5/5 Giorgos C. 4 years ago on Google • 1 review
Alexandrou
Svolou
Neighbourhood
Initiative
decided
to
engage
with
students
groups
in
2017
(see:
Iliopoulos
&
Kaligas,
2017)
by
focusing
on
and
appropriating
an
urban
‘void’
located
in
the
neighbourhood
of
Alexandrou
Svolou.
What
is
particularly
significant
about
this
urban
‘void’
(431,65
m2)
is
its
ownership
regime.
It
consisted
of
a
vacant
piece
of
public
land
that
had
been
left
to
become
derelict
.
70%
(337,05
m2)
of
its
total
area
belongs
to
the
School
Buildings
Organisation
SA,
a
state-owned
public
limited
company
based
in
Athens,
with
the
other
30%
(94,60
m2)
belonging
to
the
Municipality
of
Thessaloniki.
A
reasonable
question
that
arises
from
this
situation
is
why
an
urban
‘void’
should
belong
to
two
public
institutions?
Why
would
the
Municipality
of
Thessaloniki
purchase
a
piece
of
wasteland
from
another
public
institution,
especially
when
this
space
does
not
have
any
other
apparent
use
other
than
landfill?
Comparative
research
on
other
cities
revealed
the
remarkable
fact
that,
for
example,
in
Helsinki
(Finland)
all
the
public
land
belongs
to
the
city
itself,
whilst
the
revenue
from
public
services
(see:
Helen
Electricity
Network
Ltd)
is
mostly
reinvested
back
into
the
urban
fabric.
In
comparison,
Greek
cities
seem
to
be
unwilling
or
incapable
of
managing
their
urban
fabric.
Therefore,
the
creation
of
this
space
is
highly
relevant
in
relation
to
urban
planning
and
the
production
of
alternative
spaces,
while
also
holding
the
potential
to
encourage
more
inclusive
and
democratic
forms
of
planning.
Essentially,
this
experiment
consists
of
a
collective
effort
to
convert
an
urban
‘void’
into
a
pocket-sized
neighbourhood
park
through
a
social
process
of
commoning.
In
order
to
kick-start
this
activity,
the
Initiative
organised
a
participatory
planning
workshop
in
its
premises
in
the
1st
Municipal
District
of
Thessaloniki.
This
workshop
offered
‘average
citizens’
an
effective
outlet
for
collective
and
creative
expression.
Subsequently,
in
order
to
engage
with
the
broader
neighbourhood,
the
Initiative
organised
a
number
of
campaigns,
placing
information
points
in
various
spots
in
the
locality
and
collaborating
with
the
local
primary
school.
Passing
from
participatory
planning
to
participatory
action,
the
Initiative
has
so
far
organised
8
consecutive
‘construction
acts’
(cleaning,
embankment
fill,
urban
garden,
plantings,
cob
workshop,
self-made
urban
infrastructure/benches,
gym,
mural)
and
a
variety
of
cultural
events
(fundraising
concerts,
a
summer
cinema,
collective
dinners,
workshops,
artistic
performances
etc.)
demonstrating
a
particular
appetite
for
community
engagement
along
the
way.
Despite
profound
bureaucratic
limitations
(The
Kallikratis
reform
(Law
3852/2010),
for
instance,
does
not
illuminate
in
detail
how
citizens
can
actually
participate
in
decision
making
and
urban
planning.
For
further
scrutiny
see:
Katsoulis,
2011:4).
the
Initiative
is
still
developing
this
project,
without
any
external
sources
of
funding.
The
methodology
that
was
used
is
considered
ground-breaking
for
the
city,
as
there
have
been
no
other
cases
effective
bottom-up
participation
in
urban
planning.
Thus
far,
the
main
challenge
that
has
emerged
through
this
experiment
is
finding
ways
to
build
trust
with
the
surrounding
urban
micro-environment,
breaking
the
negative
impacts
of
vertical
and
horizontal
social
segregation.
Arguably,
this
approach
will
assist
socio-spatial
appropriation
on
a
regular
basis
whilst
avoiding
exclusionary
or
elitist
practices.
From
my
article:
Urban
Experiments
in
Times
of
Crisis:
From
Cultural
Production
to
Neighbourhood
Commoning
(2019)
7 people found this review helpful 👍
