2
Master’s Thesis
Urban and Regional Planning
Graduate School of Social Sciences,
Author: Katerina Ryabets
Student number: 11443642
Email: katerina.ryabets@mail.uva.nl
Date: June 11, 2018
Supervisor: Federico Savini
Second Reader: Sara Özogul
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, my utmost thanks are due to my supervisor, Federico Savini, for his patience and encouragement throughout the process of writing this thesis.
Additionally, I am grateful to the support of my dear friends both far away and nearby, and for those classmates who have turned into friends over the course of this year.
4
...
CONTENTS
abstract ...5INTRODUCTION
1.1 background...71.2 research aims & contribution ...8
1.3 study outline...8
RESEARCH DESIGN
2.1 research questions...112.2 operationalizing a key concept: from experiment to experimental practise ...11
2.3 explanation of selected case study ...12
2.4 research methods ...13 2.4.1 interviews ...13 2.4.2 written materials ...14
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.1 varieties of temporality ...17 3.1.1 predefined temporality...17 3.1.2 open-ended temporality ...183.1.3 shock temporality & moments of rupture ...21
3.2 the multiple and co-existing times of an experiment...22
CASE STUDY OT301
4.1 three timelines of OT301...254.2 OT301: an experiment two decades on...26
4.3 conflicting temporalities in OT301...28
4.3.1 moments of destruction and destructive moments ...28
4.3.2 the importance of incremental processes ...30
4.3.3 controlling an experiment through temporary use ...30
4.3.4 managing an experiment on two time-scales ...32
4.3.5 times of internal organization...33
4.4 negotiating time between actors...35
CONCLUSION
5.1 the empty promise of experimentation...365.2 revisiting the research question ...37
bibliography ...40
ABSTRACT
In cities all over the world, experimentation has rapidly emerged as a dominant approach to negotiating urban transformation and tackling societal problems. Most commonly, experimenting in cities is carried out through bounded experimental projects that feature delineated physical and temporal boundaries. This thesis is based on the assumption that the urge to too-closely control the element of time in urban experiments fails to account for incremental and spontaneous developments which play a role in these processes. Based on a theoretical framework which pulls together literature from the fields of urban experimentation, social innovation, and insurgent urbanism, this research addresses the question of how time is organized and embedded within initiatives of urban experimentation. Through an analysis of time as it appears in the case of OT301, an alternative not-for-profit cultural space in Amsterdam, I argue that there are multiple ways of understanding and conceptualizing time within experimental practices. It is necessary to consider these varieties when it comes to designing and implementing urban experiments. In addition, in recognizing a multiplicity of temporalities as well as the tensions between temporalities as they exist in a singular case, it is evident that negotiations over the question of time in an experiment are manifestations of larger political tensions that are at play when it comes to experimenting in cities.
6
1.1 Background
At a time when society must grapple with immense challenges such as climate change and increasing social inequality, cities stand out as the arenas in which individuals and groups debate,
negotiate, and fight for their vision of what the future should be like. Experimentation has become a popular tactic for local governments that are searching for new ways to plan and manage cities in order to begin and seek solutions (Evans, Karvonen, Raven, 2016). Examples of the experimental approach to city development are not hard to come by, in fact, one doesn’t have to look much further than Amsterdam’s crown jewel of urban experimentation- Buiksloterham, to see that experimentation is firmly on the urban planning and policy agenda. Although it may be argued that cities have always been “experimental” (Evans, 2011), the notion of urban experiments has reached the level of bonavide urban trend, and this is exemplified in the wide number of urban movements seeking to test alternate arrangements for the future through explicitly staging urban interventions (Evans, Karvonen, Raven, 2016). To point to another local example in Amsterdam, in 2016 the municipality along with a selection of partners from the private and knowledge sectors launched Amsterdam Smart City, an innovation platform which challenges local actors to set-up projects in order to test innovative ideas and develop solutions to urban challenges. Under various themes such as “the circular city”, the platform’s website lists well over 200 projects that are a part of Amsterdam’s ongoing efforts to become a smart and “future-proof ”city (Amsterdam Smart City, 2018).
Despite the wide variety of projects that can fall under the umbrella of urban experiments, in general these activities aim to reinterpret and reframe the trajectories of urban development based on real-world applications (Evans, Karvonen and Raven, 2016). In cities today, the most common manifestation of purposive interventions include elements of learning and institutionalization, and utilize experimental projects that are spatially and temporally bounded (Caprotti and Cowley, 2017). The term “bounded socio-technical experiment” is used to refer to these types of interventions which attempt to introduce new technologies, processes, or services on a bounded temporal and spatial scale (Caprotti and Cowley, 2016; Brown and Vergragt, 2008). This is precisely the type of experiment which has been heavily featured in academic literature on the subject. Overwhelmingly, these experiments are aimed at tackling environmental and sustainability issues or on developing the smart city through the application and development of new technologies. Within this type of project, the temporal horizon is typically only a number of years (Kronsell and Mukhtar-Langdren, 2018). In addition, urban experiments of this variety feature a specific emphasis on the ability to scale-up from a relatively small initiative and transfer what has been learnt to other contexts so as to impact larger system changes (Kronsell and Mukhtar-Langdren, 2018). In addition to its spatial and temporal boundaries being fixed, the success of these types of experiments is largely judged based on the interventions ability to produce a new, functioning, socially embedded organization of a technology or service, and for it to then act as a starting point for diffusion to other contexts (Brown and Vergragt, 2008).
What has received little attention in the literature up until now is the role of temporal boundaries in the context of urban experiments, and as Caprotti and Cowley (2017) highlight, the question of what exactly defines these boundaries is a subject that remains open. Within the dominant approach to the theory and practice of experimenting in the urban sphere, there is an acceptance of a linear
8
understanding of time, in which time unfolds in a straight direction between the past, to the present, and towards the future. This view considers the future to be open, which means it is possible to control what will occur by making strategic decisions in the present (Abram 2014, p. 8). Maintaining such a view in the context of urban experiments assumes that change can be induced and controlled through the organization of experiments in the present, and that the organization of actors and resources within an experimental “arena” will inevitably result in some new processes or developments. It is an approach that takes up a managerial perspective on the process of urban change. However, there is a need to examine the linear understanding of time within urban experiments more closely, as maintaining this narrow view into the role of time in processes of change fails to adequately understanding and account for incremental and contingent processes as they impact urban experiments.
1.2 Research aims and contribution
Recognizing that there is a limited amount of research currently available that looks into the role of time within urban experiments, this research aims to address a knowledge gap through an analysis into the way time functions within urban experimental practices. Using the current understanding of time in experimental literature as a springboard, it aims to probe the notion that the management of time and delineation of temporal boundaries is a necessary element within processes of experimenting in cities. To do so, this research aims to map the experimental dynamics of a practice that has been able to persist in time, while answering the central research question: how is time organized and embedded
in experimental practices? In addressing the role which time plays within urban experiments, this work
hopes to contribute to the growing discussions regarding the drive to experiment in cities and build upon current work which seeks to understand the nature and function of these processes and projects. It is my hypothesized that a managerial approach to designing urban experiments along a linear perspective of time, focuses too-closely on controlling the process of change through the setting of temporal boundaries, which might limit more incremental, spontaneous, and contingent occurrences. While predefining temporal boundaries may be useful in attempting to evaluate, and up-scaling sustainability experiments, the over-emphasis on delineated processes of change within the academic and policy field of experimentation may be at odds with incremental developments that occur as result of organic and spontaneous changes. It is these processes which, I argue, merit further exploration.
1.3 Outline
The structure of this study is as follows. Following this introductory chapter, the research is comprised of four additional chapters. The central research questions which lay at the core of this investigation are presented in Chapter 2. In addition, this chapter establishes an operationalization of the concept of experiment as it relates to this work, details the research methodology that was used, and offers a brief explanation of the selected case study. The theoretical framework which is established in Chapter 3 brings together existing literature from the fields of social innovation, temporary urbanism, insurgent/DIY urbanism, as well as experimental literature. The framework is based on the function and organization of
time within a series of diverse fields that all concern themselves with urban transformation. Following up on this theoretical framework, Chapter 4 presents the research results as they appear through an analysis of time within the case study of OT301. This chapter begins with an overall introduction to the case followed by an examination into the ways in which time and temporality are organized and operate within this experimental practice. Finally, Chapter 5 presents a summary of the main research findings, answers the guiding research question, and offers final conclusions and suggestions for further research.
10
This chapter outlines the design of this research project, and presents the central research questions. It further establishes an operationalized understanding of the concept of experiment, breaking it down
into observable elements. Then, an outline of the research methods that have been utilized to address the research questions is offered. Finally, I will present an elementary introduction into the case study- OT301, demonstrating the reasoning behind its selection as well as its appropriateness for this research.
2.1 Research questions
As established in the previous chapter, there is notably little academic attention given to the role that time plays in processes of urban experimentation. It is hypothesized that the linear view of time that is dominant within literature on urban experimentation discounts a variety of conceptions of time and temporalities that are relevant in discussions surrounding urban experiments. In an attempt to address this, this research explores the question:
In order to answer this central question, this research will additionally address the following subquestions:
• Who are the relevant actors involved in this experiment, and what is the relationship
between them?
• What resources have these actors mobilized within the experiment? • What are their goals in carrying out this experiment?
2.2 Operationalizing a key concept: from experiment to experimental
practise
When observing cities today, the term “experimental” is ubiquitous. It is present in everything from community gardens that aim to establish new ways of supporting climate resilience, to entire cities being built in order to test self-driving vehicles. Despite the huge number of urban “experiments” going on, current academic literature has yet to provide one concrete definition as to what particularly constitutes an urban experiment. Within the myriad of projects which may be considered to be experimental at one time or another, what unites these initiatives is a concern with the future of urban living combined with direct practical action (Wendler, 2016). What is currently known about urban experiments, focuses on the role of deliberately designed experiments which are geared towards specific problems and emphasizes the processes of learning, evaluating and up-scaling. There is a relatively limited amount of academic work that wholly
embrace experiments taking place at the grassroots level which are not orchestrated by local government or commercial interests, into broader conversations regarding urban experimentation. According to Raven et al.(2017), it is necessary to recognize that experiments in cities should be viewed as more fluid, contingent, and political. Rather than objective and controlled processes, urban experiments also represent messy and contingent socio-material practices that occur outside of defined experimental spaces, actors, and processes
12
(Wendler, 2016). This research embraces and argues for a wider view of urban experiments to include what can referred to as experimental practices, and the two terms are used interchangeably. Doing so makes it possible to also consider self-organized and more radical projects and groups within discussions about experimenting with urban futures, and pushes this field beyond bounded-socio technical experiments. The definition provided by Karvonen and van Heir (2014) is a useful starting point to establish a working definition of how it is possible to understand an urban experiment. According to these authors the most relevant components of an experimental practise include the organization of actors and resources in a physical space, to express or explore a form of disruptive agency (Karvonen and van Heir, 2014). In this context, disruptive agency may refer to the ability of the initiative to represent or propose a vision for future urban development which deviates from the societal status quo. The experiment may demonstrate this through the creation of new processes, knowledge, or local characteristics for the neighbourhood or the city. Demonstrating disruptive agency can include the implementation of a new technology or process, but may also refer to the expression or organization of alternative social or economic relations and this is something that is dependent on the goals of the initiators and actors. Certainly, the recognition of a project as deviating from a status quo is dependent on the relative perception of it within a local context, and it also depends on the various meanings that the project is vested with by its organizers. The following chart offers a summary of the relevant dimensions of the concept of experimental action as it relates to my research.
2.3 Explanation of selected case study
The case study that was selected for this research is OT301. It is a cultural space and event venue in Amsterdam West which is run by the collective organization Eerste Hulp Bij Kunst (EHBK). The project began in 1999 when the organization squatted a former film academy located at Overtoom 301. Now, EHBK runs the building as a collective and hosts a variety of uses including artist studios, galleries, a cinema, community events and workshops, a vegan kitchen, and many others. The OT301 self-identifies as an experiment and has undergone many changes in the nearly two decades since it began. The ability
Organization
of actors
Experiment
Disruptive agency
Internal structure and governance of the experiment
Relationship with municipality
Role within the local community Knowledge and skills Financial support and funding
mechanism
Mobilization of
resources
Availability and ownership of
land and property Goals of the initiators
Formation of new processes
Formation of new local characteristics
of this experimental practise to persist in time challenges the dominant role of bounded socio-technical experiments and delineated time frames within conversations about urban experimentation. OT301 presents a case of an experimental practise that has endured and been shaped as a result of its duration in time. From its origin as a squat, to the first temporary contract, the purchase of the building in 2006 and the difficult choices that the association had to face at the cost of ideological positions it presents an interesting case in which to explore the impact of time and temporality. The core vision and philosophy behind the organization supports its status as experimental, allowing it to maintain this quality throughout its diverse phases and transitions. In its daily operation and core vision, the space represents and argues for an alternative type of creative and culturals space in the city based on non-profit oriented economic arrangements. The experimental nature of this project is presented in greater detail in Chapter 4.
2.4 Research methods
Using a qualitative approach to data collection, this research examines the developmental trajectory of an urban experiment in Amsterdam, and seeks to understand the ways in which time and temporality have been embedded within it. The data has been collected from a variety of written materials including policy documents, as well as through a number of semi-structured interviews with key actors. Data collection for this research took place between April-May 2018, in Amsterdam. An analysis of written material in addition to the data collected from transcribed interviews was important for developing a timeline of events as they occured in the context of the case study, as well as for establishing the perspectives and motivations on the part the various actors involved with the project.
2.4.1 Interviews
In the preliminary phase of research, it was important to identify key actors that have been directly involved with, or have knowledge regarding the case. The central actors that were identified as being significant for understanding the experiment OT301, were members of the organization EHBK, as well as individuals from the Bureau Broedplaatsen. It was particularly important to be able to speak with someone who has knowledge of the experiment going back to its origins in 1999. Ivo Schemtz has been a part of EHBK/OT301 since the beginning, and was able to give the most detailed first-person account of the events that have unfolded over the past twenty years, as well as speak to the intentions and viewpoints of the organization. In addition, the story of OT301 is deeply influenced by the City of Amsterdam, and in particular the relationship with the Breeding Places Office (Bureau Broedplaatsen). Jaap Schoufour, who is the current head of the Bureau Broedplaatsen, was a key part of the department since its early years and has first-hand experience working with and negotiating with OT301. In addition to Mr. Schoufour, Thomas Bokeloh, who currently works at Bureau Broedplaatsen, was able to discuss the relationship between the municipality and creative and experimental spaces in the city in a broader context. In total, three semi-structured interviews were conducted with relevant actors to gather data relating to this research. The details of the interview that were conducted are summarized in the chart below. Although it would have been desirable to include a larger number of interviews, there are a few explanations for the number that were ultimately done. Firstly, OT301 is not a new experiment and as such there are many original members who are no longer involved with the project, limiting the amount of people who could be reached. To account for this, the book released
14
by EHBK/OT301 in 2014 served as an important source of data for the research. It not only gave a very detailed history of the organization but also included interviews from individuals in the group’s network that have been involved with the experiment at various points.
Name
Organization
Date
Location
Length
Ivo Schmetz EHBK/OT301 May 8, 2018 OT301, Amsterdam 1 hour Thomas Bokeloh Bureau
Broedplaatsen April 24, 2018 Gemeente Amsterdam, Projectmanagement- bureau, Amsterdam
Approx. 45 minutes Jaap Schoufour Bureau
Broedplaatsen May 9, 2018 Gemeente Amsterdam, Projectmanagement- bureau, Amsterdam
1 hour
2.4.2 Written materials
In addition to the interviews that were carried out with the individuals summarized above, this
research was also based upon an analysis of a series of written resources which includes policy documents. Data collected from the written material as well as interview transcripts were categorized using codes associated with mentions of time and temporality, keeping with the research aims of this project. The following chart summarizes the relevant resources that have been consulted.
Type
Title
Author
Date
Description
Policy
document “Geen cultuur zonder subcultuur” (No culture without subculture)
City of
Amsterdam 2000 This document outlines the original Broedplaatsen policy adopted by the City of Amsterdam.
Policy document “Revised Studio and Incubator Policy for
Amsterdam 2015-2018
City of
Amsterdam 2016 The original creative-incubator policy has been reviewed on the basis of the experiences and results gained in the first 15 years of its operation. This document summarizes the impact and success of the original breeding place policy and outlines the City’s renewed commitment to maintain this policy with some changes.
Type
Title
Author
Date
Description
Book “Autonomy by
Dissent” EHBK/OT301 2014 This nearly 400-page book documents the history and experience of the organization EHBK and the OT301 in their own words. The book was published at the end of the restructuring process that took place between 2011-2013 which saw the professionalization of the organization. This document provides a detailed history of OT301 as well as the organization and features insights and interviews with key actors that have been central to the development of OT301. It additionally provides insight into the goals and visions of the organization
Website OT301 EHBK/ OT301 N/A www.OT301.nl
Website Bureau
Broedplaatsen City of Amsterdam N/A www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-or- ganisatie/organisaties/organisa-ties/bureau-broedplaatsen
16
THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
3.1 Varieties of temporality
Time, along with space make up the most basic categories of human existence, and they are taken for granted (Harvey, 1990). We understand these elements to be self-evident, and mark time in seconds, minutes, hours, months, years, and so on, assuming that every moment has its place upon a single and objective time scale (Harvey, 1990, p. 201). This chapter aims to establish a wider understanding of time and temporality beyond the dualism of short or long-term, and proposes that there are several ways to understand time within the lifespan of experimental practices. This is an especially daunting task considering that people have been attempting to organize and regulate time throughout human history, and the topic has been a significant theme for various philosophical traditions for just as long. Current literatures which are directed to the study of processes of urban change conceptualize and employ time and temporality in various ways, with each conception representing a different arrangement of actors, processes and goals. This supports the argument that time does not exist within processes of experimentation in one uniform and singular trajectory based on agreed-upon benchmarks and measuring sticks. Instead, when it comes to intervening in the urban, time and the conception and management of time needs to be analyzed in relation to the actors which propose it, and the functions it serves. Most importantly, it should be noted that in social affairs, spatial and temporal practices are never neutral (Harvey, 1990, p. 238). Various organizations of time and temporality support alternative sets of dynamics for their respective projects and subsequently alters their outcomes. In this chapter, these various organizations of time are presented as varieties of temporality.
3.1.1 Predefined temporality
Based on its concern for improvements and with the future as its object, planning can be
understood as representing a temporal field that organizes, sparks, and manages transformation through time (Abram, 2014, p. 129). An orientation towards a future state, and by extension the control and
management of processes to arrive at that state should be considered as sitting at the core of the planning project. As such, a common manifestation of the element of time within discussions surrounding urban interventions is oriented around closed and predetermined time frames, where an activity or initiative is in place for a limited period of time in order to drive a desired change. This change may be adding monetary value to a peripheral piece of land during periods of economic downturn by operating a pop-up beach, or closing off a residential street to car traffic for a weekend in order to make an area pedestrian-friendly. The drive to delineate time frames is particularly present in approaches that seek to apply an experimental lens to urban change. When the element of time is predetermined and the duration of a project is set at a month, five months, five years, whatever it may be, this is representative of a particular orientation towards a future state, where the actors involved have an expectation (or certainty) that something else will follow. According to Davoudi (2011) the treatment of time and future as it is most dominant in contemporary planning continues a legacy of positivism, which holds the view that time is linear and features a beginning and an end (Davoudi, 2011). Within such a view, there is a deep-rooted expectation that things will continue to progress as they always have. This is a good example of why quantitative forecasting of past trends are often the method that is used in order to gain insights into projections about the future in attempts to reduce uncertainties (Abram, 2014, p. 8). Temporal organizing is additionally carried out through the use of
18
concepts such as phasing and programming, all representative of attempts to tame time and decrease the possibility of risk (Abram, 2014, p. 8).
The functional purpose of predetermining the temporal boundary of an urban intervention is the ability to regulate and evaluate a particular change or set of changes and to subsequently evaluate and learn from them (Karvonen and van Heur, 2014). Urban interventions in the form of bounded socio-technical experiments are dependent on fixed temporal boundaries insofar as they allow for evaluation and upscaling to take place. In the transition management approach to the governance of sustainability transitions, the launching of experiments is purposefully utilized to test the possibility of transition pathways that have been devised based on a consensus over a long-term vision and desired future state (Kenis, Bono, Mathijs, 2016). On top of being future-oriented, the ability to drive change within this approach is dependent on the dual processes of evaluation and up-scaling (Rotmans et al., 2001). However, these processes involve explicit choices regarding when an experiment is considered to have lasted long enough, and when the results can be judged in accordance to a future vision. Building upon the conception of pre-defined temporality where the creation of temporal boundaries functions as a tool, also merits a deeper understanding of who is able to employ this tool and to what end they do so. Managing an intervention through the use of predetermined time to drive a strategic change may not a bad thing in and of itself, in fact it may be considered as a way to “stay on track” with urban projects, but it is important to note that rather than operating as open-ended learning processes, urban experiments are often vested with particular interests and strategic purpose in the governing of the city (Bulkeley and Castán Broto, 2013, p. 373). It is important to note that the process of driving change using this method may also represent the exercise of power over urban spaces and groups (Evans, 2016). For example, a study by Bulkeley and Castán Broto (2013) found that across 627 cases of urban climate experiments taking place in 100 global cities, municipalities were by far the most prominent actors in experiments and innovations across most sectors (2013, p. 372). The desire to strategically drive change through the deliberate construction of experiments is also manifested in urban living labs, which have becoming increasingly common throughout the EU and around the world. These arrangements provide a chance to test social and technological innovations in a real world setting (Evans, 2016). Although living labs may differ depending on their specific context, these initiatives have a role to play within the wider politics of experimentation when it comes to topics such as sustainability governance (Kronsell and Mukhtar-Langdren 2018).
The management of urban change through the use of brief and closed time periods, is also evident in the phenomenon that has become known as temporary urbanism. Temporary urbanism refers to a broad and heterogenous field of initiatives, projects and policies which constitute a growing international trend focused on the increased frequency of short-term events and functions, as well as the construction and uses of space (Mandanipour, 2017, p. 3). The trend has been praised for its ability to create opportunities for experimenting with options for different urban futures, and for the ability to empower individuals and communities (Bishop, 2015). Within this approach, short time frames are supported for their ability to test new and exciting projects and possibly apply them elsewhere. Common definitions of temporary urbanism views this phenomenon as being crucially based on a conception of temporality as predetermined. This means that the temporary nature of the project is the intention of the user or initiator. In this way temporary
use can be both short or long term, accidental or planned, legal or illegal, but most importantly it is a distinct condition that is explicitly and intentionally time-limited and separate from a “permanent” state (Bishop and Williams, 2012; Nemeth and Langhorst, 2014). Within this field, the temporary use of space for commercial, cultural, or social purposes is recognized as a practical intervention that is employed during periods of economic downturns, where initiatives who cannot find affordable space in the real-estate market “lodge themselves in the periphery of that economic system” (Oswalt et al, 2013, p. 88).
3.1.2 Open-ended temporality
As Davies (2010) writes, the experimental laboratory now “overspills its traditional constitution,
inhabiting diverse informational, technological, and political environments, changing the nature of experimental sites and experimental subjects” (p. 667). Therefore, it is necessary to look towards a more
diverse range of actors and spaces within the city to expand the conversation on urban experiments. Literature on grassroots urban interventions and social innovation at the community level have better conceptualized the idea that change processes can be incremental, and may in fact be dependent on non-delineated time periods. Unlike deliberately-designed experiments which feature an explicit focus on knowledge co-production and applied innovation, urban interventions with open-ended temporal boundaries represent experimental practices that also attempt to reframe the trajectory of development toward a
different type of urban future. This section engages with a wider variety of spaces and actors involved with urban transformation to establish an understanding of change based on open-ended temporal orientations. This second variation of temporality is referred to as open-ended temporality.
Projects that develop from the grassroots and community level must also be considered in the discussion around experimental urbanism. The appearance of socially innovative projects at the community level relates to the relatively high level of decline and economic restructuring that is most strongly felt at the neighbourhood scale (Moulaert et al., 2010). In particular, this is occuring at a time when the neoliberal state is being consolidated, the governance of public space has become the management and exchange of property and property rights, and places are reduced to objects that need to be managed according to the logic of markets (Moulaert et al., 2010). In response to these conditions, citizens are motivated to seek their own alternatives, the result of which is the emergence of spaces that permit innovation and highlight the “cracks of hope” in the system (Moulaert et al. 2010, p. 11). These “cracks of hope” represent radical opportunities for citizens to express a desire towards a different type of city, and should be seriously considered within conversations about urban experiments. In addition to creating spaces where innovation can be fostered, experiments also have a role to “provide grist in the urban mill, creating conflict, sparking
controversy, offering the basis for contested new regimes of practice” (Bulkeley and Castán Broto, 2013,
p. 367–368). However, these processes needs time to unfold. As Wendler (2016) demonstrates through her analysis of the Prinzessinnengarten community garden in Berlin, it is possible for projects occurring at a neighbourhood level to grow into their experimental role over time, even when their spatial and temporal permanence is not secure. She highlights the fact that experiments that come out of the grassroots and community levels are distinguishable from experiments that are designed from the top-down in two significant ways. Firstly, their operation is open-ended and develops organically from ongoing efforts and problem negotiations surrounding existing social or environmental needs in the city. Secondly, they show an
20
explicit commitment to alternative values which allows them to challenge existing processes of learning and production (Wendler 2016).
Social innovation offers an entry point into examining the potential impact of urban projects which do not feature predetermined temporal guidelines but are nevertheless experimental. Just like urban labs, and socio-technical experiments, social innovation is about considering and attempting to test out new urban possibilities. However, unlike delineated change processes that are organized and bounded spatially and temporally, initiatives of social innovation often appear more organically in these marginal spaces that have been left behind by transnational capital flows (Swyngedouw and Moulaert, 2010). The experimental nature of socially innovative practises are represented in these “free” spaces that may not have much capital value but offer a chance for individuals to try alternative forms of living, working, or expressing, and which represent a more human focused urban vision (Swyngedouw and Moulaert, 2010, p. 233). In general, the goals of socially innovative practices which take place at the neighbourhood level is to contribute to the satisfaction of human needs, increase or enable access rights and empower particular social groups, and contribute to change in social relations and power structures within community and between the local group and external actors (Swyngedouw and Moulaert, 2010). In order for social innovation to experiment with urban futures and to be able to achieve these interrelated objectives, stable conditions and processes are needed. Specifically, this means that stable socio-political conditions which favour social innovation initiatives from the beginning are strategically vital to the ability of these interventions to continue in the long-term (Swyngedouw and Moulaert, 2010, p. 227).
The collection of case studies presented in Moulaert et al. (2010) demonstrate that social innovation at the community level typically focuses on long time-processes and that these projects go through incremental developments throughout their lifecycle. This stands in contrast to initiatives which focus more on predetermined temporality (for example living labs or sustainability projects) which is an approach conceived to induce “intentionally radical” change( Karvonen et al., 2014, p. 387). Gonzalez et al. (2010) regard the role of path-dependency as crucial in the context of social innovation processes at the community level. This stresses the role of specific moments which may present both opportunities and constraints on experimental projects and spaces. In addition to being path-dependent, socially innovative practises are also dependent on consistent and incremental change. In their writings on temporary
urbanism, the collective of researchers and architects known as Urban Catalyst constantly refer to projects as occurring in stages and phases, stating that the way temporary users approach and work with the city is decidedly characterized through consistent, small-scale, and reactive maneuvers (Oswalt et al., 2013, p. 82). Bottom-up urban experiments such as social innovation at the community level rely on stable and open-ended processes. It can be further expected that throughout the trajectory of these projects which feature open-ended time frames, different life stages of the project will be realized, in which the main principles might be redefined, roles changed, governance mechanisms redesigned (Gonzalez et al., 2010).
3.1.3 Shock temporality and moments of rupture
The final variety of temporality I wish to present here is moment(s) of rupture, otherwise referred to as shock temporality. Within this categorization, the concept of time is conceptualized as an occurrence or event. The existence of moments of shock has been widely examined in literature on social movements and insurgent urbanism. Within social movement theory, a moment of rupture is often encapsulated in the taking over of space which through its temporality, may act as a turning point in the wider developments of the struggle (Halverson, 2014, p. 403). Despite the relatively short-lived nature of these events, their ability to be transformative lays in the momentary disruption to established processes which has the potential to lead to radical new arrangements. To Henri Lefebvre (1991) these moments were a particularly crucial element when it came to revolutionary change. These moments of disruption have both a duration as well as an intensity which makes it possible to push the boundary of what had previously been considered possible (Lefebvre , 1991). Building upon the view that moments of rupture constitute a disruption to established processes, Harvey (2012) reminds us that historically, the urban sphere has acted as an important site of political action and revolt, and that often political protests measure their success in regard to their ability to disrupt urban economies (Harvey, 2012, p. 118). The disruption of established processes (in this case the productive functioning of the urban economy) is achieved through the tactic of placing human bodies in central public spaces such as a park, square, or street. By doing so, these spaces are opened up to a debate over how power is being exercised within them and how best local actors oppose it (Harvey, 2012, p. 161). Disruption and the physical occupation of space are central within both historical and modern examples of urban protest and insurgent urbanism. This is exemplified in the hoards of cyclists who form Critical Mass in San Francisco (and other cities around the world) to reclaim and challenge the dominance of cars in acts of civil disruption, to the transnational Occupy protest movement that erupted as a response to austerity measures taking place throughout Western governments as part of an ongoing global financial crisis.
Shock temporality or moments of rupture are also uniquely positioned to change trajectories and influence future moments of disruptions. Short-term events such as a large protest add meaning to a place or to a society more broadly, which can affect an individual experience as well as carry social significance by “contributing to a collective meaning, memory, or shared experience” (Mandanipour, 2017, p. 154). In this way, seemingly isolated events whether large or small can be instrumental in bringing about a change in reality or a change in perspectives through the generation of new ideas and memories. Short-term interventions at the city level that occur without legal authorization, such as protests or other examples of insurgent/guerrilla urbanism are able to persist in the public consciousness for an extended period of time, despite the fact that they may have only existed physically for a brief moment in time. Despite the fact that individual moments may have a brief life-span, the logic of occupation rooted in the accumulation of all movements that have come before it, endures and continues to resonate across new landscapes of protest and resistance, autonomy and self-determination (Vasudevan, 2015). Despite taking place for only a number of hours or days, an event of insurgent urbanism can become a “monument to the cause through a process of representation and reception” (Mandanipour, 2017, p. 155). Within broader histories, hyper-temporary events can become an accepted part of collective memory based on the experience of actors, the repetition
22
and representation of stories about the event, and its representation in the media which serves to make it a larger part of collective culture (Mandanipour, 2017, p. 155).
The action of reclaiming and occupying space (even for an exceptionally brief period of time) is a defining feature of urban movements occurring on both the large and small scales. The wide range of practises that have been generalized under the banner of guerilla, insurgent, or do-it-yourself (DIY) urbanism, are all emblematic of the ability for fleeting moments or initiatives to be conducive to larger moments of change. Despite their diversity, these concepts all relate to micro-spatial urban interventions which seek to express or test a particular alternative arrangement for the future, similar to the types of experimental practices that have been discussed up until this point. These emergent small-scale and do-it-yourself interventions in the city are deep representations of the belief that change is possible despite economic or political obstacles (Iveson, 2013). Temporary interventions such as those instances of self-made spaces, where urban sires are reclaimed or appropriated by the people formulate new expressions of the collective realms of the city (Hou, 2010, p 2). Attempts to construct and express an alternative possibility for urban space are brought to life by actors who may take to spraying graffiti on a wall, planting a vegetable garden in a median strip, installing a piece of furniture on the street, or converting a disused warehouse into a temporary gallery (Iveson, 2013). What gives these various initiatives some kind of unity is that they explore, and potentially reveal, alternative ways of viewing and experiencing the city, injecting urban spaces with new functions and meanings (Hou, 2010, p. 2). Such practices also contest the power of authorities to dictate how urban space should be used, and their radical potential is actually demonstrated in the lengths that urban authorities go to in order to shut down practices of insurgent urbanism (Iveson, 2013). Regardless of whether it is categorized as “guerilla” or “DIY”, these practises can be understood as micro-scale experiments in urban change, and in their fleeting temporality they may contribute to the creation of momentary ruptures. In this way, seemingly isolated events whether large or small can be instrumental in bringing about a fundamental change in reality or a change in perspectives through the generation of moments of rupture. The literature on insurgent urbanism highlights the unique role of moments in creating radical new possibilities and sparking entirely new directions for an initiative to go. Additionally, momentary insurgencies and micro-scale interventions, despite their brief existence have the capacity to persist in time within public consciousness, and can lead to significant future moments.
3.2 Multiple & coexisting temporalities
Within modern society, different understanding and senses of time are often pinned together (Harvey, 1990). For example, people adhere to short and cyclical events such as the patterns of everyday life, or seasonal holidays, that are able to “provide a sense of security in a world where the general thrust of progress appears to be moving in a straight direction onwards and upwards” (Harvey, 1990, p. 202). The short and repetitive events that we have come to expect as elements within our own lives occur underneath the larger conception of time in which history moves forward in a linear fashion. Just as our own lives are made up of a multitude of temporalities, time does not solely exist in a singular fashion when it comes to processes of changing the physical or social elements of a city. Instead, as this theoretical chapter has demonstrated, there are multiple senses and varieties of time that are conceivable when addressing urban
experiments.
To briefly summarize the points mentioned in this theoretical framework, when it comes to experimenting in the urban, the ability to evaluate and scale-up successful results are important to those interested in taking a managerial approach to the process of urban transitions. However, this idea which utilizes predetermined conceptions of time is at odds with incremental and unexpected processes of innovation. Community-level and grassroots initiatives are able to demonstrate that practices which are also experimental can occur through processes which do not feature delineated time frames. The academic work on grassroots experimental practices and social innovation allow for a view of time scale that is more open, and rely on long term processes that are incremental and fluid to achieve their goals. Finally, shock
temporality or the creation of moments of rupture also have the potential to transform and impact future arrangement based on dramatic moments in which old processes and structures are disrupted (often just momentarily), but that may change the course of events that follow. Contingent and unplanned events such as a large protest for example are also experimental, and these short-term events have the ability to ‘live-on”in the public consciousness or catalyze an entirely different set of events to unfold. In the following chapter, this exploratory research analyzes the manifestation of these three varieties of temporality, as they appear throughout the lifespan of the case study OT301. It is hypothesized that it is possible to see evidence of the overlap and interplay of the varieties of temporality outlined in this chapter, and that the ability for a project to persist in time is a direct result of the dynamics between the various types of temporality and the actors which support them.
24
O
pen
-
ended
p
redefined
M
OMents
s
Of
hOck
- EHBK foundEd - Eviction of oLvG - first tHrEat of Eviction at ot301 - dEcEmBEr 16: EHBK aLLowEd to stay
2000
2001
2002
1999
2004
2005
2010
2011- 2013
- PoLiticaL dEBatE aBout tHE ExistEncE of ot301 - firstrEnovationswitHasuBsidyfrom BurEau BroEdPLaatsEn - octoBEr: tHEBuiLdinG
isdEcLarEdunsafE &
cLosEdtotHEPuBLic - may 1: officiaL rEoPEninG - nEwExEcutivE commitEEand ProcEssmanaGErto nEGotiatEnEw contract
- sEcondsuBsidyfrom BurEau BroEdPLaatsEn - EHBK intEndsto PurcHasEtHEBuiLdinG - city maKEs a ProPosaL
- tHE ovErHauLProcEss BEGins
- BrainstorminGsEssions HELdtoaddrEsstHEfuturE of ot301
- 9 PiLotProjEctscarriEd out
- nEwvisionstatEmEntis adoPtEd
- nEGotiations ovEr a tEmPorary contract
data: EHBK/OT301, 2014; Schmetz, 2018
July 31, 2006 2001: 5- yEartEmPorary rEntaLcontract intErnaLorGanization: 5- yEarExEcutivE Boardcontracts 2006: 50- yEar LandLEasE November 14, 1999
4.1
three tiMeLines
Of Ot301
26
4.2 OT301: an experiment two decades on
In 1998 squatters had been living and working at the Onze Lieve Vrouwen Gasthuis (OLVG), a hospital in Amsterdam Oost. While there, a diverse group of people had come together with an intention of creating an alternative cultural space in Amsterdam by squatting a building in the center of the city. This was the beginning of the organization EHBK (Eerste Hulp Bij Kunst), which can be translated as the First Aid for Art Society (EHBK/OT301 2014). The building that would become OT301 was a former film academy located on the Overtoom in the district of Amsterdam Oud-West. Along with support from the squatters network in Amsterdam, EHBK broke into the empty space on November 14, 1999, replacing the lock and called the authorities to notify them that the building had been squatted. Today, nearly twenty years later, when visitors enter the main hallway of OT301, they are greeted with a large message painted on the wall, which prominently states the values and vision that is at the heart of this project. The statement in its full form reads:
“Since 1998, EHBK has united a diverse, international community that runs the alternative, not-for-profit platform OT301 as a collective, in which housing, work and public functions are combined to contribute to the arts, politics, and subculture. EHBK shares knowledge and organizational duties in a democratic manner and encourages all members and visitors to take part in our experiment”
The story of OT301 is also deeply intertwined with the municipality of Amsterdam, and in particular the Bureau Broedplaatsen (breeding places office) is very prominent in the development of this project. Amsterdam’s Bureau Broedplaatsen, was developed as a response to the growing sense that cultural and creative spaces were disappearing from city in the mid-nineties, marked by the eviction of many squats and cultural venues which saw artists and other creatives pushed out of the city (EHBK/OT301 2014). The left-wing politicians at the time sympathized with these groups and agreed to do something about this. The result was the initiative of Bureau Broedplaatsen, originally set up as a project to realize 1400 affordable studio spaces for artists in Amsterdam (Schoufour, 2018). This new tool at the municipality of Amsterdam would eventually recognize OT301 as an incubator for artists and grant the group €770,000 for repairs to make the property suitable to be open to the public. It was with support from the municipality that the group become legal renters, and were given a rental contract from the city district. In the eyes of the municipality, creative breeding spaces are significant for the city because they strengthen social infrastructure, increase the diversity and image of a neighbourhood, contribute to the cultural enrichment of the city, and increase the livability of the neighbourhood, as well as increase the attractiveness of the city for visitors and tourists (City of Amsterdam 2001). According to Jaap Schoufour, now head of Bureau Broedplaatsen, thanks to its success and political support, the Bureau Broedplaatsen development from a project to a fully fledged policy and department within the City of Amsterdam which has come to be broadly accepted politically within the administration of the City.
Currently, EHBK is made up of 24 members who work on his or her own projects within OT301 while also being an active part of the organization. EHBK, operates on a completely horizontal structure of decision making, without hierarchy. Within OT301, the group is the boss and is in charge of essentially
all decisions related to the operation of the space, including programming, building maintenance, internal organization and direction for the group. Following many phases of intense negotiations, EHBK became legal owners of the building in 2006. It was at this time that they found themselves forced into a position to professionalize the organizational structure (EHBK/OT301, 2014). Within this organization, individuals are a part of several committees which are responsible for various elements of the building. In this way, everyone who is a member is also part-owner of the building and is responsible for it, its upkeep and maintenance, as well as its future.
Besides various municipal subsidies and prizes that OT301 has been awarded over the years, EHBK runs based on the money that is collected from individuals who rent studios within OT301. The society does not exploit the public spaces like the studios, cinema and art space (EHBK/OT301 2014, p. 45). The public spaces, such as the vegan kitchen, the concert spaces and cinema are rented out to other groups who are responsible for their programming. Very importantly, all of these groups function as not-for-profits. Translating the collectively held values of autonomy and self-determination into daily practices and processes is what makes OT301 an embodiment of alternative visions for social and economic arrangements in the city. Through its existence and daily operations, OT301 represents a challenge to the status quo of cultural and creative spaces in Amsterdam and this is represented in the programs, initiatives, and events that go on in the space as well as the choices that the collective takes. OT301 provides an alternative to existing commercial structures by developing different ways of organizing living, working, and cultural spaces (EHBK/OT301, 2014). Aside from looking at OT301 as the space within which experimental art can be created, the building and organization itself constitute an experiment. The practical demonstration of their shared values and vision is realized in the operation of low-cost and free events which are open to the public as well as a not-for-profit vegan food kitchen. The ways in which living, working, and public programming is facilitated and combined in one building is a challenging task that is different than what goes on in the vast majority of cultural spaces and buildings in Amsterdam. In the eyes of EHBK/ OT301, the coordination between all different sorts of uses, driven by a vision of an open, non-profit, and publicly accessible space for the arts is what gives the space its experimental nature (Schmetz, 2018)
28
4.3 Conflicting temporalities in OT301
Utilizing the theoretical framework as established in the previous chapter, it is possible to
understand the role of time within urban experiments in several ways. While open-ended time frames are most exemplified in the field of social innovation, which demonstrates the role of incremental change and long time-processes in bringing about social change, short time-frames are more closely associated with a managerial approach to urban experimentation, primarily employed through bounded socio-technical experiments. At the same time, more radical practices, for example large political demonstrations, tend to occur on very brief time-scales, only existing for a number of hours or days. While conducting research on OT301, a common narrative that had been repeatedly brought up emphasizes the projects transition from squatters, to renters, to buyers (Schmetz, 2018; Schoufour 2018). In a simplified view these phases are seen as gradually advancing from one state to the next in a logical and linear fashion. However, each of these distinct phases and the way OT301 progressed over time is representative of a series of negotiations related to consideration of time within the experiment. The following section presents the results of this research as an analysis of time and temporalities as they appear and interact in the case of OT301.
4.3.1 Moments of destruction, and destructive moments: Squatting OT301
The beginning of OT301 is marked by a momentary rupture which occurred on November 14, 1999. The big break-in, set into motion a new sequence of events, tying EHBK, its goals and ambitions with a physical space in Amsterdam, over which a series of difficult negotiations would ensue. This event, established a breaking path in the history of the organization and should be viewed as fundamental in
establishing the trajectory for this experiment. According to Boris van Nes, one of the initiators of the break-in in 2001, the break-in itself was “not a goal but a means” (EHBK/OT301, 2014, p. 255). As such, the fleeting moment of the action itself is most significant in relation to the subsequent negotiations and processes which it was able to spark. Despite the importance of this single event, the arrival at this moment was dependent on a series of events and actions had come before it. At the time of its establishment, the group EHBK did not have a clear view of where their experiment would take place, as the property on Overtoom 301 was not yet in their view, nor was there any security that their experiment in squatting a building for the purpose of establishing such a space would be able to be long lasting despite their intentions. As such, the group had to be flexible and pragmatic, ultimately keeping an eye out for
opportunities that fulfill their needs. In the case of OT301, this agency culminated in the squat of a building which seemed to show itself at precisely the correct time. It was thanks to the coincidental coverage by Amsterdam’s city broadcaster AT5 which brought the former film academy building located on Overtoom into view: “the property represented the perfect opportunity, it was vacant and had everything that EHBK
was looking for” (EHBK/OT301, 2014, p. 251). Once the building had come into view, it was decided that
EHBK would carry out the break-in. These actions, carried out by members of EHBK demonstrates the role which windows of opportunity and momentary events, play in changing or dramatically altering the trajectory of an experiment. Considering the fact that the decision to squat OT301 was not part of the experiment from the beginning, it is necessary to consider that the appearance of opportune moments that develop based on unplanned trajectories do in fact play a large role within the realization and future of an experiment.
In addition to recognizing the role which moments of destruction have in establishing new
trajectories for an experiment, it should be noted that moments of shock temporality also have the capacity to greatly harm the experiment. If too disruptive, a momentary event can prove to be detrimental to the experiment as a whole. In the case of OT301, while squatting the building began a series of negotiations and struggles over its occupation, the illegal nature of this action also brought the very real possibility of having the experiment shut down and evicted. Squatting laws at the time maintained that it was illegal to break into property that had been vacant for less than one year with the objective of squatting it. The property on Overtoom 301 had only been vacant for no more than three months when EHBK staged the break-in (Schmetz, 2018). Especially because the building had been squatted in an illegal manner, EHBK was confronted with an eviction order on 14 December 1999 (EHBK/OT301, 2014, p. 253). The moment of the squat not only changed the trajectory for EHBK, but the act itself also set off a series of chaotic reactions (namely on the part of the City) which had the potential to culminate in another disruptive event- an eviction. Although the eviction was ultimately thwarted, the threat to OT301 was very real, and required immediate negotiation from EHBK to prevent this from occurring. This close call demonstrates that while moments of rupture have the capacity to be constructive by establishing a new breaking path for an experiment, if an unintended event or exogenous shock is too great, it may prove to threaten the future of the experiment all together.
30
4.3.2 The importance of incremental processes
Similar to other cases of experimental practices that occur at the community level, the operation and development of EHBK/OT301 aims to be open-ended, and emerged as a direct result of ongoing efforts and struggles surrounding an unmet social need in the city. Specifically, it came about as a reaction to the loss of alternative cultural spaces and the increasing number of evictions taking place in Amsterdam. The desire on the part of EHBK to realize a long-lasting non-profit cultural space would have to involve the group negotiating its position and seek legitimacy from the authorities in order to be able to survive. Doing so, involved demonstrating that their existence was of value to the city, and establishing relationships with the community and politicians. In an interview with head of Bureau Broedplaatsen, Jaap Schoufour, he explains that the reason why the Bureau chose to support OT301, and agree on a financial subsidy was directly related to the fact that they had been able to establish and demonstrate their value for the city: “they had
proved they can put on a good program” (Shoufour, 2018). As time went on, the OT301 developed into a
valuable space in the city, which gained attention from the public, the media, as well as politicians, and it was this positive attention and reputation that had been established which would prove beneficial to EHBK in negotiating its position with the municipality when it came time to address the matter of further subsidies and rental contracts (EHBK/OT301, 2014). Examining the case retroactively, it is evident that the process to change the perception of OT301 in the eyes of the district took years and was dependent on the groups continuous activity and determination (EHBK/OT301, 2014, p. 264). As such, the role of open-ended and slow developments which are crucial in allowing an experiment to establish itself within the city should not be discounted. While it was a momentary event that may have catalyzed a new period for the organization, the process of gaining support from the community as well as politicians and ultimately to get the ball rolling in regards to the activities of the experiment, was dependent on slow and incremental developments. OT301 would have to prove themselves and their ability to operate as a cultural space which adds positively to the cultural scene of Amsterdam, but in order to achieve this, they would have to be allowed to stay open. Experimental practices which originate from the bottom-up and do not have resources such as property or stable funding to realize their goals need space to develop, but they also need time. Since the process of changing opinions and establishing the experiments purpose could not have occurred overnight, certain leniences were necessary on the part of the municipality. It can be argued that the decision to allow for EHBK to remain at OT301 and to agree on a temporary rental contract as opposed to evicting them after two years is a direct reflection of the City’s newly adopted policy to support creative breeding grounds.
4.3.3 Controlling an experiment through temporary use: Renting OT301
There is a visible tension present throughout the history of OT301, between those who wish to see it grow organically and be long-lasting (EHBK), and those who repeatedly sought to have greater reigns on the experiment and its activity in the city (the municipality). After two years of existing as squatters, EHBK began negotiations with the city district to agree on the terms of a temporary rental contract (EHBK/ OT301, 2014). Although there was no other option at the time, entering into a temporary rental contract was in effect, to open up OT301 to pressure and influence from external actors. Despite the fact that EHBK
desired for an open-ended and long-term realization of their project with the autonomy to guide themselves, as they would learn, consolations would have to be made in order to survive: “After two years, they [the
city district] said you can stay for a little bit more but you are going to have to start paying rent, we have to make it official...we didn’t want to leave the building, it was too good to be true” (Schmetz, 2018). Temporary
rental contracts represent a tool in the hands of the municipality to safeguard their legal position and close in the open-ended time frames which EHBK had sought. Throughout negotiations, the district council repeatedly attempted to steer the use and function of the building. The municipality was arguing for a shift in focus towards artists and entrepreneurs which was viewed by EHBK as a complete abandonment of the social component which was at the heart of the project (EHBK/OT301, 2014, p. 257). Keeping in mind that the municipality had accepted a policy aim to realize affordable studio space for artists in the city, it was emphasized that the internal structure of the OT301 building should allocate small workstations for artists and other small organizations (EHBK/OT301, 2014). At one point in the negotiation process, the city district had offered a contract lasting only 2.5 years, with the possibility of an extension following a thorough evaluation of the organizations’ financial performance and ability to make rental payments (EHBK/OT301, 2014, p. 257). Within these negotiations, it is evident that the city district desired to tightly maintaining control over the use of the building as well as obliging EHBK/OT301 to meet the terms of their proposal, instead of allowing them the freedom to operate as they saw fit. As owners of the building, a temporary contract maintains the city districts ability to end the experiment altogether, within a short and predetermined period of years. It was after an intense period of negotiations, that EHBK was able to come to an agreement with the Bureau Broedplaatsen which stipulated that the property could be used as a breeding ground, for a period of 5 years (EHBK/OT301, 2014; Gemeente Amsterdam, 2001). The temporary user’s contract which was allowed to OT301 for 5 years represents the standard real-estate period in the Netherlands, however, for the municipality, the 5-year period acted as a safety net, to reduce risk and allow them flexibility in case things went wrong with the group. As Jaap Schoufour explains: “we [ the municipality] wanted to have
freedom to say let’s quit it all, maybe because you are not paying rent, you are not keeping your side of the contract, maybe there are strange or dangerous activities going on… all these risks we wanted to have a stick behind it to say “sorry, it doesn’t work”. Then we could get them out” (Schoufour, 2018). Despite the
fact that the new agreement gave the group two and a half more years, the strict regulation over the time limits of an experiment, maintained the municipalities position to end OT301. This relationship places EHBK/ OT301 in the position to repeatedly have to plead their case and convince the municipality of their value to the city, highlighting a distinct power dynamic that is present between actors advocating for conflicting temporalities within an experiment.
In entering into negotiations over the control of resources with more powerful actors, experiments which aim to realize a different type of urban space based on open and long temporal horizons, are con-strained to the financial view of time. Monthly rental payments, multi-year contracts regarding the exploitation of the building in order to guarantee a financial subsidy, as well as a fixed-year temporary rental contract, only further constricts the experiments ability to unfold according to open-ended and flexible processes. These legal agreements superimpose fixed and predetermined temporal boundaries, onto an experiment which intended to operate based on long and open time frames. The status of temporary user represented insecurity for OT301, while at the same time giving the municipality a guarantee that their legal status would
