‘Right to the City’ in Action

^{Photo: El Patio Maravillas, Calle del Divino Pastor [1]}

What makes them think they can take democracy into their own hands?

(My Dad, earlier this summer)

I was slightly taken aback by this question due to its directness, and as it was asked during an otherwise casual phone call in the first few weeks of being in Madrid. My dad was referring to El Patio and now La Ingobernable’s practice of occupying buildings illegally. His perspective was founded in the idea or assumption that urban space is always allocated, distributed and sold fairly under the guidance of elected city councils and other governing bodies. Witnessing rapid and mostly unregulated gentrification in New York, London and now Madrid, this is an assumption which I have seen little evidence  in being performed. I found myself defending El Patio and La Ingobernable’s actions based on the history of their occupations: in abandoned but politically contentious spaces, which ultimately interrogate the validity of the ‘democratic’ processes at work within the city council of Madrid.

El Patio and La Ingobernable occupy as a means of exerting their ‘right’ to a say in the urbanization decisions of the city of Madrid. David Harvey’s “Right to the City” essay from New Left Review (2008) can be mapped closely to El Patio and La Ingobernable’s actions. Harvey writes that urban social movements should demand:  ‘greater democratic control over the production and utilization of the surplus’. By this he is referring to the way urbanization is used to absorb surplus capital, ‘at the price of burgeoning processes of creative destruction that have dispossessed the masses of any right to the city.’ Processes of urban dispossession include, but are not limited to, building luxury apartments or tourist apartments (particularly in Madrid) without enough allocation for affordable homes, unfettered rent increases, and foreclosures. El Patio and La Ingobernable are actively fighting for their right to the city by choosing occupations which allow them to strategically highlight and question the motives of the city council. 

Two occupations in particular exemplify the tensions, discrepancies and complexities of applying urban theory to real life. The first is El Patio’s occupation in Calle del Divino Pastor. It was their third occupation and one which lasted only a few months in 2015. In April this year the city council, led by the mayoress Manuela Carmena, voted in favour of creating 14 tourist apartments in the building [2]. The building had remained empty since El Patio’s eviction. It is a sad and sobering indictment of the entrenched processes of Capitalism and urbanisation which El Patio were fighting against. The vote in favour of the tourist apartments happened despite El Patio having two former members on Carmena’s team, Celia Mayer and Guillermo Zapata (who abstained from the vote). The tide of touristification in Madrid appears unstoppable. How then can theory like Harvey’s be employed to resist? Harvey calls for urban social movements to pull together, locally and globally, to strengthen their demands. However, El Patio, who carry out highly strategic and well planned occupations, have with links to many other social groups in the city and former members in the city council, are unable to stop the flood.

La Ingobernable illustrates  a related form of resistance, but with a slightly different political statement. The occupation has taken over a former school, which has been abandoned for many years. It is prime real estate, situated opposite the Caixa Forum and on the Paseo del Prado. It was sold by Ana Botella, the mayoress before Carmena, for 75 years to the Ambasz Foundation for an investment of 10 million euros.[3] The Ambasz Foundation is run by Argentinian architect Emilio Ambasz, a friend of Botella. The building is to be knocked down and rebuilt as a Museum of Art, Architecture, Design and Urbanism (MAADU). However, the plans have been widely discredited by architect associations, in particular the Official College of Architects of Madrid (COAM).[4] It is this discreditation, along with the close relationship between Botella and Ambasz that caused La Ingobernable to occupy the space. There is a certain irony to the planned museum celebrating architecture and urbanism, when it itself will serve to promote one form of exclusive urban development. Ultimately increasing gentrification and touristification in Madrid, and at the same time reducing space available for housing and public services. The nepotistic relationship between Botella and Ambasz, and the self-serving nature of the project support La Ingobernable’s argument for a more transparent and democratic urbanism in Madrid. Ultimately their days in the space are numbered, with Carmena vowing to uphold the law in favour of Ambasz. For now however, La Ingobernable remains a point of discussion and resistance, if nothing else, serving to illuminate the flaws in the system of city governance.

^{Photo: La Ingobernable, Calle del Gobernador [5]} 

 

[1] Photo source: El centro social Patio Maravillas en el edificio de la calle del Divino Pastor de Madrid, El País: https://elpais.com/ccaa/2017/04/26/madrid/1493208062_791159.html

[2] ‘El equipo de Carmena convierte el Patio Maravillas en pisos turísticos’, El País: https://elpais.com/ccaa/2017/04/26/madrid/1493208062_791159.html

[3] ‘Ambasz consiguió que Botella le cediera el edificio de Gobernador por 75 años a cambio de invertir 10 millones’, europapress: http://www.europapress.es/madrid/noticia-ambasz-consiguio-botella-le-cediera-edificio-gobernador-75-anos-cambio-invertir-10-millones-20170509175908.html

[4] ‘Cinco informes rechazan demoler un edificio para crear el gran Museo Ambasz en Madrid’, El Independiente: https://www.elindependiente.com/tendencias/2017/01/31/cinco-informes-rechazan-demoler-un-edificio-para-crear-el-gran-museo-ambasz-en-madrid/

[5] Photo source: ‘La Fundación Ambasz denuncia a los okupas de la calle del Gobernador’, El País: https://elpais.com/ccaa/2017/05/19/madrid/1495217626_782484.html