Back to Case Library

Lleialtat Santsenca Civic Centre

Created on 20-06-2024 | Updated on 18-10-2024

The Lleialtat Santsenca Civic Centre is a community managed municipal facility in the neighbourhood of Sants in Barcelona, the promotes culture, community and cooperation. Originally built in 1928 by architect Josep Alemany i Juvé for the Cooperativa Obrera La Lleialtat Santsenca, the building has served various roles, including a cooperative, a nougat factory, and a dance hall, before being reclaimed by neighborhood groups in 2009. The renovation, led by H-Arquitectes, followed adaptive reuse principles and focused on preserving historical elements, maximizing reuse of materials, and incorporating sustainable features like passive climate control. The facility operates under civic management principles, supported by Barcelona’s legal framework and active community networks, presenting an example of public-community collaboration that drives institutional change. Managed by the Coordinadora d’Entitats per la Lleialtat Santsenca, it offers diverse services such as event spaces, a café, art classes, and sustainable projects, fostering community engagement and support for the entire neighbourhood of Sants.

Architect(s)
(original) Josep Alemany i Juvé; (refurbishment) H Arquitectes

Location
Barcelona, Spain

Project (year)
2014-2017

Construction (year)
1928

Housing type
civic centre

Urban context
neighbourhood center

Construction system
brick and concrete (original), steel and wood (refurbishment)

Status
Building renovation

Description

La Lleialtat Santsenca is a community managed municipal facility aiming to the promotion of culture, neighbourhood and cooperation. The space aspires to be a place of reference in the neighbourhood, hosting initiatives and activities open to everyone that promote community life through participation, strengthening the social bonds and creating networks and partnerships (La LLeialtat Santsenca, n.d.).

 

The historic context

The original building, designed by the architect Josep Alemany i Juvé, was constructed in 1928 to host the Cooperativa Obrera La Lleialtat Santsenca, which was founded in 1891 and was one of the oldest working-class cooperatives in the neighbourhood of Sants. The building embodied the spirit of solidarity among the working class and became a hub for social exchange and socio-political activity, housing a food shop, a bakery, a café, a boardroom, small theatre and library, along with storerooms and administrative offices. (From Workers’ Cooperative to Civic Center, the Lleialtat Santsenca Building in Barcelona, n.d.).

 

During Franco’s regime, the building was expropriated and reopened in 1941 under Falangist management. In 1950 the cooperative was merged with another cooperative called La Flor de Maig and the building was used as a nougat factory -on the ground floor- and dance hall called Bahia -on the first floor-, becoming a musical landmark for the entire city of Barcelona during the 50s and 60s before eventually shut down by the Barcelona City Council in 1988. In December 2009, after years of abandonment, the building was reclaimed by sixty neighbourhood entities, who came together to recover it as a public asset (Somerville, 2020).

 

The coordination of the neighbourhood groups to reclaim this heritage asset occurred as a result of a long tradition of grassroot movements against urban regeneration plans, especially mobilised in the neighbourhood of Sants, such as the “Save Sants” in the 1970s (originally referred to as “Salvem Sants”). The 2008 crisis yield a renewed wave significantly directed towards the topic of alternative economies through neighbourhood-based associativism  (Somerville, 2020). In this breeding context, the neighbourhood of Sants retained a very active character, aiming to recover iconic, often industrial sites of heritage back to public use and social benefit, reviving the original principles of support and solidarity of the working-class populations.

 

The building renovation

In 2012, BIMSA (Barcelona d’Infraesreuctures Municipals) launched a competition for the renovation of the building, that was won by the architectural studio H-Arquitectes. The renovation was based on three fundamental principles: highlighting the historic value of Lleialtat Santsenca; maintaining and reusing the maximum possible original building and materials; and embracing the collaborative processes driven by neighbourhood organisations of reclaiming and recovering the building. The restoration involved demolishing unusable elements while preserving structural bodies, creating a large central atrium for light, ventilation and visibility and incorporating features for sustainability, such as passive climate control, solar capture and minimal mechanical air conditioning. (Centre Cívic Lleialtat Santsenca 1214 - H ARQUITECTES, n.d.).

 

The legal context

Along with a very active social movement towards associativism, Barcelona has a well-established history of public facilities managed by citizens’ associations. This has been facilitated through public-community collaboration that are established and protected by Article 43 of the “Carta Municipal de Barcelona” which states that:

 

“Non-profit citizen entities, organizations, and civic associations may exercise municipal competencies or participate on behalf of the City Council in the management of services or facilities whose ownership belongs to other public administrations. The civic management of municipal competencies can be used for activities and services that can be managed indirectly, is always voluntary and not-for-profit, and is awarded by public tender when there are several entities or organizations with identical or similar characteristics.” (Diari Oficial de La Generalitat de Catalunya, Carta Municipal de Barcelona, 1999, p. 219).

 

The principle of civic management has been further strengthened by the creation of networks of associations throughout Barcelona, such as the Plataforma de Gestió Ciutadana[1], which since 2009 is committed to protect and promote all the associations that manage or aspire to get involved in the management of a public facility. Another network of community-managed spaces is Xarxa D’espais Comunitaris (XEC) that coordinates different projects to promote transparency and mutual support through generating meeting points, training and self-organisation (XES - XEC, n.d.).

 

The community management

Within this context, the space is managed by a nonprofit organisation, called Coordinadora d’Entitats per la Lleialtat Santsenca, consisted of neighbours, associations and collectives of Sants that share the values of cooperation, community action, respect and freedom. The sixty neighbourhood collectives are incorporated according to their scope in three lines of action: neighbourhood, culture and cooperation. The management model follows a democratic and transparent structure that consists of the Fòrum de la Lleialtat, a collective decision-making tool open to all neighbours and local organisations that wish to participate, as well as operating commissions responsible for community action, economic management, technological support, programming, communication and memory (La LLeialtat Santsenca, n.d.).

 

The services

Lleialtat functions as a community center, offering various services organised from and in response to local needs. To begin with, the space itself is offered to neighbourhood collectives, either for regular use, in the annual cost of 50€, or for the organisation of special events, such as gatherings, celebrations and concerts, in an affordable cost. The flexibility and adaptability of the space makes it suitable to accommodate any kind of activity. The available spaces offered to the collectives include open-plan and multi-purpose rooms equipped with sound protection, seating and tables, lighting and presentation equipment; a big atrium that serves as an exhibition space as well as the seating area of the Lleialtat café; meeting rooms; a computer room; an auditorium; a terrace; a dance room; (La Lleialtat Santsenca, 2020) and a sustainable mobility vehicle (La LLeialtat Santsenca, n.d.).

 

As far as the individual neighbours are concerned, the space offers a café, a computer support space, a bank of resources, as well as the daily program organised by the collectives, such as art classes, theatre courses, dance lessons, guided tours, exhibitions and presentations, along with projects for sustainable consumption (La LLeialtat Santsenca, n.d.).

 

----------

[1] See https://casaorlandai.cat/lassociacio/gestio-ciutadana/plataforma-de-gestio-ciutadana/

Alignment with project research areas

La Lleialtat Santsenca presents interconnections with all RE-DWELL’s research areas for affordable and sustainable housing, namely Community Participation; Policy and Financing; and Design, Planning and Building. Specifically, it presents a successful case of community organisation to confront top-down urban regeneration plans, by reclaiming and recovering a public asset for the benefit of the neighbourhood. Furthermore, its management model showcases an example of public-civic (or public-community) collaboration for the governance and non-commodified use of public assets supported by local policies. Finally, its renovation followed principles of adaptive reuse, along with consideration for environmental, social and economic sustainability.

Alignment with SDGs

La Lleialtat Santsenca relates to the SDG 11 Sustainable Cities and Communities, as it exemplifies a self-sustainable mechanism for managing public assets at a neighbourhood scale for the benefit of the local community. Moreover, it provides an alternative to the predominant public-private (or state-market) governance model, by following a community management approach on public property. This approach transforms institutional norms by strengthening the role of citizens as active decisionmakers in the creation and governance of the city and therefore contributed towards the SDG 16. Peace, justice and strong institutions and SDG 17. Partnerships for the goals.

References

Centre cívic Lleialtat Santsenca 1214 - H ARQUITECTES. (n.d.). https://www.harquitectes.com/proyectos/lleialtat-santsenca-1214/

From workers’ cooperative to Civic Center, the Lleialtat Santsenca building in Barcelona. (n.d.). https://www.inexhibit.com/case-studies/from-workers-cooperative-to-civic-center-the-lleialtat-santsenca-building-in-barcelona/

Diari Oficial de la Generalitat de Catalunya, Carta Municipal de Barcelona, Pub. L. No. Titol IV, Capitol II, Article 34, 219 (1999).

La Lleialtat Santsenca. (2020). La Lleialtat Santsenca Dossier d’espais.

La LLeialtat Santsenca. (n.d.). Retrieved December 28, 2023, from https://lleialtat.cat/

Somerville, E. (2020). The musealization of Barcelona’s industrial past. Universitat Automata de Barcelona.

XES - XEC. (n.d.). Retrieved December 29, 2023, from https://xes.cat/comissions/xec

Related vocabulary

Collaborative Governance

Social Sustainability

Urban Commons

Area: Community participation

With the world becoming increasingly urbanized and city planning facing numerous complex challenges, urban governance is being downscaled and decentralized, from the national level to the local level. Local authorities are now assuming more prominent roles in structuring urban development plans at the city or neighbourhood level. Various interpretations of governance exist (see, for example housing governance on this vocabulary). However, the definition proposed by Ansell and Gash (2008) – describing governance as the “regimes of laws, rules, judicial decisions, and administrative practices that constrain, prescribe, and enable the provision of publicly supported goods and services” – remains pertinent in discussions about housing, energy, and urban development. Governance involves the negotiation and reconfiguration of institutions – representing “a set of norms” (Savini, 2019)– leading to claims of urban citizenship and power struggles. These processes aim to establish location-specific governance practices, as noted by Baker and Mehmood (2015) and Zavos et al. (2017). In European urban planning, innovative governance models are emerging, integrating housing and spatial planning with increased resident decision-making control (Nuissl & Heinrichs, 2011; Scheller & Thörn, 2018; Van Straalen et al., 2017). Consequently, exploring collaborative urban governance is crucial. Ansell and Gash (2008, p. 544) define collaborative governance as “a governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets”- The shift towards neighbourhood-level governance is pivotal in nurturing a "politics of locality" (Ghose, 2005). Despite power disparities, new opportunities for active citizenry emerge, especially in housing, neighbourhood revitalization, and service delivery. Governance now extends beyond governmental tiers, incorporating the civic sphere and community-driven initiatives, bridging gaps left by formal state-driven sectors. Collaborative governance develops over time, benefiting from shared vision, dialogue, consensus-building, and understanding diverse roles and responsibilities (Innes & Booher, 2003). This integration emphasizes alternative governance forms, focusing on "territorially-focused collective action" (Healey, 2006, p. 305) and self-organization, contrasting the top-down, modernist model. Collaborative governance, akin to collaborative planning, emphasizes rights-claiming processes, granting decision-making authority to non-experts. Ghose (2005, p.64) contends that “in order to participate in the power hierarchies […] one has to understand how to perform actively as a citizen in order to claim a right to the city”. Therefore, collaborative governance is a process characterized by shared responsibilities, where shared knowledge serves as the primary currency. This shared knowledge is emphasized as crucial in challenging the authority of experts, as noted by Emerson et al. (2012).

Created on 26-10-2023

Author: A.Panagidis (ESR8)

Read more ->

Area: Community participation

From the three pillars of sustainable development, economic, environmental and social, the latter  involving social equity and the sustainability of communities, has  been especially neglected. Ongoing problems caused by conflicting economic, environmental and social goals with regard to the processes of urbanisation continue. underpinning economic growth that contradict principles of environmental and social justice (Boström, 2012; Cuthill, 2010; Winston, 2009). Research on sustainable development highlights the need for further investigation of social sustainability (Murphy, 2012; Vallance et al., 2011). Social sustainability has been interpreted as an umbrella term encompassing many other related concepts; “social equity and justice, social capital, social cohesion, social exclusion, environmental justice, quality of life, and urban liveability” (Shirazi & Keivani, 2019, p. 4). A vast number of studies have been dedicated to defining social sustainability by developing theoretical frameworks and indicators particularly relevant to urban development and housing discourse (Cuthill, 2010; Dempsey et al., 2011; Murphy, 2012; Woodcraft, 2012). However, with a lack of consensus on the way of utilising these frameworks in a practical way, especially when applied to planning, social sustainability has remained difficult to evaluate or measure. Consequently, planning experts, housing providers and inhabitants alike understand social sustainability as a normative concept, according to established social norms, and less as an opportunity to critically examine existing institutions. Vallance et al (2011) provide three categories to analyse social sustainability, development, bridge and maintenance sustainability: (a) social development improves conditions of poverty and inequity, from the provision of basic needs to the redistribution of power to influence existing development paradigms; (b) the conditions necessary to bridge social with ecological sustainability, overcoming currently disconnected social and ecological concerns; and (c) the social practices, cultural preferences as well as the environments which are maintained over time. Maintenance social sustainability particularly deals with how people interpret what is to be maintained and includes “new housing developments, the layout of streets, open spaces, residential densities, the location of services, an awareness of habitual movements in place, and how they connect with housing cultures, preferences, practices and values, particularly those for low-density, suburban lifestyles” (Vallance et al., 2011, p. 345). Therefore, the notion of maintenance is especially important in defining social sustainability by directly investigating the established institutions, or “sets of norms” that constitute the social practices and rules, that in turn, affect responsibilities for planning urban spaces. A conceptual framework that appears frequently in social sustainability literature is that of Dempsey et al. (2011)⁠ following Bramley et al. (2009), defining social sustainability according to the variables of social equity and sustainability of community and their relationship to urban form, significantly at the local scale of the neighbourhood. In terms of the built environment, social equity (used interchangeably with social justice) is understood as the accessibility and equal opportunities to frequently used services, facilities, decent and affordable housing, and good public transport. In this description of local, as opposed to regional services, proximity and accessibility are important. Equitable access to such local services effectively connects housing to key aspects of everyday life and to the wider urban infrastructures that support it. Sustainability of community is associated with the abilities of society to develop networks of collective organisation and action and is dependent on social interaction. The associated term social capital has also been used extensively to describe social norms and networks that can be witnessed particularly at the community level to facilitate collective action (Woolcock, 2001, p. 70). They might include a diversity of issues such as resident interaction, reciprocity, cooperation and trust expressed by common exchanges between residents, civic engagement, lower crime rates and other positive neighbourhood qualities that are dependent on sharing a commitment to place (Foster, 2006; Putnam, 1995; Temkin & Rohe, 1998). In fact, “the heightened sense of ownership and belonging to a locale” is considered to encourage the development of social relations (Hamiduddin & Adelfio, 2019, p. 188). However, the gap between theoretical discussions about social sustainability and their practical application has continued. For example, the emphasis of social sustainability as a target outcome rather than as a process has been prioritised in technocratic approaches to planning new housing developments and to measuring their success by factors which are tangible and easier to count and audit. Private housing developers that deal with urban regeneration make bold claims to social sustainability yet profound questions are raised regarding the effects of gentrification (Dixon, 2019). Accordingly, the attempted methods of public participation as planning tools for integrating the ‘social’ have been found to be less effective - their potential being undercut due to the reality that decision-making power has remained at the top (Eizenberg & Jabareen, 2017). Therefore, social sustainability is not a fixed concept, it is contingent on the interdependence of the procedural aspects (how to achieve social sustainability) and substantive aspects (what are the outcomes of social sustainability goals) (Boström, 2012). From this point of view, social sustainability reveals its process-oriented nature and the need to establish processes of practicing social sustainability that begin with the participation of citizens in decision-making processes in producing equitable (i.e. socially sustainable) development. As a dimension of sustainable development that is harder to quantify than the economic or environmental aspects, the operationalisation of social sustainability goals into spatial, actionable principles has remained a burgeoning area of research. In such research, methods for enhancing citizen participation are a particularly important concern in order to engage and empower people with “non-expert” knowledge to collaborate with academic researchers.

Created on 03-06-2022

Author: A.Panagidis (ESR8)

Read more ->

Area: Community participation

Urban commons are shared resources in the city that are managed by their users in a collaborative and non-profit-oriented way. The concept is based on the idea that urban resources and services that represent fundamental rights in the city should be accessible to and governed by the urban dwellers, to support the social capital and the sustainability of the urban communities. Hence, their value lies mostly in the social benefit produced during their use and they are therefore different from commodities that follow traditional market principles of profit maximisation and private ownership (Dellenbaugh-Losse et al., 2015). The concept of urban commons is an extrapolation in the urban context of the notion of commons which historically refers to natural resources available to all and not owned by any individual, such as air, water and land. The commons discourse became significantly popular thanks to the fundamental contribution of Elinor Ostrom (1990) and particularly after she was awarded the Nobel in Economics in 2009. Ostrom presented cases and design principals for the collective management of common resources by those that use and benefit from them, challenging the predominant negative connotations that had peaked with Garret Hardin’s (1968) Tragedy of the Commons where he analysed the impossible sustainability of common pool resources due to individual benefits. During the last fifteen years, a vast body of academic literature on urban commons has been produced, linking the notion to other urban theories, such as the right to the city (Harvey, 2008; Lefebvre, 1996), biopolitics (Angelis & Stavrides, 2009; Hardt & Negri, 2009; Linebaugh, 2008; Parr, 2015; Stavrides, 2015, 2016), peer-to-peer urbanism and sharing economy (Dellenbaugh-Losse et al., 2015; Iaione, 2015; Iaione et al., 2019; McLaren & Agyeman, 2015; Shareable, 2018). The notion of the urban commons encompasses resources, people and social practices (Dellenbaugh-Losse et al., 2015): Commons resources are urban assets of various types, characteristics and scales (Dellenbaugh-Losse et al., 2015). Examples of commons resources include physical spaces, such as community gardens, street furniture and playgrounds; intangible elements such as culture and public art; services such as safety; digital spaces, such as internet access. Urban commons literature and practices have attempted to determine several typological categorisations of the urban commons resources, the most notable being that of Hess (2008), who classified them as cultural, knowledge, markets, global, traditional, infrastructure, neighbourhood, medical and health commons. The commoners are the group that uses and manages the urban commons resources. It is a self-defined and organically formed group of individuals whose role is to collectively negotiate the boundaries and the rules of the management of the commons resources (Dellenbaugh-Losse et al., 2015). In a neighbourhood setting, for example, the commoners may be individual residents, or community groups, cooperatives, NGOs and local authorities. De Angelis and Stavrides (2010) points out that commoners might include diverse groups or communities that are not necessarily homogenous. Commoning refers to the collaborative participatory process of accessing, negotiating and governing the commons resources. The term was introduced by Peter Linebaugh (2008) and refers to the “social process that creates and reproduces the commons” (Angelis & Stavrides, 2010). Commoning is a form of public involvement for the public good (Lohmann, 2016). Commoning implies a commitment to solidarity and cooperation, to the creation of added value to the community, to democracy and inclusiveness and is connected to a hacking culture(Dellenbaugh-Losse et al., 2015). Hence, commoning practices can include various activities such as co-creation, capacity building and placemaking, support through learning, innovation, performing art, protest, urban gardening and commuting. In contemporary societies in crisis, the urban commons theory is often used as a counter-movement to the commodification of urban life and as a response to complex issues, proving essential for the well-being of marginalised communities and for the provision of affordable and sustainable housing. Urban commons management conveys the re-appropriation of urban values (Borch & Kornberger, 2015) breaking silos of expertise and knowledge by adopting a collaborative approach to defining and solving the problems at stake. The practice of urban commons helps to build values of openness, experimentation, creativity, trust, solidarity and commitment within stakeholder groups.

Created on 14-10-2022

Author: A.Pappa (ESR13)

Read more ->

Related publications

No entries

Blogposts

Icon exploring-the-panorama-of-barcelona-s-urban-commons-and-the-dynamic-state-relationships

Exploring the Panorama of Barcelona's Urban Commons and the Dynamic State Relationships

Posted on 22-01-2024

During the first days of 2012 the residents around Encarnació 62-64 in the neighbourhood of Grácia in Barcelona, gathered outside the -up until then- nuns’ convent due to the sound of excavators tearing down the entire 1900’s building in just 3 days. Apart from the building, the site preserved an 800 square meter garden with pergola, century-old palm trees and fruit trees, house of several bird species, such as parrots, blackbirds, doves, robins or sparrows. Word spread that the site had been sold to a real estate company with plans to construct a six-storey parking lot. The residents of the streets Encarnació, Sant Lluis and the Associació Veïnal Vila de Gràcia, formerly strangers to each other, were mobilised in a restless effort to prevent the development plans and preserve the space as a neighbourhood facility. Their various protests were reflected in the Salvem el Jardí (Save the Garden) campaign in which they collected 7,000 signatures requesting that the plot passes to public property, urging the City Council to eventually buy it in 2014. Since then, the Associació Salvem el Jardí, have restored the remnants of the garden and thanks to their voluntary work, they have gradually transformed it into an open-air civic centre managed by the neighbours, a space they named Jardí del Silenci.   (Testimony from Marta Montcada, member of Associació Salvem el Jardí, Interview conducted in November 2023)   Today, the community garden is a hidden oasis in the neighbourhood, allowing visitors to enjoy the sounds, smells and tastes of nature. The garden is cared for by the volunteers-members of the association, and is open to the neighbourhood, hosting along with the tens of agricultural projects that contain multiple plant species, numerous social activities such as cultural and agricultural workshops, events, talks, exhibitions, shows, sport classes and playground equipment.   This is only one of the fascinating stories I learnt during my secondment in Barcelona, where I conducted on-the-ground research on the rich tapestry of community managed neighbourhood spaces. These are spaces of local character that operate as urban commons, meaning that they are run by the local communities, local organisations or any form of social institution established for their management, according to the local needs.   Over the course of three months, I was on my feet to get even a glimpse on the rich diversity that define these spaces in terms of program and typology, historical context, ignition, property status and management model. I conducted site visits engaging in informal discussions and formal interviews with numerous actors – members of the initiatives, with the urge to understand what these spaces are, how do they operate in the neighbourhood, what their relation to the City is, as well as what greatest challenges they face are. I visited community gardens and parks, neighbourhood cultural centres (Ateneus and Casals del Barri), working cooperatives, self-managed educational spaces, housing cooperatives and a self-sustainable agroecological community.   Below I summarise a few observations that derive from this experience, focusing on one of the dominant debates in the urban commons discourse, the relationship between the state and urban commons initiatives[1]. This relationship plays a key role in the character, resources and sustenance of the initiatives over time, especially when they operate on public property. Before exploring the array of relations, it is important to provide some overview of the emergence of these initiatives in Barcelona, as it is formative of the trajectories of these relationships.   Historical Context   The emergence of community-managed spaces in Barcelona is deeply rooted in the historic fabric of the city, encmpassing social movements and cooperativism. Examples of land collectivisations, initially by anarchist unions, were established before the Civil War. They evolved historically into workers’ collectives that self-organised to deliver services of healthcare, culture, education and production among others. During the 70s, the provision of these services and resources by communities themselves was a fundamental substitute to the state and market provision.   On the other hand, after the first democratic government in 1978, and particularly after the 2008 economic crisis, Barcelona has faced the challenges of a global city, such as the privatisation of public services, gentrification and massive tourism, evictions and an increase in precarious labour conditions, among others. Thus, the development of community managed services and spaces today is also a strong reaction to the current commodification of the city (Lain, 2015).   These two aspects of collectivism in Barcelona, both as a historic yield and a today’s countermovement, have shaped instances of different ideological values, priorities and self-reflected positions within the existing system of state and market.   Commons-state relationship   Conflict Numerous examples illustrate a wholly conflicting relationship between the initiative and the City, primarily due to ideological matters. Such examples have often led to forced evictions, as seen in several cases of squats such as the social centre Can Vies in the neighbourhood of Sants, the original building of the social centre Banc Expropriat[2] which later reopened in a new location and the housing squat that pre-existed on the site of the Ca La Trava community gardens[3], both in the neighbourhood of Gràcia within two blocks’ distance.   Tolerance / indifference In other cases, while the state is by any means supportive to the initiative, it demonstrates tolerance, at least until conflicting interests of development emerge and a conflicting relationship occurs such as in the examples discussed earlier. Similar to the previous cases, the “commoners”[4] are equiped with activist values, aware that they might need to defend their existence if such conflicting plans are in place. This is the case of the current initiative of Ca La Trava[5] and Jardi L’Alzina in Gràcia[6]. [7]   Collaboration While the above cases demonstrate opposing relationship that is also strongly related to anarchist and anti-systemic collectives, Barcelona showcases several degrees of cooperation between the City and community managed spaces. Provision of space, funding and technical support by the municipality are among the most common collaborations supported by existing policies, such as the Patrimonio Ciudadano. A fundamental requirement is that the initiative demonstrates a local impact. This support is based on the ground of recognising the significant contribution of community-run initiatives in delivering democratised social services that respond to the specific and dynamic needs of each neighbourhood. The provision of spaces ranges from entire building complexes such as industrial sites, often of heritage value, run as cultural centres by federations of entities, such as the Can Batlló[8], and the Ateneu L’Harmonia[9]; to single buildings, managed as local points of reference for the neighbourhood life such as La Lleialtat Santsenca[10]; or parts of buildings co-hosted with other municipal facilities, such as Calabria 66[11]; and finally to open spaces, such as the case of Jardins d'Emma[12].   Autonomy Beyond the mentioned cases, there is a great number of initiatives in which the property of space and other resources belongs to the managing entity, be it an association, collective or local organisation. These cases, such as working cooperatives have the capacity to operate independently of the state. Due to limited resources or legal constrains, the collective action of these initiatives often prioritises their members over the public impact, yet in most cases expanding to open activities.   Closing Reflections and Acknowledgements My time in Barcelona’s shared neighborhood spaces exceeded any expectations I had before arrival. Beyond their physical importance, these spaces constitute a vital part of community life, woven by collective aspirations and creativity. They are testaments to the power of collaboration, sharing and transformative change.   Reflecting on my research visit, I carry with me not just data but stories, experiences, and a deeper understanding of the intricate dynamics that shape these vibrant spaces. More than a personal experience, it has been a collective journey with the invaluable input of several people, who enriched my research and personal growth.   To this, I would first like to thank my secondment supervisor prof. Nuria Marti for her restless support at every step of the way, from working hand in hand with me, to accompanying me on visits. Furthermore, I am heartfully grateful to the extensive list of members of the initiatives I had the chance to visit, who generously shared their space, time and stories. Finally, my stay in Barcelona wouldn’t have been the same without my fellow ESRs -Annette, Saskia and Zoe- who, whether in person or from afar, shared their knowledge, experience, and many enjoyable moments!   --------- Notes [1] For more information see Huron, A. (2017). Theorising the urban commons: New thoughts, tensions and paths forward. Urban Studies, 54(4), 1062–1069. [2] Banc Expropriat is a shared space in the neighbourhood that operates outside markets and hierarchies. It is a social centre that hosts free activities open to all, such as language classes, sport sessions, craft workshops, film screenings, play areas, computer access, as well as a free shop of donated clothes, among others. As a space  very well received by the local community, its eviction in May 2016 triggered the escalation of protests in the neighbourhood. More information on the history of Banc Expropriat and its current relocation can be found at https://bancexpropiatgracia.wordpress.com/ [3] Members of the social movement that occupied/lived in the squat, re-occupied the site of the demolished building and created community gardens. [4] People that manage the urban commons space. [5] More information at https://www.instagram.com/ca_la_trava/?hl=en [6] More information at https://www.salvemlalzina.org/ [7] This is also the case of Navarinou Park in Athens. [8] More information at https://canbatllo.org/ [9] More information at https://ateneuharmonia.cat/ [10] More information at https://lleialtat.cat/ [11] More information at https://calabria66.net/ [12] More information at http://jardinsdemma.org/   --------- References Lain, B. (2015). New Common Institutions in Barcelona : A Response to the Commodification of the City ? 2014(March), 19–20.

Author: A.Pappa (ESR13)

Secondments

Read more ->

Relational graph

icon case study Case Study
icon case study Concept
icon case study Publication
icon case study Blogposts