “Gentrification of Old Neighbourhoods and Social Integration in Europe”, in Kazepov, Y. (ed.), Cities of Europe. Changing contexts, local arrangements, and the challenge to urban cohesion, Routledge, Londres, pp. 210-232.

Slater, T. 2015, “Planetary Rent Gaps”, Antipode, vol. 49, pp. 114–137.

Smith, N. 1996, The New Urban Frontier. Centrification and the Revanchist City, Routledge, Londres.

Sorando, D. & Ardura, Á. 2016, First we take Manhattan. La destrucción creativa de las ciudades, Los libros de la Catarata, Madrid.

VVAA. 2015, El mercado contra la ciudad: globalización, gentrificación y política urbana, Traficantes de Sueños, Madrid.

Daniel Sorando > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > El estallido de las resistencias contra la gentrificación en España

77

Particolare del progetto grafico a cura di Antonia Santolaya pubblicato a p. 131

78

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

The right to (stay put in): Il caso di Porto Fluviale a Roma The right to (stay put in): the case of Porto Fluviale in Rome

In the prolonged aftermath of the economic crisis begun in 2008, the importance of Housing Rights Movements is gaining a new momentum in metropolises like Rome.

Here the spaces they squat for inhabiting purposes represent more than emergency shelters for people in a condition of severe housing deprivation within a profit-oriented and individualistic cityscape. Indeed, they enact a “right to stay put” into the city and contrast the socio-spatial marginalization of the dispossessed urban dwellers in three main ways. Firstly, they subtract spaces from the speculation and from the top down model of urban regeneration. Secondly, they allow marginal people not to be relegated out of the consolidated urban fabric, and to be visible as social and political subjects.

Thirdly, they provide a set of grassroots activities that configure alternative models of sociability, contentious politics and communing inside neighborhoods affected by diverse forms of deprivation. In this respect, housing squats can be interpreted as urban commons that, besides providing emergency housing, contrast gentrification and articulate a renewed “right to the city”. In order to empirically support this theoretical framework, we will discuss the case of the squat Porto Fluviale, located in the central area of Ostiense and occupied since 2003. The alternative housing patterns it has been developing, and the role it plays in the neighborhood, shows the diverse ways in which Housing Rights Movements conceive and practice the “right to stay put” in urban landscape.

Introduzione L’emergenza abitativa è un fenomeno in crescita in molte città europee. Oggi, in un contesto di crisi economica connotato da politiche di austerità, la difficoltà ad avere accesso alla casa è riconosciuta come una delle cause principali dello scivolamento di fette sempre più ampie di popolazione in condizioni di povertà estrema dalle quali difficilmente riusciranno a riemergere (Grande, 2017). A Roma però la questione abitativa ha da tempo assunto caratteristiche strutturali, tanto che il termine “emergenza” non sembra essere appropriato per rendere conto di tutte le dinamiche urbane e sociali che si innescano attorno all’oggetto casa. L’espressione “crisi abitativa” appare Margherita Grazioli & Carlotta Caciagli > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > The right to (stay put in): Il caso di Porto Fluviale a Roma 79

@ Margherita Grazioli @ Carlotta Caciagli | # Right to stay put | # Movimenti di lotta per la casa | # Occupazione | # Right to stay put | # Housing movements | # Squatting |

Fig.1_

Facciata di Porto Fluviale, fonte: le autrici

1_

I Caat furono istituiti dal Comune di Roma durante la prima giunta Veltroni come una sistemazione temporanea per le famiglie in attesa dell’alloggio popolare. Dati i costi altissimi dell’affitto delle strutture al fronte delle condizioni abitative poco degne per i nuclei residenti, la giunta Marino nel 2013, ha iniziato un processo di dismissione delle strutture.

infatti molto più calzante per identificare una serie di forme marginali di abitare l’urbano che animano questa città. Insieme alle famiglie che rischiano lo sfratto, a quelle in lista per le case popolari e a quelle ospitate nei residences (i Centri di Assistenza Alloggiativa Temporanea in via di chiusura)1, una faccia importante del disagio abitativo romano è catalizzata e organizzata dai Movimenti per il Diritto all’Abitare. Questi attori collettivi, oltre a rivendicare il diritto alla casa attraverso proteste politiche organizzate nello spazio urbano, rappresentano spesso l’unica alternativa alla vita in strada per molte famiglie in difficoltà economica e prive di network familiari in grado di “assorbirle”.

Attraverso l’occupazione di immobili sfitti ed abbandonati di proprietà pubblica o privata – come per esempio ex scuole o ex uffici –questi movimenti, ormai da decenni attivi sul territorio romano, sono in grado di rispondere all’esigenza della casa di una parte di popolazione non più intercettata dallo scarso welfare italiano. Ad oggi, stando al censimento allegato alle Delibere Regionali per l’Emergenza Abitativa approvate nel 2014 e nel 2016, in questa città esistono almeno 105 immobili occupati per scopo abitativo, per una stima complessiva di circa 10mila persone che li abitano (Puccini, 2016).

Ma se è vero che questi spazi occupati sono una risposta dal basso all’esigenza concreta di un tetto, considerarli solo degli alloggi temporanei ed emergenziali è un errore sia empirico che analitico. In un tessuto urbano come quello romano, caratterizzato da dinamiche di gentrificazione e privatizzazione sempre più diffuse (Semi, 2015), le occupazioni abitative rappresentano una via alternativa rispetto al paradigma orientato al profitto che costruisce lo spazio urbano di Roma. Infatti, la presenza di spazi abbandonati testimonia la presenza di uno “scarto” del modello di gestione urbano neo-liberale, che articola lo spazio vuoto come iato tra una produttività esaurita, e il potenziale processo di nuova accumulazione attraverso i meccanismi di valorizzazione della rendita e del suolo, da cui i bisogni e i desideri degli abitanti della città (specialmente se poveri) vengono completamente espunti

80

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

(Harvey, 2012; Mudu e Aureli, 2016). In quest’ottica, l’atto dell’occupazione interrompe il processo di accumulazione e speculazione risignificando lo spazio vuoto, che diventa dunque spazio di resistenza e ribaltamento del paradigma neoliberale di gestione e produzione dell’urbano. Partendo da questi presupposti, in che modo le occupazioni sono più che semplici alloggi? E in che modo i Movimenti per il Diritto all’Abitare mettono in campo un cambiamento fisico e simbolico della e nella città?

In primo luogo, sottraendo spazi alla speculazione. Infatti occupare uno stabile significa impedire, o almeno rallentare, il suo processo di valorizzazione finanziaria, in nome di un uso sociale e politico che rispecchi le esigenze di una collettività marginale. In secondo luogo occupare significa opporsi ad una crescente tendenza alla segregazione socio-spaziale (Soja, 1980). Infatti, permettendo a fasce vulnerabili di popolazione di vivere in contesti urbani consolidati, l’occupazione rappresenta la messa in pratica di un più ampio diritto di stay put, ovvero della possibilità di permanenza di categorie a basso reddito anche in aree urbane centrali. In terzo luogo, e come conseguenza dei primi due, le occupazioni abitative contribuiscono a ricreare un tessuto politico e sociale in quartieri sempre più privi di contesti di aggregazione liberi dall’imperativo del consumo. Infatti sempre più spesso negli ultimi anni, gli spazi occupati hanno fornito dal basso una serie di servizi ormai disattesi dalle istituzioni. Tra questi c’è la consulenza legale gratuita per chi ha problemi legati a procedure di sfratto esecutivo o alla propria posizione migratoria; e la messa a disposizione di spazi assembleari per iniziative di quartiere e assemblee popolari. Dunque, ben lontani dall’essere solo “contenitori” di emergenza, le occupazioni sono meglio definibili come “urban commons” (Huron, 2015), spazi creati all’interno di un progetto politico dal basso e ridati in mano a un pezzo di comunità esclusa dalla vita sociale.

Per meglio far emergere il ruolo di questi spazi nella città di Roma, le pagine che seguono porteranno l’esempio specifico dell’occupazione abitativa di via del Porto Fluviale 112, nel quartiere Ostiense. Da ultimo si discuterà, da un punto di vista teorico, le potenzialità della città alternativa che emerge dall’azione dei Movimenti per il diritto all’abitare.

L’esempio di Porto Fluviale occupato L’occupazione di Porto Fluviale, o come viene più semplicemente chiamata dai suoi abitanti Porto, è un’ex caserma dell’aeronautica militare di oltre 5000mq, occupata nel giugno del 2003 dal movimento Coordinamento cittadino di lotta per la casa. La caserma, di proprietà del Ministero della Difesa, in virtù del processo di federalismo demaniale è stata trasferita al Comune, che ne ha predisposto l’alienazione. Lo stabile è infatti inserito all’interno della delibera n°8 del 28/29 ottobre 2010, “Piano delle alienazioni e valorizzazioni degli immobili militari della città di Roma” predisposta dalla Giunta capitolina per la valorizzazione (o, secondo i Movimenti, svendita speculativa) del patrimonio pubblico in disuso. Nonostante la spada di Damocle dell’alienazione e del conseguente sgombero, Porto è oggi una delle occupazioni più numerose e consolidate nel panorama romano, nonché una delle più eterogenee rispetto alla nazionalità dei suoi occupanti. Per la qualità del suo percorso abitativo e per la funzione svolta nel quartiere, oggi Porto è il simbolo dell’idea di una rigenerazione urbana dal basso, sia per quanto riguarda i processi sociali che ha innescato, sia per la riqualificazione dell’immobile.

Margherita Grazioli & Carlotta Caciagli > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > The right to (stay put in): Il caso di Porto Fluviale a Roma 81

Fig.2_

Facciata di Porto Fluviale, altra prospettiva, fonte: le autrici

Il cambiamento, fisico e simbolico, è ben rappresentato dalla sua facciata.

Se durante gli anni in cui è stato inutilizzato Porto appariva come un grigio e abbandonato edificio, oggi il suo enorme muro è animato da un grande affresco del famoso street-artist Blu, raffigurante una moltitudine di facce colorate. Il murales ha la doppia funzione di rappresentare il contesto sociale e politico messo in pratica all’interno delle mura di Porto e di essere un’opera d’arte a disposizione degli abitanti del quartiere. In virtù di queste caratteristiche, non è un caso che Porto Fluviale Occupato sia stato uno dei edifici identificati tra i possibili casi per implementare progetti di auto-recupero, come individuati dalla legge regionale n.55/1998 e dal successivo studio di fattibilità allegato alla Delibera Regionale 110/2016 relativa all’attuazione del Piano Straordinario per l’Emergenza Abitativa. La riqualificazione di Porto Fluviale deriva senza dubbio dalla radicale trasformazione che i suoi occupanti hanno prodotto in oltre 14 anni di vita di quest’occupazione. Ma il suo attuale valore sociale e politico dipende anche da un altro importante fattore: la sua posizione geografica, nel cuore della centrale area di Ostiense. L’affascinante contesto post-industriale e la vicinanza al centro storico di Roma fanno di questa zona della città un luogo caratterizzato da pervasive e complesse dinamiche di gentrification che comportano, fra le molte cose, l’aumento vertiginoso dei costi di affitto e l’assenza di spazi pubblici fruibili.

In un simile contesto, la presenza di Porto è un’anomalia che dimostra la possibilità di una produzione alternativa dello spazio urbano.

In primo luogo Porto rappresenta la possibilità per categorie marginali di vivere in un contesto urbano centrale. Dunque si contrappone a un’idea di città accessibile solo da chi è nella posizione materiale di “poterla pagare”, rappresentando una strada sostenibile da un punto di vista ambientale ma anche sociale. Infatti vivere in occupazione non comporta solo la possibilità di non essere espulsi dalla città, ma è anche l’occasione di mettere in pratica nuove dinamiche di solidarietà, partecipazione e risoluzione dei conflitti in modo collettivo e orizzontale.

82

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

In secondo luogo, quest’occupazione funziona, in larga parte come spazio sociale attorno a cui si ricrea la vita sociale e politica di un quartiere ormai frammentato e depauperato di spazi di aggregazione. Questa seconda funzione è strettamente legata alle caratteristiche fisiche e spaziali dell’edificio stesso. Infatti grazie alle qualità architettoniche e strutturali dell’immobile è stato possibile per gli occupanti recuperare alcune stanze e renderle fruibili agli abitanti del quartiere. La storia di questa apertura verso l’esterno è ben rappresentata dallo spazio simbolo di quest’occupazione: la sala da thè Fronte del Porto, autogestita da abitanti e attivisti. Ben lontano dall’essere un luogo dove ci si limita ad una consumazione, la sala da thè è uno spazio che interagisce con chi lo attraversa, un luogo dove vengono organizzati dibattiti e cene sociali, uno spazio dinamico suscettibile di trasformazione in base alle esigenze di chi lo vive. Molte altre iniziative hanno preso forma accanto alla sala da thè nel corso degli anni. Fra le tante è degna di essere ricordata l’ormai consolidata scuola di lingue Il Porto Parlante. Grazie al contesto multiculturale e multi-linguistico delle occupazioni abitative, questa scuola auto-gestita è capace di mettere a disposizione un numero elevato di insegnanti madrelingua in grado di sostenere corsi di inglese, spagnolo, arabo.

Per concludere, il percorso abitativo e quello politico e sociale trovano in Via del Porto Fluviale 112 una sintesi. Sintesi che, più che esperienza isolata, sembra funzionare da modello per nuove pratiche di abitare (nel) l’urbano.

The right to (“stay put” in) the city I Movimenti per il Diritto all’Abitare rivendicano le occupazioni abitative come spazi alternativi dove mettere in pratica il diritto ad abitare e vivere la città anche per fasce di popolazione più marginali. L’esempio di Porto fa da testimone di ciò. Lontane dall’essere solo “contenitori” di un disagio economico e sociale, le occupazioni sono piuttosto forme di pratica attiva stay put, che contrastano l’espulsione e si riappropriano del diritto di produrre lo spazio urbano (Lefebvre, 1996). Questo avviene principalmente in tre modi.

In primo luogo, tramite l’atto di occupare i movimenti producono dei veri e propri luoghi di rigenerazione autonoma di spazi abbandonati ed inutilizzati a fini abitativi (Chatterton and Pickerill, 2006). In secondo luogo, tramite la riappropriazione e le forme di riproduzione sociale praticate nella vita quotidiana all’interno dello spazio urbano, attivisti e occupanti rivendicano il proprio diritto alla centralità da un punto di vista sia simbolico che materiale (Grazioli, 2017). In ultimo, la molteplicità di aperture al territorio, create da attivisti ed occupanti all’interno di luoghi come Porto Fluviale fanno si che le occupazioni si configurino come vere e proprie moltiplicazioni di diverse forme di urban commons (Huron, 2015) fruibili da chi vive e attraversa i quartieri. Infatti, le attività sociali, come gli sportelli antisfratto, o, nel caso di Porto, della Sala da The Autogestita e la scuola di lingue diventano forme di contrasto alle dinamiche innescate dal modello di sviluppo urbano calato dall’alto e orientato alla massimizzazione del profitto.

In conclusione, il “right to stay put in the city” esercitato dai Movimenti e dagli occupanti contribuisce ad espandere il concetto originariamente elaborato da Hartman (1984, 2002) e ripreso autori successivi (v. Lees, Annunziata and Rivas-Alonso, 2017) ampliandone la platea delle pratiche, pur mantenendone intatti i capisaldi concettuali. Tale diritto, infatti, per gli autori deriva dalla prospettiva di privilegiare gli interessi pubblici e collettivi al posto del Margherita Grazioli & Carlotta Caciagli > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > The right to (stay put in): Il caso di Porto Fluviale a Roma 83

rapporto esclusivo tra proprietario e bene posseduto; tuttavia, tale diritto viene prettamente esercitato tramite azioni di contrasto messe in atto da quegli abitanti urbani marginali che non traggono benefici dalla gentrificazione e dai suoi riscontri economici. Al contrario, l’esistenza di luoghi come Porto Fluviale all’interno del proprio territorio ci costringe a ripensare il right to stay put non come un concetto statico, che rivendica la stabilità della casa rispetto alla sua volatilità (Maeckelbergh, 2012), ma piuttosto come un diritto ad avere esperienze dinamiche e inclusive in una forma non-precaria.

In questo senso, in un contesto di ristrutturazione neoliberista dello spazio urbano sempre più aggressiva, il modo in cui Porto Fluviale si è inserito, e si conferma giorno dopo giorno, nel contesto urbano, funziona come una cartina di tornasole del ruolo giocato dal diritto all’abitare nella partita del governo dei territori, nonché del potenziale duraturo di forme rigenerative dal basso della città che siano compatibili con i bisogni sociali della collettività.

84

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

bibliografia Chatterton P. and Pickerill J. 2010, “Everyday Activism and Transitions Towards PostCapitalist Worlds”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, vol. 3, n. 4, pp. 475-490.

Grande E. 2017, Guai ai poveri. La faccia triste dell’America, iRicci, Torino.

Grazioli M. 2017, “From Citizens to Citadins: Rethinking Right to the City Inside Housing Squats in Rome, Italy”, Citizenship Studies, vol. 21, n. 4, pp. 393-408.

Hartman C. 1984/2002, ’Right to stay put’, reprinted in Between Eminence and Notoriety. CUPR Press, New Brunswick, NJ. Harvey D. 2012, Rebel Cities. From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution.

Verso, London/New York.

Huron A. 2015, “Working with Strangers in Saturated Space: Reclaiming and Maintaining the Urban Commons”, Antipode, vol. 47, n. 4, pp. 963-979.

Loretta Lees L. Annunziata S. and Rivas-Alonso C. 2017, “Resisting Planetary Gentrification: The Value of Survivability in the Fight to Stay Put”, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, pp. 1–10.

Lefebvre H. 1996, Writing On Cities. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford/Malden, MA. Mudu, P. and Aureli, A. 2016, “Il Cammino Tortuoso per “Mettere in Comune”.

Le Occupazioni Come una Pratica di Definizione dei Diritti’, MEMOTEF, Annali del Dipartimento di Metodi e Modelli per l’Economia, Il Territorio e la Finanza (Special Issue “Commons/Comune”), pp. 81-94.

Puccini E. 2016, Verso una Politica della Casa. Dall’Emergenza Abitativa Romana ad un Nuovo Modello Nazionale, Ediesse, Roma.

Semi G. 2015, Gentrification. Tutte le città come Dysneyland?, Il Mulino, Bologna Soja E. W. 1980, “The socio-special dialectic”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 70, n. 2, pp. 207-225.

Maeckelbergh M. 2012, “Mobilizing to stay put: Housing Struggles in New York City”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 36, n. 4, pp. 655-673.

Margherita Grazioli & Carlotta Caciagli > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > The right to (stay put in): Il caso di Porto Fluviale a Roma 85

Particolare del progetto grafico a cura di Antonia Santolaya pubblicato a p. 131

86

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Nodi teorici ed epistemologici

Theoretical and epistemological challenges

>

87

Particolare del progetto grafico a cura di Antonia Santolaya pubblicato a p. 131

88

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Beyond ‘Staying put’:

reflections on discursive strategies in recent anti-gentrification movements Oltre lo slogan ‘Staying put’: riflessioni sulle strategie discorsive di recenti movimenti anti-gentrification Per ricercatori come per attivisti, l’uso del concetto gentrification è stato e rimane controverso. Questo articolo, basato sull’esperienza della stesura del manuale “Staying put: an anti-gentrification handbook for council estates in London” (2014), vuole offrire una riflessione sulle ragioni e politiche dell’uso del concetto di gentrification all’interno delle mobilitazioni per la giustizia sociale in cittá. Al di là di un caso paradigmatico del “nord globale”, Londra, l’articolo prende in esame una serie di progetti e mobilizzazioni emerse in varie città del mondo contro la gentrification, l’espulsione e gli sfratti.

Partendo da una discussione di politiche di rigenerazione urbana attraverso la demolizione di case popolari, il paper discute la centralità dei processi di espulsione nella comunicazione degli effetti della gentrification e la sua relazione con il recente aumento della militanza contro gli sfratti. Viene infine esaminato il significato dello slogan ‘staying put’ (rimanere nel luogo) in relazione a campagne a favore di alternative alla gentrification e a proposte basate sul principio del diritto all’abitare. L’articolo conclude sostenendo che la comprensione e la messa in atto di diverse strategie discorsive hanno importanti implicazioni politiche, sia al fine di criticare la mercificazione dell’abitare che per poter riflettere su proposte per la sua de-mercificazione.

Introduction In research and activist circles, the term ‘gentrification’ has been and remains controversial. While some academics have been adapting the term to encompass global forms of urban speculation (Slater, 2017) others have questioned the expansion of its remit, geographically and historically, in terms of its explanatory powers in concrete contexts (Ghertner, 2015). Beyond scholarly debates, researchers and activists seeking to educate and self-educate about dynamics of speculation and its effects often find that the use of term gentrification is too academic, imprecise (Tracy, 2014) or foreign-sounding (Left Hand Rotation, 2017) for effective analysis and organising. Compelling Mara Ferreri > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Beyond ‘Staying put’: reflections on strategies in anti-gentrification movements 89

@ Mara Ferreri |

communication about social justice issues is often based on careful narrative choices between naming issues or their causes, and between singularity and generalisability of experiences. In movements for housing and urban justice, across both ‘northern’ and ‘southern’ experiences, the use of the term gentrification continues to be debated as it ebbs and wanes between appeals to particularism and claims to universalism (Bernt, 2016).

With this article, I want to offer a reflection on the rationale and politics of using ‘gentrification’ in urban social justice mobilisation. The discussion is grounded in the experience of producing ‘Staying put: an anti-gentrification handbook for council estates in London’ (London Tenants Federation et al., 2014; see also Lees and Ferreri, 2016). Moving beyond the particularism of the paradigmatic ‘global north’ example of London, I widen my reflection by engaging with anti-gentrification, anti-displacement and anti-eviction projects and mobilisations that have emerged since the publication of the booklet. Understanding how different discursive strategies are deployed has significant political implications because the naming of causes and symptoms gives visibility to some processes while obscuring others.

Urban ‘centrifugation’ Participation in public debates on gentrification in non-English speaking countries has brought me to observe how the word gentrification is frequently misheard or met with incomprehension. Attempts at popularisation have at times resorted to humour, as with the participatory workshops ‘Gentrificación no es un nombre de señora’ (Spanish for ´Gentrification is not a lady’s name´) ran by the collective’s Left Hand Rotation (Left Hand Rotation, 2017). Other times, the term is interestingly transliterated into the more current word ‘centrifugation’. Outside the Anglophone world, few can easily grasp Ruth Glass’s tongue-in-cheek reference to the ‘gentry’. In contrast, observers of the effects of urban speculation can easily recognise that the phenomenon involves a force separating some residents from others, who are pushed away from central neighbourhoods. As commented once by a Gothenborg resident, thinking of the displacement of low income populations from city centre as ‘centrifugation’ made absolutely perfect sense.1 And as recently as June 2017, in global Barcelona, the newspaper El periódico commented that a demonstration for the right to housing allegedly highlighted “el fenómeno de la centrifugación vecinal” (the phenomenon of neighbourhood centrifugation) (Sánchez, 2017).

1_

Presentation ‘Staying Put in London: the making of an anti-gentrification handbook’, Gentrification: what is it?, Göteborg Stadsmuseum and University of Gothenburg (Sweden), 4 September 2014.

2_ See http://www.museodelosdesplazados.com/

Beyond questions of translation, such transliterations may be revealing something more cultural and politically significant: an attempt to make ‘gentrification’ more tangible by showing the centrality of the experience of physical displacement. As reminded by Slater, “definitions have both analytical and political usage” (Slater, 2009, p. 295), and defining gentrification through displacement is indeed key not only to critical urban scholarship (Marcuse, 1985) but also to organised attempts at understanding and resisting those “forces outside the household [that] make living there impossible, hazardous, or unaffordable” (Hartman et al., 1982, p.3, in Slater, 2009). In the work of Left Hand Rotation (also in this issue), the case study counterpart of their workshops is the transnational digital platform ‘Museo de los desplazados’, the Museum of the Displaced2, once again defining gentrification through its most visible effect: displacement.

90

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Fighting gentrification, displacement or evictions?

Displacement was key, too, to our definition of gentrification in the production of ‘Staying Put’, from the active spatiality of the title to the inclusion of the data visualisation of the displacement of the Heygate Estate’s residents in the opening section ‘What’s going on?’.3 Different versions of the displacement maps have since been reposted and republished across a range of digital and printed media (Abley, 2015; Minton, 2017). As the booklet circulated online and in hard copy around council estates in London, the maps were apparently a highly effective means for residents, and particularly leaseholders, for understanding the displacement effects of ‘urban regeneration’ schemes that did not guarantee the right to stay or to return under the same conditions. The centrality of displacement and its power of communication were such that we even considered and debated, as research-activist partners, whether it was more appropriate to talk about ‘anti-displacement´, rather than anti-gentrification, in the title of the handbook.

There are analytical and political reasons why (anti-)gentrification remained.

Firstly, we wanted to expose the industry of council-estate ‘regeneration’ and its repercussions on the lives on low-income individuals and families. Most regeneration-by-demolition schemes have, at their core, a strategy of ‘poverty deconcentration’ (Lees, 2014) and in the UK, public sector ‘regeneration’ schemes that fail to guarantee the return of low-income residents have been described as examples of ‘state-led gentrification’ (Watt, 2009). The regeneration-by-demolition consensus comes at the end of a long ‘eclipse’ of municipal housing for rent (Cole and Furbey, 1994), can be seen as a new frontier of gentrification (Lees and Ferreri, 2016). In London, it is a significant aspect of a wider housing crisis (Edwards, 2016), particularly in the inner boroughs, where in 2014 council housing still made up 33% of all housing (ONS, 2014).

Secondly, insisting on gentrification enabled to distinguish between displacement and evictions as symptoms, and its underlying causes. If direct displacement is the most visible symptom of processes of gentrification, physical eviction from a place of dwelling is its most tangible manifestation and point of mobilisation. Evictions have become key to make visible both housing injustices and resistances locally, such as through the Anti-Eviction Mapping platform in San Francisco (Anti-Eviction Mapping Project, 2016) and transnationally, as collected in the publication Evictions Across Europe (European Action Coalition for the Right to Housing and to the City, 2016).

It is entirely legitimate to deploy the language of eviction as a mobilising strategy: after all, displacees are being forced to leave their homes even if a legally defined eviction has not taken place. On a pragmatic level, however, it can be confusing to talk about evictions in a general sense in contexts where classical anti-eviction strategies, such as physical resistance (Álvarez de Andrés et al., 2015), would not constitute a useful strategy. In the case of the Heygate Estate, for instance, only the last resident was forcefully evicted from his home, out of an estimated 3,000 individuals displaced.

Thirdly, focusing on the highly visible and spectacular instances of physical displacement and eviction risks neglecting that the injustices generated by gentrification can take multiple forms, some of which might be indirect and virtually invisible in the short-term. Returning to Peter Marcuse’s 1985 classical definition, displacement does not always equate to immediate enforced moving out; instead, it needs “to be considered to encompass a wider set 3_ Mara Ferreri > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Beyond ‘Staying put’: reflections on strategies in anti-gentrification movements 91

See https://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/heygate-estate/heygate-dispacement-maps/

of processes than those leading to direct physical relocation of inhabitants” (Baeten et al., 2017, p. 2). Rather than a right to ‘staying put’, therefore, proposals have been made for a right to ‘dwell’, understood as “the right to exert a reasonable level of power over one’s basic living conditions, with all the physical and mental benefits that entails – regardless of whether displacement fears materialize in actual relocation or not” (Baeten et al., 2017, p. 2).

Staying put towards de-commodifying housing “We should refuse the idea that claiming the right to ‘stay put’ is about ‘traditional’ stasis. As the right to the city movements show, claiming a place is not merely about gaining access to what already exists but rather about transforming place.”

(Butler and Athanasiou, 2013, p. 24) The most complex text to write in producing the ‘Staying put’ booklet was its third section, ‘Alternatives to fight for’. In a poignant reminder to all critical urban scholars, Peter Marcuse noted that using the word gentrification as if it described an active ‘it’ risks naturalising its processual character and concealing the power relations and motives that cause it (Marcuse, 2015).

Naming gentrification as the main or sole cause of the commodification of housing in contemporary cities can render opaque and invisible the equally significant cultural and political dimensions of the issue, and their implications for anti-gentrification alternatives worth fighting for. If we set out to understand simultaneously housing commodification and its decommodification, gentrification theories can be extremely useful “to understand one half of the story, but terribly limited in understanding the other half” (Bernt, 2016, p. 643) as universalist systemic critiques can reify and naturalise those same processes that we aim to transform. As access to de-commodified decent homes has become once again central to critical urban politics (Marcuse and Madden, 2016), “other and more contextually sensitive devices are needed for understanding its decommodification” (Bernt, 2016, p. 643) beyond ‘gaining access to what already exists’.

‘Staying put’ without struggling for de-commodified alternatives is not sufficient because “the ‘right to make place can ‘be denigrated or destroyed even if one stays in a particular space’” (Davidson in Baeten et al., 2016, p.

2). This observation is particularly appropriate for contexts marked by longterm residualisation and stigmatisation of low income housing, which are important material and cultural barriers to organising for de-commodified housing. Since the publication of Staying Put ‘a new urban movement’ has emerged in London (Watt and Minton, 2016) through place-specific housing campaigns and the wider cross-tenure solidarity organising building ‘urban power’ (Wills, 2016). Campaigns such as ‘We (heart) council housing’ and slogans such as ‘Social housing, not social cleansing’ have not only raised the profile of the effects of regeneration-by-demolition, but also generated space to rethink the very imaginary of desirable housing and alternative proposals. Concrete examples such as the ‘People’s Plan: A Viable Alternative to Demolition’4 produced for the Cressingham Garden estate in Lambeth, however, remain few and far between, and the public debate lags behind.

Looking ahead, more work is needed, both in academic and activist circles, to join the dots between understanding multiple forms of displacement and developing strategies for a transformative understanding of ‘staying put’ in the ideation and implementation of permanent anti-gentrification alternatives.

4_ See http://cressinghampeoplesplan.org.uk/

92

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

references Abley, I. 2015, “Brownfield first, tenants last”. Architects Journal, accessed May 2017 https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/culture/brownfield-first-tenantslast/8681633.article Álvarez de Andrés, E., Campos, M.J.Z., Zapata, P. 2015, “Stop the evictions! The diffusion of networked social movements and the emergence of a hybrid space: The case of the Spanish Mortgage Victims Group”. Habitat International, no. 46, 252-259.

Anti-Eviction Mapping Project 2016, Anti-Eviction Mapping Project: Documenting the Dispossession and Resistance of SF Bay Area Residents, accessed May 2017, https:// www.antievictionmap.com/ Baeten, G., Westin, S., Pull, E., Molina, I. 2017, “Pressure and violence: Housing renovation and displacement in Sweden”, Environment and Planning A vol.49, no.3, pp. 631-651.

Bernt, M. 2016, “Very particular, or rather universal? Gentrification through the lenses of Ghertner and López-Morales”, City vol.20, pp. 637–644.

Butler, J., Athanasiou, A. 2013, Dispossession: the performative in the political, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Cole, I., Furbey, R. 1994, The eclipse of council housing, Routledge, London- New York: European Action Coalition for the Right to Housing and to the City 2016, Evictions across Europe, accessed May 2017 https://housingnotprofit.org/files/Resisting%20 Evictions%20Across%20Europe.pdf Ghertner, D.A. 2015, “Why gentrification theory fails in “much of the world”, City vol.19, pp. 552–563.

Hartman, C.W., LeGates, R.T., Keating, W.D. 1982, Displacement: how to fight it. Legal Services Anti-Displacement Project, Berkeley.

Lees, L. 2014, “The Urban Injustices of New Labour’s “New Urban Renewal”: The Case of the Aylesbury Estate in London”, Antipode vol.46, pp. 921–947.

Lees, L., Ferreri, M. 2016, Resisting gentrification on its final frontiers: Learning from the Heygate Estate in London (1974–2013), Cities,vol.57, pp. 14–24.

Left Hand Rotation 2017, Gentrificaciòn no es un nombre de señora, 2nd edition.

London Tenants Federation, Lees, L., Just Space, Southwark Notes Archives Group, 2014, Staying Put. An anti-gentrification handbook for council estates in London.

London.

Marcuse, P. 2015, The Naturalization of Gentrification and Markets. Peter Marcuse’s Blog, https://pmarcuse.wordpress.com, 16 January.

Marcuse, P. 1985, Gentrification, abandonment and displacement: connections, causes and policy responses in New York City. Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law vol.28, pp. 195–240.

Marcuse, P., Madden, D. 2016, In Defense of Housing: The Politics of Crisis. Verso Books, New York.

Minton, A. 2017, Big Capital, Who Is London For? London: Penguin UK. Sánchez, G. 2017, Marcha contra el asedio inmobiliario en Barcelona. El Periódico, 12 June.

Slater, T. 2017, Planetary Rent Gaps. Antipode vol.49, pp. 114–137.

Slater, T. 2009, Missing Marcuse: On gentrification and displacement. City vol.13, pp.

292–311.

Tracy, J. 2014, Dispatches Against Displacement: Field Notes from San Francisco s Housing Wars. AK Press, Oakland, Edinburgh, Baltimore.

Watt, P., Minton, A. 2016, “London’s housing crisis and its activisms”, City, vol. 20, pp.

204–221.

Wills, J. 2016, “Building urban power from housing crisis”, City, vol. 20, pp.292–296.

Mara Ferreri > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Beyond ‘Staying put’: reflections on strategies in anti-gentrification movements 93

Particolare del progetto grafico a cura di Antonia Santolaya pubblicato a p. 131

94

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Gentrification and the barriers to its global reach.

A short commentary

@ Thomas Maloutas |

Gentrification e i limiti alla sua espansione globale.

Un breve commento

Il paper affronta il tema delle ‘barriere’ ai processi di gentrification in diverse città del globo. Il tema delle barriere alla gentrification posto in relazione alle forme di regolamentazione del capitalismo in contesti in cui politiche neoliberali estreme sono meno predominanti se confrontate con i paesi Anglofoni; con le differenti relazioni tra stato, mercato e società civile. Il tema delle barriere alla gentrification è trattato anche dal punto di vista dell’ambiente costruito, la sua storia e le ideologie che in diversi periodi storici hanno orientate lo sviluppo urbano, così come con le relazioni sociali tradottesi in diversi sistemi di proprietà e diritti d’uso. Questi temi sono, più o meno intenzionalmente, delle barriere alle forze globali che promuovono processi di gentrification e possono essere risorse materiali e ispirazione per forme di rinnovamento urbano compatibili con istanze di giustizia sociale.

When you Google ‘gentrification’ you get huge volumes of information and images. Most of this stuff is mainly about large US cities and, to a lesser extent, about other large cities in the rest of the Anglophone world.

There are two main reasons for that. The one is urban histories and urbanization processes that have been particular in that part of the world. The other is politics that affected the shape of urban policies, especially since the late 1970s.

Gentrification is a process of urban social and spatial change. The term was Thomas Maloutas > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Gentrification and the barriers to its global reach. A short commentary

95

coined in the 1960s by Ruth Glass, a British sociologist who observed changes in West London, where run-down properties in pockets of decline were taken up for residences by middle-class households and brought-up to their tastes.

The process of gentrification expanded rapidly in the following decades and the term signifies in fact all sorts of neighborhood change, where you have inflow of more affluent and higher social status residents and, at the same time, displacement of former lower status and poorer residents, combined with substantial investment in fixed capital (Clark, 2005). This inflow brings a new atmosphere, and new aesthetics that are distinctive of the culture of gentrifiers. Former residents are usually displaced either immediately – as their rent increases steeply– or more slowly and indirectly as they are compelled to sell property and exchange their advantageous location with increased housing space or superior amenities in less expensive areas.

Since the 1970s there have been heated debates among academics about gentrification. Neil Smith –the American geographer and specialist on gentrification– saw it mainly as a process related to capital’s interest in profit from investing in the city center, after having invested for many decades in cities’ suburban sprawl. What made gentrification interesting for capital, according to Smith, was the growing ‘rent gap’ between the actual rent from a neighborhood’s real estate and the potential rent after investing in its renewal and reorientation to demand with higher solvency.

Others, like the Canadian geographer David Ley, insisted more on issues related to the demand side of gentrification, like the change of social and occupational structures, which induced a growing demand for housing in central areas. One-breadwinner families diminished as both women and men usually work, often long and unpredictable hours, and their everyday life patterns have become increasingly incompatible with suburban living.

Those heated debates about the main drivers of gentrification reached eventually a common understanding that both economic motives and sociodemographic changes were vitally important for the development of the process of gentrification.

The discussion about gentrification remained for sometime focused on the experience of the Anglophone world. This is not only due to the fact that urban studies were more developed in that part of the world than anywhere else, and that several concepts –like segregation– have been discussed for long in the US before they migrated to other contexts. The large cities of the Anglophone world have been ideal for gentrification for two main reasons.

The first is related to their urban histories and, particularly, to the choice of their elites to abandon early-on the city center to growing industrial activities and the working-class, and head for the suburbs (Fishman, 1987). About a century later, these cities started rapidly to deindustrialize, and large areas near their centers became favorable settings for a ‘back to the city’ movement by capital and to some extent metaphorically by the middle classes.

The second reason is that the centers of major cities of the Anglophone world became favorable settings for gentrification not only because they offered abundant gentrifiable space, but also because this was combined with neoliberal regulation, which resulted in direct pro-gentrification policies of

96

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

urban renewal and in the increased commodification of housing. The eras of Reagan in the US and Thatcher in the UK have been decisive in this sense.

This favorable setting for gentrification was not present, however, in most other metropolises of the world. In Vienna, for example, the specific weight of public housing still remains overwhelming –since the municipality owns 60% of dwellings in the city following a tradition from the 20s and 30s– and this reduces the margins and the impact of gentrification and the displacement of the more vulnerable groups.

In Paris, the elite never quit the city center (Préteceille, 2007), but managed on the contrary to push industrial activities and the working classes to peripheral locations, especially after the city’s spatial remodeling by the Baron Haussmann. That remodeling accommodated the bourgeoisie in the new grand boulevards and made it easier to chasse the dangerous working classes after their major insurgency in 1871 (the Paris Commune). Haussmann’s remodeling permitted the construction of several thousands of apartment buildings in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that still make of Paris one of the most attractive cities in the world. These apartment buildings were usually vertically segregated in terms of class, with the bourgeoisie living in spacious apartments on lower floors, while servants and other lower profile groups lived in low ceiling rooms under the roofs. Things started to change when elevators were introduced and the major inconvenience of upper floors disappeared. This incited internal alterations in old buildings, which gradually changed the social profile of residents on upper floors. Some scholars see this process as gentrification. However, there are important differences with the process and impact of gentrification as we know it, since the affected neighborhoods in Paris were not working-class spaces invaded by the middle-classes, but bourgeois or petit-bourgeois spaces that eventually became more homogenous (embourgeoisement). Moreover, the process of change has been rather slow and displacement, obstructed by different forms of rent control, has rather taken the form of replacement.

This inverse-Burgess model characterizing the social geography of Paris is not exceptional or particular. It is the norm in most parts of the urban world outside Anglo-America (Timms, 1971).

Gentrification in cities of the Global South is also a debated issue. I recently spent some time in Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Santiago in Chile. In Mexico City I visited the neighborhood of Santa Maria la Ribera –in decline for several decades– where you could see some clear traces of gentrification-like processes in the refurbished profile of several buildings. On the contrary, the place where I stayed –a very attractive art deco building of the 30s and its surrounding area just a few blocks from the most central squares of Bellas Artes and Zocalo– did not show any signs of gentrification. I also visited the big transport hub of Cuatro Caminos where you clearly witness a war between official retail under the form of a developing big mall –part of the remodeled metro station– and the numerous informal vendors selling all sorts of petty commodities on the sidewalks around the old part of the station. This redevelopment induced some changes in immediately neighboring spaces which resemble gentrification (for example a small old red light district was transformed to a condominium for middle-class residents and a land lot that used to house cabarets and a cock fight arena was being sold for a very high price since its potential new use was already taken for grated).

Thomas Maloutas > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Gentrification and the barriers to its global reach. A short commentary

97

In Sao Paulo urban space is visibly divided between high-rise residences for middle-class households and low-rise for working-class and other poorer groups. This visibly clear spatial division, however, is quite crude if you try to find behind it an equally clear division in social terms. I visited the favela of Nova Jaguare and what I witnessed was mainly the spectacular improvement in comparison to what I had seen eight years ago when I was there for the first time. Houses were plastered and painted on the outside, and sometimes tiled instead of just bricks and cement you only saw a few years ago. In another area, Sapopemba –also in the city’s central municipality– there was coexistence of different forms of housing in close spatial proximity: four stories cooperative housing, social housing of similar height and low-rise self-constructed favela. I stayed in a completely different area, in one of those high apartment buildings located as centrally as possible –literally one block away from Avenida Paulista. Even though the building was guarded 24/7, it had nothing to do with exclusive and gated living on New York’s Park Avenue. My hosts in the apartment room I rented were doing quite ordinary lower middle-class jobs and so were most of the other residents in the building. The main conclusion in my mind was that both low-rise neighborhoods (including favelas) and high-rise residence buildings are very diversified internally in spite of the opposite assumptions induced by their different shape. Moreover, these socio-spatial divisions correspond to a substantially different social structure from what gentrification is usually associated with, especially in terms of the meagre presence of middle-middle and upper-middle class groups. The second conclusion was that both types are not spaces that easily invite gentrification.

In Rio I visited the favela of Dona Marta. This favela is very near the center –literally over the neighborhood of Botafogo. It has a splendid view of the city, its hills and coasts and its vivid colors make it really attractive. This is one of the model favelas that the municipality tried to invest in when preparing for the Olympic games by putting a funicular rail to serve its upper parts and by trying to reduce criminality putting in place a unit of neighborhood pacification police (UPP). This favela is also famous because Michael Jackson produced there the video-clip ‘They don’t care about us’ in 2008. Following all this, Dona Marta became part of the tourist circuit and you can even pay with your credit card for souvenirs in its few tourist shops. However, ‘gentrificação’ –written on one of its dilapidated wooden huts– can only be considered as a joke. The smell of the open sewers mixing with open rain water canals and the high rate of criminality, which lately increased with the implantation of more organized gangs from Sao Paulo, as well as the access problems for old and handicapped people, make it incompatible with middle-class expectations and standards. Most other favelas in Rio –with the exception of a couple of ones overlooking Ipanema beach– are in much worse condition and further away from a gentrification prospect.

Gentrification is these mega cities of the South exists, but is a rather marginal process of urban sociospatial change. The size of the middle-classes and, therefore, of potential gentrifiers in these cities is (still) quite small to induce a sizeable impact in terms of displacement. Other issues, like the extent of urban poverty and racial discrimination are much more important as immediate problems that have to be addressed (Zukin, 2016).

In other cities, local gentrifiers may sometimes not be enough to put the process in motion, but gentrification can come from outside. In Lisbon, for

98

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

example, there is a growing problem for people with ordinary jobs, like nurses or policemen, to find housing near the centre because too many landlords have been seeking tenants in the tourist market through the Airbnb and other similar systems. Lisbon is one of the cities where gentrification goes also under the name of touristification (Barata-Salgueiro et al., 2017; Malheiros, 2016). Athens starts experiencing similar problems. Cities like Lisbon and Athens, in poorly regulated housing systems, compared to Northern or Western Europe, are quite vulnerable to the negative impact of such changes and, particularly, the displacement of groups precariously tied to their houses and residential areas.

I have qualified Athens as ungentrifiable (Alexandri and Maloutas, forthcoming). Like Paris in older times, Athens is vertically segregated, but in the opposite sense. The more affluent live on top floors and the less affluent and the migrants at the bottom (Maloutas and Karadimitriou, 2001; Maloutas and Spyrellis, 2017). Athens is a very old and at the same time a very recent city. Remains of a very distant past, like the Parthenon, are found within a sea of recent apartment buildings mainly constructed between the end of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1980s. These apartment buildings have some interesting features. They are individual buildings –i.e. not part of large construction projects– since small-scale builders and small size landowners have always dominated the local house-building sector. The apartment buildings of that period, which still house more than 70% of the city’s population in the central municipality, have usually 6-7 floors with apartments on all floors including the slightly elevated ground floor and the one below it, called semi-basement. Housing conditions and unit size are related to floor.

The lower you are, the more chances you have your apartment to be small, noisy, dark, with less access to fresh air since these apartment buildings are in compact rows and on narrow and congested streets. As you move up the floors, apartments are bigger and from the 4th floor and higher you usually have a veranda, which for Greek conditions is an important asset since you can use it almost all year round.

The last census (2011) made it possible to illustrate this vertical segregation in the center of Athens, which is important both in class and ethnoracial terms. In the upper floors you have 5 times more people who belong to the higher occupational categories than you have at the bottom. You also have 8 times less migrants and 2,5 times more homeowners. The profile of most of these buildings started as middle-class. The decline of the city center –mainly due to excessive densification with the proliferation of this type of buildings– produced the gradual and still on-going exodus of middle-class groups to the suburbs since the 1970s, and the replacement, especially on lower floor apartments by lower means households including migrants. This has produced an increased social mix in central areas, although it was neither the aspiration of residents nor the intention of policy makers.

Since the mid 1990s the city center has attracted attention and public investment related to the Olympic games of 2004. New metro lines and tramways, extensive restoration of old buildings, connection of important archaeological sites to an uninterrupted walk, and city beautification have all induced several private investors to start thinking in terms of gentrification. However, their hopes were curtailed after the games finished and the state abruptly stopped investing in the city center. Later, these hopes were literally finished off by the crisis. In any way, even if conditions were more

Thomas Maloutas > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Gentrification and the barriers to its global reach. A short commentary

99

positive for gentrifiers, the bulk of the building stock at the center is ungentrifiable. Unlike Paris, where you could invest in the former servants’ rooms at the roof tops and make extremely attractive apartments by unifying 3-4 of them, in Athens you cannot reverse the quality problems of apartments on lower floors, even if you invest a lot of money. Sometimes the shape of the building stock determines the limits of the gentrification process and of displacement in particular.

What can we learn from this excursion to different cities in respect of gentrification? The main thing is that context matters (Maloutas, 2012 and 2017).

And context means the way the state, the market and civil society are imbricated in each setting, as well as the built environment which carries within it urban histories and ideologies as well as social relations embodied by the property structures and the ways rights of use are allocated.

If context matters, then also policies and politics matter since they are part of it, and therefore gentrification is not inevitable. There are always alternatives, unlike what Thatcher used to claim. Urban renewal may be inevitable since everything changes with time and cities have to change to. But they don’t have to change necessarily on the gentrification mode. Solutions of urban change closer to social justice can be promoted if communities are active and try at least to mitigate the plans of those who invest in urban renewal only to maximize private profit.

The US context has been one of the most suitable for gentrification. Large amounts of space abandoned by declining industrial activities in the urban cores; interesting industrial structures adequate for cheap transformation to accommodate loft living; sizeable and growing middle class groups including large numbers of people inclined for living in gentrified areas; abundance of former industrial workers and related urban poor stuck in gentrifiable areas and potentially victimized by displacement; and, most importantly, neoliberal policies –more easily adopted in the American politico-economic landscape of economic liberalism than anywhere else– which promoted both pro gentrification policies and the further commodification of housing.

The varied landscapes of barriers to gentrification, as well as the various battles against urban injustices not necessarily framed as gentrification, in cities around the world can be a source of inspiration for those who are fighting for urban renewal compatible with social justice. This comprises obviously those fighting at the heart of the Anglophone world as well. It is the opposite view –i.e. to assume that such inspiration for urban resistance should come mainly from what happens in the Anglophone world in terms of purposeful resistance to gentrification– which does not make much sense. First, because this view implicitly confuses the motives and knowledge of resisting actors with the critical theoretical analysis of gentrification (see the thorough analysis by Annunziata and Rivas (forthcoming) on the multiple facets of resistance to gentrification). Second, because it sometimes draws undue attention to a process which may be much less central than in academic debates and overshadows other issues contextually more important in terms of social impact (Zukin 2016). The Anglo-American world may have been a pioneering laboratory in the application of gentrification policies, but other parts of the world have shown more effective resistance, sometimes as an unintended consequence of specific contextual factors and, more often, as the consequence of other struggles which prevented the formation

100

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

of favorable conditions for the development of gentrification. These less direct and less visible forms of resistance to gentrification and other urban injustices should not be underestimated as assets for future struggles and sociopolitical arrangements and compromises, making a difference in people’s lives until the day when social justice is no longer an issue.

references Alexandri G. and Maloutas T. forthcoming, “La gentrification dans les villes non gentrifiables? Rénovation urbaine et changement des structures sociales dans le centre d’Athènes”, in Rhein C. and Preteceille E. (eds) Gentrification, transformations des quartiers populaires et couches moyennes; notion unique, processus pluriels, Anthropos, Paris.

Annunziata S. and Rivas C. forthcoming, “Resistances to gentrification and displacement”, in Lees L. and Philips M. (eds.) Handbook of gentrification studies, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Barata-Salgueiro T., Mendes L. and Guimarães P. 2017, “Tourism and urban changes.

Lessons from Lisbon”, in Gravari-Barbas, M. and Guinand, S. (eds.) Tourism and gentrification in contemporary metropolises. International perspectives, Routledge, London.

Clark E. 2005, “The order and simplicity of gentrification: a political challenge”, in Atkinson R. and Bridge G. (eds.), Gentrification in a Global Context. The New Urban Colonialism. London: Routledge, 261–269.

Fishman R. 2008, Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia, Basic Books, New York.

Malheiros, J. 2016, “Touristification, real estate and socio-ethnic segregation in the crisis aftermath: challenging spatial justice in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area?”, paper presented at the seminar Urban Segregation in Mediterranean Cities, Nicosia, (December, 1-3).

Maloutas T. 2012, “Contextual diversity in gentrification research”, Critical Sociology vol 1, no 38, pp. 33-48.

Maloutas T. 2017, “Travelling Concepts and Universal Particularisms. A Reappraisal of Gentrification’s Global Reach”, European Urban and Regional Studies, online first. https://doi.org/10.1177/09697764177095 Maloutas T. and Karadimitriou N. 2001, “Vertical social differentiation in Athens.

Alternative or complement to urban segregation?”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research vol. 25 no.4, pp. 699-716.

Maloutas T. and Spyrellis SN. forthcoming 2017, Vertical segregation: Mapping the vertical social stratification of residents in Athenian apartment buildings.

Méditerranée.

Préteceille E. 2007, “Is gentrification a useful paradigm to analyse social changes in the Paris metropolis?”, Environment and Planning A, vol.39 no.1,10–31.

Timms D. 1971, The urban mosaic. Towards a theory of residential differentiation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Zukin S. 2016 Gentrification in three paradoxes. City and Community vol. 15, no. 3, 202-207.

Thomas Maloutas > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Gentrification and the barriers to its global reach. A short commentary

101

Particolare del progetto grafico a cura di Antonia Santolaya pubblicato a p. 131

102

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Gentrification o speculazione?

Note analitiche sugli abusi di un termine

@ Pietro Saitta |

Gentrification or Speculation?

Analytical notes on the misuses of a concept

# Gentrification | # Speculazione | # Classi sociali| # Gentrification | # Speculation | # Social classes |

The paper reflects on the uses of the concept of gentrification, and finds it that there is often a misuse of it both in the urban studies and in the common language. First of all, against users’ purposes, the word can easily become part of the identitarian jargon aimed at consolidating boundaries within the city. Secondly, general uses of the word can lead to the loss of details concerning the social forces behind the exclusionary processes that affect neighborhoods and cities. Dynamics falling under the same tag operate at a local level; the indiscriminate adoption of concepts, therefore, could hide networks, interests, and alliances that hold a stake in the determination of the processes, and should be understood in local terms. Thirdly, the word gentrification implies a social composition based on affluence, youth, creative jobs and a the presence of a developed culture and service industry. Thus it is apt to describe only a limited set of cities, and it cannot be easily used in contexts that do not present higher levels of social differentiation. Fourthly, it is suggested that gentrification is rather a symptom that the actual cause of urban changes. Within the framework of a growing politicization of the concepts, it is necessary to distinguish among causes and consequences.

Introduzione Se nell’epoca della circolazione globale dei prodotti culturali esistono tratti che rendono le dinamiche della pratica scientifica simili a quelli della cultura popolare, uno di questi è probabilmente la tendenza delle differenti comunità scientifiche e, talvolta, di pratica politica a “innamorarsi” per periodi variabili di termini e concetti, riempiendoli inoltre di significati differenti a seconda dei bisogni e delle particolarità locali, senza però avvedersene per lungo tempo.

Credo così che il termine gentrification abbia seguito sinora un percorso Pietro Saitta > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Gentrification o speculazione? Note analitiche sugli abusi di un termine

103

tipico, conoscendo una popolarità straordinaria ovunque si ponessero nuove questioni urbane e la fisionomia “tradizionale” dei quartieri fosse a rischio in ragione di fenomeni di sostituzione della popolazione e di mutamenti relativi nell’offerta dei servizi presenti. Ma, al contempo, finendo con l’inglobare più significati e smarrendo la propria particolarità euristica.

Infatti un problema facilmente ravvisabile dietro l’uso indiscriminato di questo concetto è che, adoperato in termini omnicomprensivi, esso potrebbe essere applicato ex post a qualsiasi trasformazione e dinamica urbana, dai fenomeni di sostituzione nella Chicago di inizio Novecento agli “sventramenti” di Roma durante il fascismo, passando per i “sacchi” delle città siciliane negli anni Settanta del medesimo secolo.

Inoltre l’uso generalizzato del concetto occulta una visione antistoricistica della dinamica urbana e sociale, assumendo l’identità dei luoghi nel tempo e negando così le sostituzioni precedenti. Schiacciandosi cioè sul presente, l’impiego semplicistico della nozione di gentrification rischia di unirsi al novero di ideologie atte a stabilire confini interni alla città, perdendo dunque i connotati “progressisti” impliciti nelle elaborazioni originarie e confluendo verso quel conservatorismo identitario che è uno dei tratti dominanti del presente.

Per di più, l’impiego disinvolto del termine gentrification mette sovente nello stesso calderone operazioni economiche volte a risemantizzare i luoghi per esercitare forme di patrimonializzazione e drammatiche azioni di riscrittura dei territori, consistenti nella demolizione e riedificazione di interi quartieri.

Azioni dalle conseguenze demografiche apparentemente simili tra loro, che però producono effetti differenti in termini di usi e di forme di estrazione di valore.

Dal punto di vista di un’antropologia e sociologia delle istituzioni, applicazioni generiche del termine gentrification che prescindano da un’accurata analisi dalle specificità locali terminano con l’ostacolare la comprensione dei modi attraverso cui le particolari realtà nazionali, regionali o urbane elaborano differenti atteggiamenti e pratiche rispetto ai temi della conservazione.

Una conseguenza, quest’ultima, tanto del tipo di pressione esercitata dalle forze imprenditoriali contigue alle amministrazioni quanto di elementi come la cultura delle classi dirigenti locali (la loro capacità, dunque, di intercettare e comprendere nuovi temi, pratiche e politiche relative al patrimonio o all’ambiente urbano diffusi nel resto di un paese o di un continente) oppure la differente sensibilità, considerazione e attaccamento sociale ad aree ed edifici venutisi a determinare, o a mancare, in ragione di eventi storici e naturali (come, per esempio, quei sismi catastrofici che hanno fatto venire meno il patrimonio architettonico originario e suscitato nel tempo una sostanziale disaffezione nei confronti dell’ambiente urbano ricostruito, i suoi nuovi landmark e, in generale, i luoghi).

Distinguere i concetti La tesi qui proposta è che il concetto di gentrification non dovrebbe avere uguali possibilità di applicazione in ogni circostanza e in ogni contesto, e che non tutte le trasformazioni urbane che implicano un mutamento nell’anima dei quartieri sono annoverabili sotto quest’etichetta. Un uso adeguato del termine – atto cioè a preservarne l’utilità descrittiva ed euristica – dovrebbe infatti fare i conti non solo con la demografia e l’economia dei quartieri

104

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

coinvolti dai processi di trasformazione, ma con quelle delle città nel loro complesso, oltre che con ricerche sugli stili di vita complessivi e sulla storia delle istituzioni politiche locali (il loro raccordo con l’impresa privata e le reti che ne hanno influenzato le scelte passate).

L’idea di fondo è infatti che al posto del termine gentrification in molti casi calzerebbe meglio quello di speculazione, che, come nel caso delle città italiane meridionali, non implica necessariamente una relazione con le demografie dei giovani e degli affluenti (per quanto molte nuove speculazioni siano effettivamente orientate al lusso), gli stili di vita e i servizi per il tempo libero; e che, soprattutto, denota un genere di operazioni economiche di natura finanziaria e, per questo, relativamente autosufficiente, che, pur trasformando le aree urbane, non richiede obbligatoriamente l’effettiva vendita degli immobili o l’afflusso imponente di nuove persone che occupino le volumetrie. I meccanismi finanziari speculativi contemporanei denotano infatti la capacità di trasformare i luoghi, prescindendo almeno parzialmente dagli abitanti. Essi sono spesso inseriti entro cornici progettuali “discorsive” compatibili con la gentrification ­­– tese a perseguire l’ideale retorico di un ambiente più consono ai nuovi bisogni della popolazione, che, a partire dall’habitat, mira a riqualificare la vita urbana nel proprio complesso – ma in realtà possono, come abbiamo detto, prescindere dalle persone reali in ragione dei meccanismi bancari di garanzia e assicurazione del debito. Questi appaiono così meccanismi che mutano la fisionomia delle aree urbane, che disperdono le popolazioni “storiche”, ma le rimpiazzano spesso col nulla, oltre che con popolazioni molto differenti da quella della nuova urban gentry (affluenti, ma non giovani; conservatrici e non progressiste; impegnate in professioni classiche, anziché creative etc.). Meccanismi, inoltre, che, contrariamente a quanto afferma la retorica della dispersione e del displacement, sono ambivalenti in quanto vissuti non di rado come opportunità dalle stesse “vittime” dei processi rigenerativi, le quali, attraverso le compensazioni e in modo dipendente dagli accordi tra istituzioni e imprese, possono scambiare i vecchi appartamenti con quelli nuovi, accedere a case popolari oppure realizzare somme che difficilmente si sarebbero ottenute attraverso l’immissione di un immobile vecchio e disastrato nel mercato. Cosicché a soffrire intimamente per le trasformazioni sono più frequentemente i sostenitori di astratte nozioni di “comunità” che i nuclei familiari e le persone in carne e ossa. È tuttavia opportuno rimarcare che queste osservazioni non vanno in direzione di una dismissione del concetto di gentrificazione o di una minimizzazione della sofferenza subita dai gruppi esposti alle trasformazioni, ma in quella di un uso appropriato dell’espressione. Ciò tanto al fine di limitare abusi responsabili di diminuire la visibilità dei dettagli che compongono le dinamiche di mutamento urbano, quanto per potere immaginare pratiche e argomentazioni oppositive e resistenziali. Se non altro perché la speculazione può essere combattuta e prevenuta anche a livello dei Piani regolatori e degli strumenti urbanistici, oltre che attraverso i piani per la casa; attraverso, dunque, una lotta per la città che utilizzi anche i canali istituzionali e che, anzi, si confronti necessariamente con essi. Mentre la gentrification è più subdola, intreccia interessi materiali e motivi culturali legati al consumo e all’estetica, oltre a politiche che non sono strettamente urbanistiche. Culture e idee, peraltro, che non appartengono solo ai gentrificatori, ma, spesso, anche ai potenziali gentrificati: per esempio l’aspirazione al decoro, alla sicurezza, alla pulizia. Lì ove la presenza o la semplice reputazione dell’esistenza di livelli minimi di microcriminalità, oppure il carattere non compiacente delle

Pietro Saitta > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Gentrification o speculazione? Note analitiche sugli abusi di un termine

105

aree verso il senso estetico dominante, uniti a una accettabile limitatezza dei servizi, sono, di solito, un antidoto alla diffusione di quelle narrative della “desiderabilità” (a vivere un luogo) che appaiono come indispensabili premesse dei fenomeni di sostituzione urbana. Ma è tuttavia evidente come l’adesione a una estetica e a un’etica urbana “dell’autorità” sia divenuta in realtà trasversale e abbia forgiato gli orizzonti politici e civici anche di coloro i quali rischiano di essere annoverati tra le vittime collaterali di queste idee e delle politiche urbane che ne conseguono.

Sostenendo dunque un approccio “conservatore” al concetto e ai suoi impieghi, ritengo che un impiego corretto della nozione di gentrification richieda la presenza di una popolazione relativamente giovane, creativa, affluente, economicamente indipendente o quasi, oltre che di un’industria della cultura e di un terziario avanzato che agiscano contemporaneamente come spazi di attrazione e consumo, e come settori di impiego di questa stessa popolazione. Tale popolazione, inoltre, dovrebbe essere in numero tale da potere concentrarsi in certi quartieri e caratterizzarli. Per di più la città “gentrificabile” ideale dovrebbe ospitare differenti tipi di popolazione dalle caratteristiche pronunciate (gli artisti “puri”, i creativi prestati alla pubblicità, i gay affluenti etc.), pronte a succedersi all’interno dei quartieri.

Nella sua fase matura – quella che segue la “scoperta” di un’area urbana e la sua conquista da parte di popolazioni specifiche – la gentrification implica inoltre un modello sociale di organizzazione fondato sulla prevalenza di un ordine urbano segmentato, dai chiari confini simbolici e, dunque, caratterizzato da scarsa compenetrazione tra classi e gruppi sociali.

Da un punto di vista economico, la città “gentrificabile” ideale richiede un’organizzazione sociale basata sull’indipendenza parziale o assoluta dei gentrificatori dalla famiglia, sulla disponibilità di lavoro, sulla relativa regolarità dei salari e su un’offerta del leisure di elevato livello atta a intercettare/soddisfare differenti nicchie di consumatori (caratteristiche, a ogni modo, divenute in modo crescente sempre più rare nell’attuale cornice delle professioni vecchie e nuove, non soltanto in Italia). La gentrificazione si dovrebbe alimentare per di più di un’immigrazione “interna” ed “esterna” di livello alto e qualificato.

Al crocevia tra politica, cultura ed economia, un uso corretto dell’espressione gentrification richiederebbe anche la circolazione di narrative urbane relative ai quartieri, insieme all’interesse da parte di politici e imprenditori a “patrimonializzare” certe aree urbane. Richiede, infine, la disponibilità di capitale pubblico necessario a qualificare le aree.

La gentrification, inoltre, implica una certa relazione con il tempo: le trasformazioni dovrebbero essere veloci e sensibili, così da diffondere la percezione di un’espropriazione.

Alla luce di tutto questo, la gentrificazione appare insomma come un fenomeno essenzialmente metropolitano e solo parzialmente compatibile con lo scenario sud-europeo, fatta eccezione per un nucleo assai ristretto di città (per esempio Roma, Milano, Torino, Barcellona, Madrid). Altrove, verosimilmente, si ritrova soprattutto la speculazione, anziché la compresenza dei due fenomeni.

106

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

La speculazione, come si è già detto, si alimenta innanzitutto di meccanismi finanziari. Non ha dunque bisogno di una popolazione affluente e non ha bisogno di affittare o vendere gli appartamenti. Per restare al caso della città in cui risiedo, Messina, peraltro anch’essa formalmente metropolitana, il numero di alloggi vuoti ammontava nel 2016 a circa 10,000 unità.

In questi contesti la speculazione non patrimonializza, ma rade al suolo i vecchi immobili. Per restare al caso messinese, è esemplare in questo senso il destino dei “Mulini Gazzi”, un esteso perimetro industriale dismesso e prossimo al centro città, che, al contrario di quanto accaduto altrove (si pensi a Genova, a Torino o anche a Catania con “Le Ciminiere”), non viene ripensato in senso musealistico o cultural-imprenditoriale, ampliando l’offerta di spazi compatibili col nuovo mercato della cultura, ma per i più classici fini edilizi e residenziali.

La speculazione, inoltre, matura più facilmente in contesti di emigrazione e spopolamento (per restare al caso prescelto, -1,000 unità per anno a Messina; - 2,000 se si considerano i decessi, a partire quantomeno dalla metà degli anni Duemila) oltre che di invecchiamento della popolazione, di dipendenza dei giovani dalla famiglia, di salari bassi e irregolari e di minore differenziazione sociale. Gli stessi contesti, peraltro, in cui a livello economico tende a prevalere il settore pubblico e in cui vi è scarsa o nulla industrializzazione; e in cui, inoltre, è diffuso un terziario di ridotte dimensioni e sono pochi i servizi avanzati per le imprese. E, soprattutto, in cui il settore produttivo secondario è dominato dall’industria delle costruzioni.

Anche in questo genere di contesti sociali e urbani vi sono evidentemente fenomeni di trasformazione e sostituzione della popolazione. Per rimanere al caso messinese, è per esempio di questi giorni la voce che “gli architetti” abbiano acquistato due catapecchie in una scalinata che contiene sparuti resti della città vecchia e che le stiano rinnovando. Si tratta di case che nel corso dei decenni erano state abitate prima da famiglie sottoproletarie italiane, poi da un mix di immigrati asiatici e studenti fuorisede e, da qualche tempo, lasciate a deperire oltre i limiti dell’abitabilità. È tuttavia difficile parlare in simili scenari di gentrification perché il portato di questi mutamenti è limitato al piano immobiliare e non si accompagna a quelle trasformazioni progressive e complessive dell’economia e degli stili di vita che, a mio avviso, dovrebbero essere considerate parte integrante e sensibile di questo fenomeno; ciò che permette di contrassegnarlo compiutamente anche come “espropriazione” (dispossession).

Distinguere tra gentrification e speculazione è importante anche perché permette di distinguere le forze capitalistiche in azione. In estrema sintesi, la gentrification è un indice dei livelli di transizione di una città verso la nuova economia e gli stili di vita e consumo associati; la speculazione, invece, è un semplice indicatore della prevalenza di gruppi di interesse tradizionali, che esauriscono nel mattone e nel gioco finanziario la propria funzione.

Infine le aree esposte a gentrification possono includere ampi fenomeni speculativi, correlati alla nuova edilizia così come a quella preesistente, mentre le aree soggette a massicci fenomeni speculativi non devono necessariamente generare gentrification.

Pietro Saitta > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Gentrification o speculazione? Note analitiche sugli abusi di un termine

107

Conclusioni In chiusura si può ancora osservare che mentre la speculazione è un fenomeno volontario che parte dall’alto, la gentrification è in certo senso indotta e prende avvio “dal basso”. Com’è ampiamente noto, la storia narrataci dai precursori degli studi sulla nuova questione urbana spiega infatti che in origine vi era una popolazione giovane, dai redditi incerti e bohémienne; in simultanea vi era un quartiere esotico di una grande città, comparativamente economico e attraente quanto basta per suscitare l’interesse dei primi.

Iniziata la conquista da parte dei pionieri, lo stesso quartiere vede velocemente scomparire la popolazione originaria, seguita in rapida successione da quella nuova. È la borghesia più tradizionale, infatti, a connotare la fase matura della gentrification. Quest’ultima, dunque, appare almeno in parte come un conflitto per l’habitat causato dalla corsa verso l’alto del costo degli immobili e degli affitti. Per lo meno nella sua fase iniziale, essa è infatti una risposta adattativa che implica un conflitto interno alla classe dei marginali e dei marginali relativi. La gentrificazione appare così una spia dei rapporti economici preesistenti, oltre che degli equilibri sottesi alle politiche sociali nel loro complesso (dalle misure di sostegno al reddito sino a quelle per la casa), e non ciò che produce veramente l’organizzazione dello spazio e della proprietà. In un quadro di crescente politicizzazione della questione, ne deriva che i critici dovrebbero essere cauti nell’identificare il bersaglio e limitare i rischi di concentrarsi sui sintomi anziché sulle cause. I conflitti giocati sul piano locale – ossia di quartiere – il più delle volte rischiano infatti di essere fortemente “epifenomenici” e inefficaci. Rappresentano una forma tutt’al più tattica di opposizione, incapace però di incidere su quelle dinamiche economiche e quelle forme mentali generalizzate che determinano e naturalizzano le asimmetrie poste alla base della questione abitativa. Senza contare le contraddizioni: quelle, per esempio, che consistono nel ricorrere a strategie di patrimonializzazione delle aree urbane a rischio di distruzione speculativa per respingere l’offensiva in atto, innescando così nuove narrazioni, folklorizzando le identità e le storie “autoctone”, e producendo cornici comunicative che se da un lato preservano il patrimonio architettonico e urbano, dall’altro aprono però la porta alla gentrification o ad altre forme di messe a valore del patrimonio immobiliare.

108

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

bibliografia Amster R. 2004, Street People and the Contested Public Space, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, New York.

Atkinson R. & Bridge G. (a cura di) 2005, Gentrification in Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism?, Routledge, New York.

Harvey D. 2003, The New imperialism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hyra, D. S. 2017, Race, Class and Politics in the Cappuccino City, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Lees L., Slater T. & Wyly E. 2008, Gentrification, Routledge, New York.

Smith N.1996 The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City, Routledge, New York-London.

Timberg, S. 2015 Culture Crash: The Killing of the Creative Class, Yale University Press, Yale.

Pietro Saitta > Anti-gentrification nelle cittĂ (Sud) Europee > Gentrification o speculazione? Note analitiche sugli abusi di un termine

109

Particolare del progetto grafico a cura di Antonia Santolaya pubblicato a p. 131

110

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Resisting Gentrification: the case for Diversity

@ Lidia Katia Consiglia Manzo | # Planetary gentrification | # Resistance | # Urban diversity | # Gentrificazione planetaria | # Pratiche di resistenza | # Diversità urbana |

Resistenze alla Gentrificazione: note sulla Diversità La predilezione per spazi urbani caratterizzati da “diversità urbana” è sempre stata un segno distintivo della gentrificazione. Questo paper esplora questo aspetto e mette in evidenza come le pratiche di resistenza alla gentrificazione che sostengono una versione idealizzata della ‘diversità urbana’ non siano necessariamente inclusive dal punto di vista socio-economico di chi le pratica, né producono tolleranza. Infatti, proprio quell’ambigua coalescenza tra produzione e consumo della diversità mentre ci fa assistere ad un miglioramento del pluralismo urbano, molto spesso può dare origine ad una molteplicità di interessi ed obiettivi contrastanti. Una lettura, questa, che si inserisce in un quadro di ricerca urbana interessata ad analizzare criticamente gli effetti della diversità sullo sviluppo dei processi di gentrificazione e sugli esiti delle sue pratiche di resistenza. Nel caso di Milano gli imprenditori cinesi sono stati in grado di passare dall’essere “dominati” dalle politiche revanchiste del governo locale ad essere gli attori “dominanti” nel processo di rigenerazione di un quartiere multietnico mercificato, avvalorando la tesi che gli interessi o lo stile di vita di un gruppo sociale non dovrebbero essere favoriti semplicemente perché si trovano in una posizione svantaggiata o marginalizzata. Da qui la necessità di porre sotto osservazione eventuali processi di espulsione a carico di altri gruppi sociali. Le conclusioni sottolineano esattamente questa ambiguità della diversità, che se da un lato caratterizza il fascino urbano, ne favorisce la creatività, generando tolleranza, dall’altro può comprometterne la democrazia, quando gli interessi corporativi trascendono quelli per il bene comune.

The articles result from the editor suggestion of exploring the limits, ambiguities, and power of resistance to gentrification and anti-displacement practices in Southern European cities. In this contribution, I will elaborate on this debate by examining the specific role of urban diversity in redefining inclusion and exclusion in contemporary cities experiencing urban revitalization. The endorsement of diversity has always been a hallmark of gentrification that reveals gentrifiers’ lifestyle in terms of “distinctive” (Bourdieu 1984) consumption habits and cultural patterns (Zukin 1982; Ley 1996; Lloyd 2006). Thus, my view is that practices of resistance that advocate for an idealized version of urban diversity per se do not produce socio-economic Lidia Katia Consiglia Manzo > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Resisting Gentrification: the case for Diversity

111

Fig.1_

Via Sarpi during the Chinese riot of 2007. Source: author.

inclusiveness and tolerance. Rather, it is the ambiguous coalescence between the production and the consumption of diversity (Fainstein 2005; Manzo 2016) that, while enhancing a diverse plurality of dwellers, can give rise to a plurality of interests and goals that are often in conflict.

Meanings and Implications of Diversity in Southern Europe Ensuring diversity within society, the economy, and the built environment has become a major planning and policy goal of state-led interventions in many countries in Western Europe and North America. Diversity is considered the key to stimulating growth and achieving equity. However, this contemporary trend certainly does not support Jane Jacobs’ vision of a “closegrained diversity of uses” (1961, p.14) to nurture great social interaction and support cities created, first and foremost, for people. On the contrary, the scale and scope of current market developments is driving cities towards “blueprints” (Lees et al. 2016, p.111), strategic imitations resulting from “impulses within the global economy” (Fainstein 2005, p.6) that undermine the local idea of a diverse urban milieu. Although “planning for difference” is acknowledged as essential to promote social cohesion rather than fragmentation, as Burayidi asserts, “this fibre of inclusion has yet to weave its way into every fabric of planning practice” (2015, p.4) in creating the just city.

1_ Which takes the structural

In gentrification research, diversity is context-dependent (Maloutas 2012), holding different meanings depending on different political frameworks. For example, in North America, diversity today refers to a touristic, multicultural, urban village. The same term in Western European cities continues to be used to describe “undesirable” ghettos or stigmatized enclaves (Slater 2017). According to Zukin et al., “a strong ‘ethnic’ or ‘immigrant’ presence in Europe is feared as a sign of fragmentation or even ‘ghettoization’ which the state feels responsible to prevent” (2015, p.200). Despite having become rapidly more diverse, Southern European cities continue to be less segregated than Northern European ones1 (Musterd 2005; Arbaci 2008).

differences of southern and western societies as explanatory factors.

112

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

In Southern European cities, urban dwellers experience diversity every day Fig.2_ Via Sarpi during the on local shopping streets: a “global urban habitat where differences of lan- Chinese riot of 2007. Source: guage and culture are see, heard, smelled, felt, and certainly tasted” (Zukin author. et al. 2015, p.1). Ethnically distinct shopping streets provide a window into the globalization and commercialization of local communities – where the diversity they produce become local attractions. The reciprocity between gentrification, diversity, and the territorialization of difference is undermined by changes in lifestyles, commerce, culture, and resistance to these changes.

Diversity tied to multi-ethnicity can be understood as a “spectacle” for consumption tied to celebrations and festivals that are easily marketable.

As an activist-scholar I have been engaged in ethnographic research within the multiethnic community of Milan Chinatown after the 2007 riots in response to revanchist tactics (Smith 1996) that have been informing urban renewal policies “against minorities,” in ethnically diverse neighborhoods of the city (Manzo 2012; Verga 2016). The 2007 riot (figures 1 and 2) was the Chinese entrepreneurs’ response to the “zero tolerance” municipal policies that were adopted to discourage the development of Chinese commerce and promote the speculative urban renewal of the neighborhood. Following the rebellion, I produced an ethnographic documentary with the community (and for the community) to “challenge consolidated social imaginaries and define a counter narrative to the hegemonic idea of urban living” (Annunziata & Rivas-Alonso in press; see also Lees & Ferreri 2016 on counter-narratives).

At the time, in 2008, this practice was understood to be a channel of resistance where both ethnic entrepreneurs and Italian residents collectively produced public space to avert the threat of embryonic gentrification (Manzo 2017). The case of Milan Chinatown and its main shopping street via Sarpi is a focal point of this discussion. In the nine years between 2007 and 2016, I observed the fundamental conflation between anti-gentrifica-

Lidia Katia Consiglia Manzo > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Resisting Gentrification: the case for Diversity

113

Fig.3_

The pedestrianisation of via Sarpi in Milan Chinatown, November 2014. Source: Cecilia Chiarini.

tion practices rooted in the value of diversity and the use of diversity as a new form of “commodification of the culture of resistance” (Naegler 2012, p.157). Direct regulation – the implementation of a pedestrian-only zone – and indirect regulation – delivery regulations that targeted a specific type of commerce – were used by the local government as planning tools to redevelop via Sarpi and ‘sweep away the undesirable’ Chinese entrepreneurs from the neighborhood. The gentrification strategy of the city government, in fact, promoted “good quality” Chinese shops and restaurants to attract a ‘desired diversity’ of residents and users of via Sarpi. However, in the attempt to upgrade their shops and resist commercial displacement, Chinese entrepreneurs played a key role in the multi-ethnic ‘aestheticization’ of the Chinatown. Driven by the commodification of ethno-cultural diversity, via

114

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Sarpi became an increasingly attractive place for the creative and entertainment industries. The commercial recovery of the area improved the visibility of the neighborhood, as one storeowner noted: Now people come here also because it is an innovative place, for the fact that it is a ‘Chinatown’.

Neighborhood entrepreneurs have driven the commodification of diversity in the production of a new image of the neighborhood (figure 2). The neighborhood’s image is now tied to the consumption of diversity, creativity and entertainment: The goal is not only to improve the street and give it a commercial vestige that is more in sync with Expo 2015 but also to launch the entire area that will very soon become a strategic pole (Sarpidoc entrepreneurial committee member).

However, the tempestuous intersection of such practices with the economic and political interests of investors and local authorities have driven the displacement of small established, local, Italian-owned businesses that did not “fit” the leisure economy, putting pressure on the habits of long-term residents. New tensions and forms of displacement could emerge from the process of commodification that would reinforce the uneven development that gentrification implies. Interestingly, the non-direct practices of resistance produced by Chinese entrepreneurs (in the business capacity) that mitigated the displacement of ethnic commercial activities become increasingly sanitized. In the last nine years, in fact, the anti-revanchist political outlet of the riot lost its subversive power, blurring into a commodified form of resistance ready to be incorporated into the last wave of gentrification of Milan Chinatown.

Critical urban research involves examining the effects of diversity on the development of gentrification processes rather than simply assuming that the results of its practices of resistance will be beneficial. According to Tissot, gentrifiers’ endorsement of diversity is ambivalent, as their exclusionary practices of distinction go hand in hand with tolerant perspectives and policy efforts.

“Gentrifiers not only claim to be open, they try to implement their values notably by socializing newcomers to diversity and promoting a ‘good neighbor’ ethos that they hope can generate peaceful relations among different groups. But this commitment to diversity is intrinsically linked to the gentrifiers’ capacity to control it” (2014, p.1192).

In particular, gentrifiers desire for diversity (Annunziata & Manzo 2013) in mixed communities (Bridge et al. 2012) is indicative of a changing mechanism of domination in which gentrifiers have a “limited and controlled proportion of ‘others’ in their residential area. ‘Diversity’ epitomizes a new kind of social distinction, which does not rely on segregation between homogeneous residential areas, but on strict control of spatial mixing within residential areas” (Tissot 2014, p.1193). Controlling diversity is one way of reducing what wealthy gentrifiers may view as the frightening dimension of “otherness.”

Lidia Katia Consiglia Manzo > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Resisting Gentrification: the case for Diversity

115

Conclusions Ambiguities exist in both the production and consumption of diversity in the process of gentrification and resistance. The ambiguities of diversity therefore involve “the conflation of social inclusion with economic competitiveness” (Fainstein 2005, p.12). When diversity is commodified by making space for more high-end shops and celebrating them on a symbolic level, as in the case of Milan Chinatown, we risk to neglect “the real social diversity on the ground that needs a different approach and sensitivity” (Zukin et al.

2015, p.122). We must be critical in our acts of resistance, especially when we can take into account the temporalities of gentrification processes. According to Annunziata and Rivas (in press), time is a crucial variable for the dynamics of resistance. One must understand the evolution across time of the positions that different actors take and the narratives they draw.

The interests or lifestyle of a group should not be favored simply because it is at a disadvantage. This occurred in Milan, where Chinese entrepreneurs were able to move from being dominated by the revanchist policies of the local government to being the dominant actors in the rise of a “commodified” multiethnic neighborhood. Understanding the implications of diversity is necessary to investigate if a “multicultural” approach would eventually displace other groups, or if an intergroup coalition would organize to combat displacement (see Annunziata & Lees 2016 on interclass forms of resistance to gentrification in Southern Europe). This is exactly how the ambiguity of diversity emerges: on the one hand it defines urban appeal, fosters creativity, and breeds tolerance, while on the other hand, it can undermine democracy if individuals’ loyalty to group interests or symbols is greater than their interest in the common good.

references Annunziata, S. & Lees, L. 2016, “Resisting ‘Austerity Gentrification’ and Displacement in Southern Europe”, Sociological Research Online, vol 21, no.3, pp.1–9.

Annunziata, S. & Manzo, L.K.C. 2013, “Desire for Diversity and Difference in Gentrified Brooklyn. Dialogue between a Planner and a Sociologist”, Cambio. Rivista sulle trasformazioni sociali, vol. 6 pp.71–88.

Annunziata, S. & Rivas-Alonso, C. 2018. “Resistances to gentrification and displacement”, in L. Lees & M. Philips, eds. Handbook of Gentrification Studies.

116

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.

Arbaci, S. 2008, “(Re)Viewing Ethnic Residential Segregation in Southern European Cities: Housing and Urban Regimes as Mechanisms of Marginalisation”, Housing Studies, vol. 23, no.4, pp.589–613.

Bourdieu, P. 1984, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, MA: Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Bridge, G., Butler, T. & Lees, L. 2012, Mixed Communities: Gentrification by Stealth?, Policy Press, Bristol.

Burayidi, M.A. 2015, “Cities and the Diversity Agenda in Planning” in M. A. Burayidi, ed. Cities and the Politics of Difference. Multiculturalism and Diversity in Urban Planning. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Fainstein, S.S. 2005, “Cities and Diversity: Should We Want It? Can We Plan For It?” Urban Affairs Review, vol.41, no. 1, pp.3–19.

Jacobs, J., 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Random House.

Lees, L. & Ferreri, M. 2016, “Resisting gentrification on its final frontiers: Learning from the Heygate Estate in London (1974–2013)”. Cities, vo. 57, pp.14–24.

Lees, L., Shin, H.B. & Lopez-Morales, E. 2016, Planetary Gentrification, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Ley, D., 1996. The New Middle Class and the Remaking of the Central City, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Lloyd, R., 2006, Neo-Bohemia: art and commerce in the postindustrial city, Routledge, London and New York.

Maloutas, T., 2012, “Contextual Diversity in Gentrification Research”, Critical Sociology, vol.38, no.1, pp.33–48.

Manzo, L.K.C., 2016, “«Via Via, Vieni via Di Qui!» Il Processo di Gentrificazione di via Paolo Sarpi, la Chinatown di Milano (1980-2015)”, Archivio di Studi Urbani e Regionali, vol 117, pp.27–50.

Manzo, L.K.C. 2012, “Emergent spaces, contemporary urban conflicts. Experiences of social mix in changing neighborhoods: The case study Milan’s Chinatown”. in C. Camp Yeakey, ed. Living on the Boundaries: Urban Marginality in National and International Contexts. Emerald, Bristol.

Manzo, L.K.C., 2017, “Video-Ethnography and Critical Research for More Democratic Urbanization: The Case of Milan Chinatown”. Visual Anthropology, 30(City Visualscapes, Visual practices of urban research), pp.206–221. Available at: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/08949468.2017.1296295.

Musterd, S. 2005, “Social and ethnic segregation in Europe: Levels, Causes, and Effects”, Journal of Urban Affairs, vol.27, no.3, pp.331–48.

Naegler, L. 2012, Gentrification and Resistance: Cultural Criminology, Control, and the Commodification of Urban Protest in Hamburg, LIT Verlag, Münster.

Slater, T., 2017, “Territorial Stigmatization: Symbolic Defamation and the Contemporary Metropolis”, in J. Hannigan & G. Richards, eds. The Handbook of New Urban Studies. SAGE, London, pp. 111–125.

Smith, N., 1996, The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City, Routledge, London and New York.

Tissot, S., 2014, “Loving Diversity/Controlling Diversity: Exploring the Ambivalent Mobilization of Upper-Middle-Class Gentrifiers, South End, Boston”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol.38, no. 4, pp.1181–1194.

Verga, P.L., 2016, “Rhetoric in the Representation of a Multi-Ethnic Neighbourhood: The Case of Via Padova, Milan”, Antipode, vol.48,no. 4 , pp.1080–1101.

Zukin, S., 1982, Loft Living. Culture and Capital in Urban Change, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

Zukin, S., Kasinitz, P. & Chen, X. (eds.) 2015, Global Cities, Local Streets: Everyday Diversity from New York to Shanghai, Routledge, New York.

Lidia Katia Consiglia Manzo > Anti-gentrification nelle città (Sud) Europee > Resisting Gentrification: the case for Diversity

117

Particolare del progetto grafico a cura di Antonia Santolaya pubblicato a p. 131

118

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Commento Commentary

>

119

Particolare del progetto grafico a cura di Antonia Santolaya pubblicato a p. 131

120

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Resisting gentrification in (Southern) European cities Resistenze ai processi di gentrification nelle città del (Sud) Europee Loretta Lees, School of Geography, Geology and the Environment, University of Leicester, UK. Email: loretta.lees@le.ac.uk I am very pleased to be writing this short commentary for this special issue which is one of the many important outputs to come out of an EU Marie Curie funded project1 in which Sandra Annunziata has spent two years researching anti-gentrification practices in Southern European cities, specifically Rome, Madrid and Athens. The focus of this special issue is on resistance to gentrification, something I have been working on as a scholar activist since the late 1990s (Lees, 1999; The London Tenants Federation, Lees, Just Space and SNAG, 2014; Lees and Ferreri, 2016; Lees, Annunziata and Rivas-Alonso, 2017). Critical urbanists, like many in this special issue, who have made it their goal to research practices of resistance to gentrification commit their time and energy to fighting for social justice in the city. The research is bottom up, participatory, grounded and empirical. This is not the quick and dirty editorialising and theorising that has come to define the ‘publish or perish’ culture of C21st academia. In my mind it is the deep and sophisticated empirical research on the ground that can be fed through to the critical conceptual and resistance work needed that deserves the most recognition.

Like Annunziata, in her editorial, I agree that anti-gentrification practices are deeply rooted in the territorial setting in which they are performed, as is the process of gentrification itself. But this is a different contextual argument from those who would argue that gentrification is something that should be confined to Anglo-American cities, and in extremis 1960s London where the term was coined (for critiques of such a position see Bernt, 2016; Lees, Shin and Lopez-Morales, 2015; Shin and Lopez-Morales, 2018; Slater, 2018). Empirically grounded, comparative research that takes seriously the ‘new’ comparative urbanism is a first step in investigating gentrification globally (see Lees, 2012; Lees, Shin and Lopez-Morales, 20162; Lees, 2018). Such work may even include cities like Marseilles in France in the Southern European city discussion, a city that looks south rather than north. As Ley and Yang (2017) state, at a time when many academics ‘pursue esoteric individual research with limited social payoff’, collaborative projects across continents place a ‘spotlight on a major existential problem of our time: the growing commodification, inequality, and injustice of the urban housing market’ 1_ PI: Lees,L. CoI: Annunzia(p.115). Anti-gentrification scholars need to learn from anti-gentrification ta,S. FP7-PEOPLE-2013 Marie activists on the ground and vice versa, the pooling of knowledge on anti-gen- Curie Action Fellowship 20142016 ‘AGAPE: Exploring antrification practices, local and global, is vital. The workshop in Rome that fed ti-gentrification practices and into this special issue which I attended did just this3. policies in Southern European Cities’.

Watch ow.ly/uvKF30cqiDifferent types and processes of gentrification are causing displacement 2_ gX] in Southern European cities (see for example, Alexandri, 2015, on Athens; 3_ See http://www.city-analysis.net/2017/02/10/philipp-katsinas-reviews-anti-gentrification-workshop-staying-put/

121

Cocola-Gant and Pardo, this issue, on Barcelona; and Manzo, this issue, on Milan) and resistance against this gentrification is growing, as it is in Europe more widely. Indeed this summer in Southern Europe, in Barcelona and Majorca, protest groups including Arran Paisos Catalans and Endavant Ciutat Vella rallied against tourism gentrification and made international headline news. More widely, what once seemed like limits or barriers to gentrification (see Ley and Dobson, 2008) are being overcome in Europe and elsewhere.

In London council housing which long stood in the way of gentrification is being demolished and low income tenants are being displaced (Lees, 2014).

In Thessaloniki, Greece’s second largest city, the economic crisis has both stalled and triggered different forms and scales of gentrification, pointing to the uneven geography of the process, as a local and global urban strategy (Katsinas, 2017).

To date, research detailing practices of resistance against gentrification has been small compared to the voluminous literature on the why, how and impact of the gentrification process (see Annunziata and Rivas-Alonso, 2018).

This situation is changing now and a new body of work is emerging, work in which this special issue is situated. It is significant that a paper by anti-gentrification activist Andrej Holm on Berlin has been included, given that Berlin is one of the few cities where anti-gentrification legislation has emerged – in the form of the new Milieuschutz Law. Holm outlines various modes of protest in Berlin and in so doing reveals that the practices are not greatly different to those happening in Southern European cities. Ferreri, reflecting on her anti-gentrification work in London, now that she has relocated to Barcelona, discusses questioning of the appropriateness of the British term ‘gentrification’ by activists outside of the UK. Such questioning is important and terms that work best locally are perhaps the most appropriate ones to mobilise; but many would argue, myself included, that globally a common term is needed, and politically ‘gentrification’ has a lot of planetary punch.

Words, terms and discourse aside, the most difficult part of resisting gentrification is about coming up with alternatives. We need to resist gentrification but we also need alternatives to put on the table, much less energy has been focused on this to date and this too must change (see Bunce, 2018; Steele, 2018).

122

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

references Alexandri, G. 2015, “Unravelling the yarn of gentrification trends in the contested inner city of Athens”, in Lees, L., Shin, H., and Lopez-Morales, E. (eds) Global Gentrifications: Uneven Development and Displacement, Policy Press, Bristol, pp.19-35.

Annunziata, S. and Rivas-Alonso, C. forthcoming, 2018 “Resisting gentrification”, in Lees, L. with Phillips, M. (eds) Handbook of Gentrification Studies, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Bunce, S. forthcoming, 2018, “Alternatives to Gentrification: Exploring Urban Community Land Trust and Urban Ecovillage Practices”, in Lees,L. with Phillips,M. (eds) Handbook of Gentrification Studies, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham..

Bernt, M. 2016, “Very particular, or rather universal? Gentrification though the lenses of Ghertner and López-Morales”, City, vol.20, no.4, pp. 637-644.

Katsinas, P. 2017, Thessaloniki: the poster child of austerity urbanism, unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Geography, King’s College London.

Lees, L. forthcoming, 2018, “Comparative urbanism in gentrification studies: fashion or progress?”, in Lees,L. with Phillips,M. (eds) Handbook of Gentrification Studies, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Lees, L. 2014, “The urban injustices of New Labour’s ‘new urban renewal’: the case of the Aylesbury Estate in London”, Antipode, vol.46 no. 4, pp. 921-947.

Lees, L. 1999, “Critical Geography and the Opening Up of the Academy: lessons from ‘real life’ attempts”, Area, vol.31, no.4, pp. 377-383.

Lees, L., Annunziata, S. and Rivas-Alonso, C. 2017, “Resisting Planetary Gentrification: the value of survivability in the fight to stay put”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1365587 Lees, L. and Ferreri, M. 2016, “Resisting gentrification on its final frontiers: lessons from the Heygate Estate in London (1974-2013)”, Cities, vol. 57, pp. 14-24.

Lees, L., Shin, H. and Lopez-Morales, E. 2016, Planetary Gentrification, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Lees, L., Shin, H. and Lopez-Morales, E. 2015, “Introduction: ‘gentrification’ a global urban process?” in Lees, L., Shin,H. and Lopez-Morales, E. (Eds) Global Gentrifications: uneven development and displacement, Policy Press, Bristol, pp.1-18.

Ley, D. and Dobson, C. 2008, Are there limits to gentrification? The contexts of impeded gentrification in Vancouver, Urban Studies 45(12): 2471-2498.

Ley, D. and Yang, Q. 2017, “Global Gentrifications: Uneven Development and Displacement; and Planetary Gentrification”, The AAG Review of Books, vol. 5, no. 2, pp.112-115 Shin, H. and López-Morales, E. forthcoming, 2018, “Beyond Anglo-American Gentrification Theory”, in Lees,L. with Phillips,M. (eds) Handbook of Gentrification Studies, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Slater, T. forthcoming, 2018, “Rent Gaps”, in Lees, L. with Phillips, M. (eds) Handbook of Gentrification Studies, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Steele, J. forthcoming, 2018, Self Renovating Neighbourhoods as an alternative to Gentrification or Decline, in Lees,L. with Phillips,M. (eds) Handbook of Gentrification Studies, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

The London Tenants Federation, Lees, L., Just Space and SNAG 2014, Staying Put: An Anti-Gentrification Handbook for Council Estates in London.

123

Particolare del progetto grafico a cura di Antonia Santolaya pubblicato a p. 131

124

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Apparati Others

>

125

@ Profilo autori / Authors bio

Sandra Annunziata

is a currently Honorary Visiting Fellow, University of Leicester, Department of Geography where she as been Marie Curie Research fellow for two years (2015-2016). Her current research focus is on anti-displacement grassroots movement and gentrification resistance studies. She recently published with Lees and Rivas “Resisting Planetary Gentrification: The Value of Survivability in the Fight to Stay Put,” Annals of the American Association of Geographers

Carlotta Caciagli

Dottoranda alla Scuola Normale Superiore Firenze (Italia). Si occupa di politiche urbane e movimenti di lotta per la casa nel territorio romano tramite ricerche etnografiche che usano la parteciapazione osservata come metodologia principale. Email: carlotta.caciagli@sns.it

126

Agustin Cocola-Gant

is a FCT Research Fellow at the Centre of Geographical Studies, University of Lisbon. His research explores the intersection between tourism and gentrification and pays particular attention at the impacts of holiday rentals in the housing market.

Mara Ferreri

is Marie-Curie Postdoctoral Fellow at the Institut de Govern i Polítiques Públiques at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. She holds a PhD in Geography from Queen Mary University of London (2013). Her work has been published in international journals such as Transactions of the IBG, Cities and Ephemera and in edited volumes, including Space, Power and the Commons (Routledge, 2016).

Margherita Grazioli

Dottoranda della School of Business dell’Università di Leicester (UK). Si occupa di

movimenti sociali urbani e in particolare per il Diritto all’Abitare a Roma tramite il metodo della activist ethnography. Email: mg320@leicester.ac.uk

Andrej Holm

is social scientist and working as researcher and lecturer for urban sociology at Humboldt University in Berlin. His fields of research are gentrification, housing politics, forced eviction and squatting. Beyond his academic work he is active in Berlin’s neighborhood and tenant organizations since the beginning of the 1990ies. As an expert on housing he was asked for advice from both political parties and social movements during the last decade. From December 2016 to January 2017 he was Secretary of State for Housing in Berlin’s administration under the social democrat-left-green government.

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Tonia Katerini

architect president of the Greek Architects Association and member of the action group: STOP Auctions and of the network: Union Initiative Against Auction

Loretta Lees

is Professor of Human Geography at the School of Geography, Geology and the Environment, University of Leicester.

She is an international expert on gentrification and her most recent book Planetary Gentrification (with Hyun Bang Shin and Ernesto Lopez-Morales) is the launch text for Polity Press’s new Urban Futures series. She is also an activist-scholar who for the past decade has been involved in fighting the gentrification of council estates in London, where she lives.

Thomas Maloutas

is Professor of Social Geography at the Department of Geography, Harokopio

Apparati

University. He has directed the Institute of Urban and Rural Sociology at the National Centre for Social Research (EKKE) in Athens (2001-2012) He has also served as Secretary General for Research & Technology at the Greek Ministry of Education (2015-2016). His research and published work is related to changing urban social structures, housing and segregation, with a particular focus on Greek cities.

Lidia Katia C. Manzo

is a postdoctoral researcher in Geography at Maynooth University. She received a Government of Ireland grant to conduct an ethnographic, community-based research on post-crash gentrification in the City of Dublin from the perspective of existing working class residents.

She is also an activist-scholar who for the past decade has been involved in fighting the stigmatization and gentrification of the

Chinatown in Milan, her hometown.

Daniel Pardo

is an activist and member of the Assemblea de Barris per un Turisme Sostenible (ABTS, Assembly of Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Tourism). He is also involved in Ciutat Vella No Està Em Venda (Ciutat Vella is not for sale) and in Sindicat de Llogaters i Llogateres de Barcelona (Barcelona Union of Tenants).

Pietro Saitta

è ricercatore confermato di Sociologia Generale presso l’Università degli Studi di Messina. Si è occupato di immigrazione, criminalità, questione urbana e ambiente. È soprattutto interessato allo studio dei conflitti tra individui e Stato. È autore o curatore di numerosi volumi e saggi.

Tra i suoi lavori recenti in materia di città, Resistenze (Ombre Corte, 2015) e Quota zero (Donzelli, 2013).

127

Dimitra Siatitsa

is an architect-engineer (NTUA) and urban researcher. She received her PhD from the Department of Urban and Regional Planning (school of Architecture, NTUA) and holds a master’s degree on Architecture and Urban Culture (FPC-UPC, Barcelona). She is currently doing research on the housing crisis and homelessness in Greece, and on the social effects of indebtedness. She is currently working as a special advisor at the General Secretariat of Welfare.

Daniel Sorando

is a Ph.D. in Urban Sociology working as a Post Doc researcher at the Complutense University of Madrid. His research focuses on social structure, residential segregation and urban policies, with emphasis on gentrification processes. He wrote with Alvaro Alrdura First We Take Manhattan. La Destruccìon creative de

128

las ciudades, Catarata, Madrid, 2016.

La Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo

è un network abitato da esperienze formali e informali che autogestiscono spazi culturali, sociali e di mutuo-soccorso, comitati, associazioni di volontariato e non, liberi/e cittadini/e che mettono a disposizione intelligenza, competenza, immaginazione ed energie per creare nuovi scenari del possibile. In città appartiene e contribuisce al lavoro della rete di DecideRoma Sito: http://www.decideroma.com/

Left Hand Rotation

es un colectivo artístico en activo desde 2005 que desarrolla proyectos que articulan intervención, apropiacionismo, registro y manipulación de vídeo. http://www.lefthandrotation.com

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

# Parole chiave / Keywords

ABTS | ABTS

DiversitĂ urbana | Urban diversity

Occupazione | Squatting

Attivismo sociale | Social Activism

Gentrification | Gentrification

Partecipazione | Partecipation

Barcellona | Barcelona

Gentrificazione planetaria | Planetary gentrification

Pratiche di resistenza | Resistance

Agustin Cocola-Gant & Daniel Pardo_p. 39 Resisting tourism gentrification: the experience of grass-roots movements in Barcelona

La Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo_p. 25 Pratiche a scala di quartiere.

La Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo

Agustin Cocola-Gant and Daniel Pardo_p. 39 Resisting tourism gentrification: the experience of grass-roots movements in Barcelona

Classi sociali | Social classes

Pietro Saitta _p. 103 Gentrification o speculazione?

Note analitiche sugli abusi di un termine

Lidia Katia C. Manzo_p. 111 Resisting Gentrification: the case for Diversity

Pietro Saitta_p. 103 Gentrification o speculazione?

Note analitiche sugli abusi di un termine

Lidia Katia C. Manzo_p. 111 Resisting Gentrification: the case for Diversity

Margherita Grazioli & Carlotta Caciagli_p. 79 The right to (stay put in): Il caso di Porto Fluviale a Roma

La Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo_p. 25 Pratiche a scala di quartiere.

La Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo

Lidia Katia C. Manzo_p. 111 Resisting Gentrification: the case for Diversity

Resistenza | Movimenti di lotta Resistance Agustin Cocola-Gant & Daniel per la casa | Pardo_p. 39 Housing Resisting tourism gentrification: the experience of movements grass-roots movements in Margherita Grazioli & Carlotta Caciagli_p. 79 The right to (stay put in): Il caso di Porto Fluviale a Roma

Barcelona

129

Rigenerazione Urbana | Urban regeneration

La Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo_p. 25 Pratiche a scala di quartiere.

La Libera Repubblica di San Lorenzo

Right to stay put | Right to stay put

Margherita Grazioli & Carlotta Caciagli_p. 79 The right to (stay put in): Il caso di Porto Fluviale a Roma

Speculazione | Speculation

Pietro Saitta_p. 103 Gentrification o speculazione?

Note analitiche sugli abusi di un termine

Tourism gentrification | Tourism gentrification

Agustin Cocola-Gant & Daniel Pardo_p. 39 Resisting tourism gentrification: the experience of grass-roots movements in Barcelona

130

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

Illustrazioni / Illustrations

Le illustrazioni sono state svolte durante il workshop internazionale STAY PUT! Pratiche anti-gentrification nell’Europa del Sud: un dialogo transnazionale per la realizzazione di un manuale anti-gentrification per le città dell’Europa del Sud, tenutosi presso il Dipartimento di Architettura dell’Università di Roma Tre in collaborazione con il Dipartimento di geografia dell’Università di Leicester il 25-27 Ottobre 2017. Il wokshop è stato curato da Sandra Annunziata Marie Curie Fellow, Dipartimento di Geografia, Università di Leicester, UK, Loretta Lees, Professoressa di Geografia, Dipartimento di Geografia, Università di Leicester, Uk, in collaborazione con Giovanni Caudo, Professore di Urbanistica presso il Dipartimento di Architettura Università degli Studi Roma Tre. Antonia Santolaya artista plástico. Estudié Bellas Artes en Madrid y en St Martins en Londres. Trabaja como ilustradora para editoriales españolas y he estado en la academia de España en Roma durante 2016-2017 con un proyecto de dibujo. En italia he expuesto en Bellas Artes Campo Boario “High noon” y en la Real Academia de Expaña en San Pietro in montorio Antonia Santolaya artista e illustrattrice; ha studiato all’accademia di belle arti di Madrid e Londra, e lavora come artista e graphic nouvelist per testate giornalistiche Spagnole. Nel 2016-2017 ha soggiornato come borsista all’Real Academia de Expaña a Roma e esposto a Bellas Artes Campo Boario “High noon”. Le sue opere: http://antonia-santolaya.blogspot.it/

Apparati

131

132

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

133

134

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13

revisori | iQuaderni

Maria Beatrice Andreucci | Sapienza Università di Roma; Maria Argenti | Sapienza Università di Roma; Elena Battaglini | Fondazione di Vittorio; Nico Calavita | San Diego State University; Lesley Caldwell | University College London; Carlo Cellamare | Sapienza Università di Roma; Leonardo Ciacci | Università IUAV di Venezia; Giuseppe De Luca | Università degli Studi di Firenze; Kaliopa Dimitrovska Andrews | Nova Univerza; Hartmut Frank | Hafencity Universität Hamburg; Carlo Gasparrini | Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II; Michael Gentile | Universitetet i Oslo; Adriana Goñi Mazzitelli| Universidad de la República Uruguay; Umberto Janin Rivolin | Politecnico di Torino; Giovanni Laino | Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II; Laura Lieto | Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II; Giovanni Longobardi | Università degli Studi Roma Tre | Fabrizio Mangoni | Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II; Paul Manning | Trent University; Anna Marson | Università IUAV di Venezia; Luigi Mazza |Politecnico di Milano; Francesco Domenico Moccia |Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II; Maria Luisa Neri | Università degli Studi di Camerino; Camilla Perrone | Università degli Studi di Firenze; Manuela Ricci | Sapienza Università di Roma; Giuseppe Roma | CENSIS; Michelangelo Savino | Università degli Studi di Padova; Paolo Scattoni | Sapienza Università di Roma; Alice Sotgia | ENSA de Paris La Villette; Francesca Romana Stabile | Università degli Studi Roma Tre; José Maria Ureña | Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha; Lia Vasconcelos | Universidade Nova de Lisboa

numero 13, anno 5 Pubblicato per conto di Roma TrEpress Dipartimento di Architettura Università degli Studi Roma Tre Dicembre 2017

135

i QUADERNI #13 maggio_agosto 2017 numero tredici anno cinque

URBANISTICA tre giornale on-line di urbanistica ISSN:

2531-7091

È stato bello fare la tua conoscenza!

cercaci, trovaci, leggici, seguici, taggaci, contattaci, ..

It was nice to meet you!

search us, find us, read us, follow us, tag us, contact us, ..

136

UrbanisticaTreiQuaderni#13 ROMA

TRE

UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI