Abstract
Squatting is usually subject to institutionalisation, co-optation and repression. Legalisation of the squats is also a controversial issue among activists. This chapter provides an overview of these topics in Central-Northern European cities (Berlin, Copenhagen and Paris) and Southern European cities (Madrid, Barcelona and Rome). The authors explore how local authorities respond to squatting in different protest cycles and the consequences of those responses. Resistance to negotiations and legalisation are eventually considered within the framework of the anti-capitalist orientation of most squatters’ movements. Furthermore, the authors’ comparison across cities takes into account local conditions in terms of social diversity, squatters’ needs and urban policies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The december riots refer to the 12th of december 1980 when the police evicted one squat in Fraenkelufer and were confronted with fierce resistance on the streets of the district Kreuzberg.
- 2.
It is worth stressing that some squatters, who wanted to negotiate, were evicted and some, who refused legalisation for a long time, eventually signed a leasing contract.
- 3.
Until 2002, 80–85 per cent of costs were subsidised for non-profit builders.
- 4.
As proved by eviction of Le Transfo squat (October 23, 2014), autonomous squats are not immune from eviction in the suburbs, but since properties in the suburbs suffer less market pressure some autonomous squats lasted longer despite the general repression.
- 5.
The 15M movement consisted in the occupation of Spain’s main city squares for a prolonged period of time.
- 6.
Despite four ex-squatters from El Patio Maravillas joining the new elected government and becoming councilors, the several-times-evicted SSC failed to find a legal space after numerous negotiations . In contrast, another group, EVA, comprised of some former squatters from La Traba, among others, succeeded in their application and were granted a municipally owned space in 2017.
- 7.
Spain’s squares’ movement took place shortly after the Arab Spring uprisings, and has been designated as the “Indigados” movement by the media.
- 8.
Who was a former spokesperson of PAH and also a squatter of Miles de Viviendas back in 2006.
- 9.
Flexible institutionalisation occurs ‘when conventional tactics complement disruptive ones’ (Pruijt 2003, p. 136). The terminal one ‘implies that, in the repertoire of action, convention replaces disruption’ (ibid.). Co-optation occurs when the squatters, usually the less radical or the leaders, are absorbed into institutional leadership.
- 10.
The Ungdomshuset (Copenhagen ) is a good example. In 1982 Ungdomshuset was squatted, then legalised by the municipality. In 2000–2002 it was sold to a Christian sect and was violently evicted in 2007. Even an offer by the foundation Jagtvej 69 to buy the building for 2 million euros (13 million Danish krones) was refused. In Berlin, since 1990, ‘five squats have been evicted after being issued legal rental agreements and contracts, despite there being in existence as a house-project or political community for 11, 16, 17, 20 or even 22.5 years’ (azozomox 2014), like, for example, Liebigstraße 14, which was squatted in 1990, legalised in 1992, and evicted in 2011; Brunnenstraße 183, squatted and legalised in 1993 and evicted in 2009; or the art-squat Tacheles, occupied in 1990 and finally evicted in 2012.
- 11.
Do or Die under the title Space Invaders (2003).
- 12.
Although the tools for integration have been applied in only a few cases, mostly addressing Social Centres and only very rarely housing occupations, today Rome counts more than 30 active SSCs and between six and seven thousand people living in about 50 buildings taken after collective squatting actions. Today most of the squatted spaces under threat of eviction are ones that had been legalised in the past.
- 13.
- 14.
Space Invaders in Do or Die, Issue 10, page 185–188, 2003.
References
azozomox. (2014). Besetzen im 21.Jahrhundert, Die Häuser denen, die drin wohnen. In A. Holm (Ed.), Reclaim Berlin. Berlin: Assoziation A.
Balestrini, N., & Moroni, P. (1997). L’orda d’oro. Milan: Feltrinelli.
Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and the geographies of “actually existing neoliberalism”. Antipode, 34(3), 349–379.
Castells, M. (1983). The city and the grassroots. A cross-cultural theory of urban social movements. Berkeley: University of California.
Colin, B. (2010). Pas de quartier pour les squatters! L’espace controversé des squats: reperes de militance ou repaire de militants. In B. Aiosa, F. Nait-Bouda, & M. Thévenon (Eds.), Repères et Espace(s). De la pluridisciplinarité à la polysémie (pp. 252–266). Grenoble: Presses universitaires de Grenoble.
Collectif Mauvaise troupe. (2014). Constellations: Trajectoires révolutionnaires du jeune 21e siècle. Paris: Éclat.
Day, R. J. (2005). Gramsci is dead: Anarchist currents in the newest social movements. London: Pluto Press.
Debelle, G. (2015). La stigmatisation des squatteurs dans les médias catalans. French Journal for Media Research, 4. Retrieved from http://www.frenchjournalformediaresearch.com/lodel/index.php?id=516
Dee, E. T. C. (2016). The production of squatters as folk devils: Analysis of a moral panic that facilitated the criminalization of squatting in the Netherlands. Deviant Behavior, 37(7), 784–794.
Domínguez, M., Martínez, M., & Lorenzi, E. (2010). Okupaciones en movimiento. Derivas, estrategias y prácticas. Madrid: Tierradenadie.
Flesher, C. (2015). Debunking spontaneity: Spain’s 15-M/Indignados as autonomous movement. Social Movement Studies, 14(2), 142–163.
Karpantschof, R. (2009). Ungdomshusoproret 2006–2008: Baggrund, forlob og konsekvenser. In R. Karpantschof & M. Lindblom (Eds.), Kampen om ungomshuset: Studier i et opror (pp. 43–101). Copenhagen: Frydenlund Monsum.
Katzeff, A. (2014). Tag Byen Tilbage: Autonome Zoner in den Neoliberal By. Phd Afhandling, Københavns Universitet.
Kranz, S., & Mayer, M. (1985). Gimme shelter: Self-help housing struggles within and against the state in New York City and West Berlin. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 9(1), 15–46.
Krøijer, S. (2013). Security is a collective body: Intersecting temporalities of security around the climate summit in Copenhagen. In M. Holbraad & M. Pedersen (Eds.), Times of security: Ethnographies of fear, protest and the future (pp. 33–56). Oxon: Routledge.
Kurik, B. (2016). Emerging subjectivity in protest. In D. Courpasson & S. Vallas (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of resistance (p. 51). New York: Sage.
Manjikian, M. (2013). Securitization of property squatting in Europe. Oxon: Routledge.
Martínez, M. (2014). How do squatters deal with the state? Legalization and anomalous institutionalization in Madrid. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(2), 646–674.
Mudu, P., & Chattopadhyay, S. (Eds.). (2017). Migration, squatting and radical autonomy. Oxon: Routledge.
Piqué, D. (2009). El fenomen okupa/antisistema circumscrit al districte de Gràcia (Barcelona), com a factor de risc per a la convivència i potencial focus de percepció d’inseguretat. In Polítiques públiques de seguretat aplicables per evitar que esdevingui un problema d’ordre públic o delinqüencial i conseqüentment de solucióúnicament policial. La Síndrome de Sherwood. Retrieved from http://www.setmanaridirecta.info/sites/default/files/la%20s%C3%ADndrome%20de%20sherwood.PDF
Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. (1979). Poor people’s movements: Why they succeed, how they fail. New York: Vintage Books.
Pruijt, H. (2003). Is the institutionalization of urban movements inevitable? A comparison of the opportunities for sustained squatting in New York City and Amsterdam. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(1), 133–157.
Rossini, L. (2016). Conflicting citizenship and (re)active zones in the urban areas: Confronting the case of Berlin and Rome—Policies and practices for defining processes of ‘reclaiming’ urban public spaces. PhD dissertation in Urban and Regional Planning, University of Palermo—TU Berlin.
Shaw, P. (2005). The place of alternative culture and the politics of its protection in berlin, Amsterdam and Melbourne. Planning Theory & Practice, 6(2), 149–169.
Springer, S. (2014). Why a radical geography must be anarchist. Dialogues in Human Geography, 4(3), 249–270.
Uitermark, J. (2004). The co-optation of squatters in Amsterdam and the emergence of a movement meritocracy: A critical reply to Pruijt. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(3), 687–698.
Vasudevan, A. (2011). Dramaturgies of dissent: The spatial politics of squatting in Berlin, 1968. Social & Cultural Geography, 12(3), 283–303.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rossini, L., azozomox, Debelle, G. (2018). Keep Your Piece of Cake, We’ll Squat the Bakery! Autonomy Meets Repression and Institutionalisation. In: Martínez López, M. (eds) The Urban Politics of Squatters' Movements. The Contemporary City. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95314-1_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95314-1_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-95313-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-95314-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)