Bachelor Thesis

(Re-)Claiming Maastricht
Through Cultural Squatting

- a qualitative approach to cultural squatting
and its claim to the right to the city

Johanna Rannula

(Re-)Claiming Maastricht
Through Cultural Squatting

a qualitative approach to cultural squatting and its
claim to the right to the city

CAPSTONE
Johanna Rannula

Advisor:
Christoph Rausch

University College Maastricht
Summer 2012

"kraken is de zaken zo simpel mogelijk maken"
Squatting tries to make things as simple as possible*

Capitalism and the neoliberal upsurge have compromised and challenged public spaces in its
ideological nature. However, grass-root initiatives which claim the city for their own needs have
to a certain extent been able to overcome the challenges of the contemporary cities. Such
initiatives vary in forms and contexts, but one of the many options is squatting, and especially
when squats are made into cultural centres. These institutions can make a significant contribution
towards the fight for the the right to the city. This phrase, first coined by Henri Lefebvre, is the
foundation for closer examination of the cultural squatting scene in Maastricht, the Netherlands,
through qualitative research methods, in order to reveal a contemporary character of the
struggle for public space.

* Written on a wall in the Landbouwbelang
squatted cultural freezone, Maastricht.

Contents

1
Introduction 1
2
Public Space and its Discontents 4
The Nature of Public Space - What should it be like? 4
The Erosion of Public Space - What it actually is? 6
Critical Urban Theory - Who has the right to the city? 9
3
Urban Social Movements 13
Squatting (Empty Urban Spaces) 14
Cultural Squatting 15
4
Cultural Squatting in Maastricht a Case Study 17
Methodology 17
Maastricht and its Culture 18
Cultural Squatting in Maastricht 21
Appropriation 23
Participation 24
Public Space 25
5
Final Thoughts 27
6
References 29
7
Appendices 32

Introduction

1

1
Introduction

Instead of starting this piece like most research papers and outlining the topic to say why-this-is-oh-
so-important, I will rather introduce it by explaining why I was not so sure about choosing it. First, as
the title already implied, a large portion of this piece is about the city of Maastricht and its cultural
squats. Having lived in the city for the past 3 years, I have been thoroughly acquainted with both. But
taking them as a case study for this research evoked some feelings of discouragement in me because
it is until this occasion that I had not ever chosen any aspects of my close environment for my
academic endeavours. My reasoning behind it has been something along the lines of if I have the
whole world to choose from then why should I choose something that is right next to me. Yet there
is an important advantage in doing just that namely that my close environment is probably
something that I will know most about. Having gotten over my initial discouragement, I realized that
this is why it is logical, useful and interesting to write about Maastricht and its cultural squats.
Furthermore, I have always been wary about getting caught up in trends. But in the case of this
research, the latter has nevertheless happened. Judging on the amount of groups, individuals,
organizations, and initiatives which have tied themselves with the phrase - the right to the city - it is
fair to conclude that it is undeniably popular. There is a vast array of initiatives and practices which
have used the words of Henri Lefebvre, such as the Recht Auf Stadt
1
in Berlin, Germany, or the Right
to the City Alliance
2
in the United States. And there is an ever greater collection of references to this
phrase in academia, where it has been utilized to examine an even broader scope of cases, practices
and movements. My inspiration comes from a doctoral dissertation that looked at Brazilian
performers and squatters who redress spatial inequalities (Melo, 2007). This short phrase has also
found recognition on a transnational level, not to mentions the many conferences that have been
organized for this purpose
3
such as the UN-HABITAT 5th World Urban Forum with the maxim The
Right to the City Dividing the Gap
4
. The phrase has found its way into national policies, such as the
Brazil City Statute and the Montral charter, but also to international political guidelines - the most

1
http://www.rechtaufstadt.net/
2
http://www.righttothecity.org/
3
Berlin, 2008; UC Santa Cruz, 2011; Hamburg, 2011; Cape Town, 2010 to name a few.
4
http://www.unhabitat.org/categories.asp?catid=584
Introduction

2

notable being The World Charter on the Rights to the City - devised in 2004 by UNESCO,UN-HABITAT
and others, for the elimination of social exclusion (Brown & Kristiansen, 2009). In short, it is evident
that the debate about the right to the city has been extensive and multi-dimensional. I would say that
Henry Lefebvre opened a can of worms, albeit in a good way. However, extensive use of the slogan,
which I thought went against my principles of topic choice, is indicative of an important point the
right to the city is relevant at this moment all around the world.
Since Henry Lefebvre coined the phrase right to the city at the end of the 1960s, it has been
found helpful in many academic areas, for example, feminism (Fenster, 2005) and education studies
(The Strictland Disctribution, 2011). Yet it is probably fair to locate right to the city more specifically
in the core of the Critical Urban Theory which could be said to be its home discipline, one that has
taken the phrase, its implementation and interpretation as the ultimate goal. According to Peter
Marcuse (2009), the task is to find a definition to this popularized statement. He asks: how do we
understand the Right to the City today, and how can a critical urban theory contribute to
implementing it? (p. 185). This emphasis on today and implementation are also in the focus of the
present research. I will be looking at a contemporary case study that illustrates how the theory can
be applied in practice.
Thus, in the following analysis I will be trying to answer the question how do the cultural
squats
5
in Maastricht challenge the erosion of public space and constitute an effort towards the right
to the city? This question implies an exploration into the realm of urban studies with a sociological
twist where a number of topics will be explored What is public space in theory and how does it
correspond to the reality? What is thought to be wrong with contemporary cities? What do Lefebvre
and his followers propose to overcome this challenge? How does the case study of Maastrichts
cultural squats demonstrate the various facet of Lefebvres right to the city?
The journey to answer these questions will go through several stages. First, I will discuss the
notion of public space through the perspective of the urban studies canon while looking at what it is
expected to be and what it actually is. After discussing a rather gloomy image of public spaces I will
arrive at an explanation given by Henri Lefebvre. The theoretical framework for this research lies in
his concept of the right to the city which expresses concerns over the undesirable developments in
urban spaces and proposes possible tools for improvements. The latter will be further explored by
zooming in onto one specific tool - the practice of squatted cultural centres. This, in turn, leads the
case study of the cultural squats in Maastricht, the Netherlands, which will give a practical illustration
of Lefebvres ideas and show how far the theory can be implemented. To thoroughly examine this

5
I will be using the terms cultural squat and squatted cultural centre interchangeably.
Introduction

3

case study, I used two qualitative research methods participant observation and qualitative
interviewing. These gave me an in depth understanding of how exactly the cultural squats can and do
claim their right to the city.

Public Space and its Discontents

4

2

The Nature of Public Space - What should it be like?

The question of public space, its importance and challenges, is deeply embedded in the canon of
urbanism which has its beginnings in ideas of classical Greek philosophers. Continued by the theorists
of urban modernity, giants of the discipline like Walter Benjamin, Lewis Mumford and Jane Jacobs,
the idea of urban public space being inherently connected to civic virtue and citizenship has been
repeatedly enforced. The trend has perpetuated among the contemporary urban theorists and
visionaries such as Richard Sennet and Sharon Zukin (Amir, 2006). I will hereby adopt the discourse of
this canon and discuss its take on public space
6
.
Public space as a concept is not as straightforward as one might think. It has many
interpretations but at its simplest you can say that public space is defined by ownership state
owned spaces like streets, parks, public facilities, and libraries in contrast to privately owned spaces
like homes and company office spaces. However, this description is limited because public could also
mean, for example, an interaction between two individuals. Would a privately owned shopping mall
be a private or public space? Many would categorize it among the latter, despite the ownership. How
public are parks that have an entrance fee, restricted opening hours and benches which are designed
so that the homeless would not be able to sleep on them?
Don Mitchell contrasts cities as necessarily public entities to the rural life, which he connects
to privacy, isolation and homogeneity. They are places of intense social interaction, encounters and
exchange between different people (2003). Streets, parks, squares have long been centres for civic
life for their inhabitants, they are seen as symbols for collective well-being and possibility, [], sites
of public encounter and formation of civic culture, and significant spaces of political deliberation and
agonistic struggle (Amir, 2006). In other words, public spaces have been considered to be a vehicle
for public discourses, political expressions, and social relationship because this is where people can
gather for festivities, protests and demonstrations.

6
It is nevertheless necessary to note that not everybody has taken these ideas as unquestionable truth. Amir
(2006), for example, expresses his doubts about urban democracy being inherently rooted in inclusive and
vibrant urban public spaces.


5

Western traditions tie public spaces closely to democracy, openness, and debate with the
beginnings of these ideas going back to the Greek agora, classical Rome, Renaissance Florence and
mercantile Venice where public spaces acted as the centres for culture and political practice. As we
now know, the definition of public was very exclusionary in these times. Citizenship was a privilege
denied from women, slaves and foreigners. But nevertheless, the general rhetoric or idea behind it
was the starting point for the discourse over open public spaces. This like of thought has continued
through the tradition of urbanism, as shown before, into contemporary discourse. As a part of the
public sphere, it should be accessible without exclusion and embody the variety a city offers (Hou,
2010; Amir, 2006; Mitchell, 1995).
While public space is seen as a forum for the making of a civil society, it can be also viewed as
a source for promoting togetherness. It is clear, however, that the two go hand in hand. In the light
of cities being a gathering place for differences, Setha Low emphasises that public spaces are vital
because this is where a wide variety of people from different gender, class, culture, nationality and
ethnicity can coexist. It is where we all come together to relax, learn and recreate, and open so
that we have places where interpersonal and intergroup cooperation and conflict can be worked out
in a safe and public forum (2006, p. 47). Public space is what we share with strangers, it is a
meeting point for atomized individuals (Madanipour, 2003, p.218-219). This idea is further
developed by Carr et al (1993, p.344):
When public spaces are successful [] they will increase opportunities to participate in
communal activity. This fellowship in the open nurtures the growth of public life, which is
stunted by the social isolation of ghettos and suburbs. In the parks, plazas, markets,
waterfronts, and natural areas of our cities, people from different cultural groups can
come together in a supportive context of mutual enjoyment. As these experiences are
repeated, public spaces become vessels to carry positive communal meanings.
Urban activists relentlessly believe in the inclusive urban public spaces and their importance
for politics. It is the ground for participatory democratic processes, public expression for the majority
and the under-represented. By offering opportunities for assembly, discourse, political expressions
and so forth, public space has been seen as an important stage for the realization of a democratic
state (Madanipour, 2003; Amir, 2006). In addition, by calling on the rhetoric of inclusion and
interaction that the public sphere and public space are meant to represent, excluded groups have
been able to argue for their rights as part of the active public. Each successful struggle that achieves
inclusion shows to other marginalized communities the importance of the public in their political
aspirations (Mitchell, 1995, p.133).

6

Yet this understanding of public space is idealised. While for many writers the public spaces
are an artefact of the past when different sensibilities and different ideas about public order and
safety, when public spaces were stable, well-defined, and accessible to all (an assumption that
underlines the discussion of the next section), there has never been such thing in real societies. I
believe that Mitchell is on the right track when he says that definitions of public space and "the
public" are not universal and enduring; they are produced through constant struggle in the past and
in the present (1995, p.121). This is also why I have the courage to challenge this conception of
public space in my research to express the inconclusiveness of the previous definitions. I prefer to
open up the definition of public spaces and see it as something that can happen on the streets, in a
community house or a sports field. Certain limitations apply to all of these, I will explore some of
them in the coming paragraphs, but that is probably just an inevitable consequence of an ever
changing, unpredictable world. A space that would have lived up to the ideals of what a pure public
space is supposed to be unfortunately never existed nor will exist. While theory is allowed to engage
with the ideals, in this case it is best to admit that in practice, public space has to be acted out in
various limited conditions. Perhaps public spaces can also exist in small hidden islands of freedom
(Arendt, 1961, p.15) where the marginalized can claim their rights? Perhaps the only possibility for
public spaces is to be, so to say, designed diversities (Mitchell, 1995)?
This critique is essential to this research but for the sake of the argument, I will now turn
back to the ideas of the canon and explore further what it has to say about the fate of public spaces
in the past and present.
The Erosion of Public Space - What it actually is?

Compared to the rhetoric of democratic inclusiveness of public space, the reality of the urban public
space is rather different. First, there was no such all-inclusive public space before the French
Revolution. The public used to be confined to the educated and literate. But also in recent times, the
supposedly accessible and public spaces are said to be imbued with significant exclusions. For
example, the confinement of women to the private sphere has excluded them from full access to the
public realm. But exclusionary delineations have been based also on the categories of race, class,
religion etc (Hou, 2010). Moreover, public spaces were used for expressions of power under medieval
monarchies where political control was displayed, staged and legitimized. Modern totalitarian
powers used public spaces for military showcase, such as parades, to impress the citizens and
enemies alike. In democratic states, public spaces have provided a legitimate arena for expressions of
free speech, demonstrations and protests although these have not come without contestation. In a

7

world of extensive security and surveillance, new measures of political control have limited the
possibilities of free movement and expression. The ever stronger control over public spaces has
suffocated the celebrated freedoms of public spaces (Hou, 2003). Lefebvre argued that the
difference of public spaces are a threat to social order. Hegemonic powers however would like to
keep that order as it is and tend to absorb differences that might jeopardize it. Whether challenged
from the left or the right, the established power of the state and capital are threatened by the
exercise of public rights within public spaces. Exercising control over public space might be able to
guarantee the continuation of the current power (Mitchell, 1995, p.124).

The discussion in urban studies on the erosion of public space is more than plentiful. It would not be
an overstatement to say that it has been the concern of each of the aforementioned urban writers
and theorists. To name a few, Richard Sennet describes the fall of the public man, Putnam talks
about bowling alone (Hou, 2010). To try to hereby explain the issue thoroughly would be to bite off
more than one can chew. Thus, my only option is to brush over this important matter by
concentrating on a few key issues.
Concerns over public space and the overarching rationale of changing influence of liberalism
and capitalism are a child of the 20
th
century. There have been a few particular upsurges of
significant importance. The 1960s are infamous for its civil right movements, student protests and
the new left which, among other demands, had a lot to say about the shortcomings of urban spaces.
Jane Jacobs and Henri Lefebvre raised their voices against the homogenizing, destructive and anti-
social consequences of postwar Fordist urban renewal projects (Marcuse, 2009, p.177). Other
writers shared concerns about the influence of capitalist processes on the commodification of cities
(Brenner et al, 2009). The next important development was the rise of neoliberal ideas in the 1980s
that left an impact on the urban environment and in many ways still does. Neoliberal urban
development leaves the urban space under limitations of profit-based thinking, and
hypercommodification of urban land and other basic social amenities (housing, transportation,
utilities, public space) in cities around the world (Brenner et al., 2009, p.177). In addition, culture
has also been commodified through the appropriation of local peculiarities and the previously
independent cultural actors (who then are drowned by the capitalist machine), cities turn to culture
and creative industries for an economic boost (Novy & Colomb, 2012).
Neoliberalism is said to be the driving force that gradually transforms urbanization and cities.
Public and private sector have started to explore new ways of cooperation that has led to the
growing influence of the private on the restructuring of urban space. Cities governed by neoliberal
ideals are now more and more in the grip of privatization (Boer & Vries, 2009). The public space is

8

not only threatened by disuse but also by the patterns of design, management, and systems of
ownership that reduce diversity. The vitality of urban space is confronted with programs that
exclude undesirables, impose commercialization, increase security, entertainment, and profit while
limiting access and imposing of restrictions (Low, 2006, p.44). Don Mitchell describes how new public
spaces ban interactive and discursive politics. Planners strive for security rather than interaction, and
for entertainment rather than politics. The result is what Sennet called the dead public spaces, and
consumption promoting festive spaces such as shopping malls. Both are employed for order,
surveillance and control over the behaviour of the public (1995, p.119). Controlled diversity replaces
uncontrolled social differences and thereby make public space ever more homogenized. To
illustrating this, Mitchell quotes Goss to describe the character of the pseudo-public spaces of
shopping malls (p.119):
Some of us are . . . disquieted by the constant reminders of surveillance in the sweep of
cameras and the patrols of security personnel [in malls]. Yet those of us for whom it is
designed are willing to suspend the privileges of public urban space to its relative
benevolent authority, for our desire is such that we will readily accept nostalgia as a
substitute for experience, absence for presence, and representation for authenticity.
In addition, gentrification is a characteristic of neoliberal urbanization in which low-income and
non-profit uses of attractive urban spaces are displaced through direct evictions and indirect market
influence (Boer & Vries, 2009). The 19th century Hausmann regeneration project in Paris can be seen
as a large scale precursor of post-World War II renovations in run down neighbourhoods. Urban
centres are remade and residential areas are integrated with other uses like retail, office space,
transport and recreation. This neoliberal urban regeneration is common in Europe and increasingly
so elsewhere (Smith, 2003; Zukin, 1987). Finally, surveillance is another rising characteristic of
contemporary cities, especially in the context of a globalizing world as well as events like 9/11.
Thereby cities have become increasingly and worryingly endowed by surveillance cameras, security
guards etc. Such methods used to be perceived as a big brother and an infringement of civil rights
but now these are rather just as tools of safety (Low, 2006).
It is clear that urban spaces, and public space specifically, have undergone significant changes
over the past half century. Economic and private interests have increasing influence over cities and
their development which is believed to have led to the gradual erosion of inclusiveness and diversity
in public space. Many such as Henri Lefebvre have noticed these changes and have concerns about
the future of contemporary societies.


9

Critical Urban Theory - Who has the right to the city?

The right to the city is a concept developed by Henri Lefebvre, a French sociologist and philosopher.
It first appeared in his book La Droit a la Ville in 1968, at the time of the historic protests in Paris,
the student movements in the United States, and the general feeling of possibility of radical social
transformation
7
. It allowed Lefebvre to be optimistic in his writings on cities where use value is
paramount, encounters of difference are accepted, that is productive and plentiful, and where life
can be lived at its fullest. The right to the city is an intuitively compelling and easily understandable
slogan, but also a theoretically complex and thought provoking
8,9
(Plyushteva, 2009; Lamarca, 2009;
Boer & Vries, 2009; Mitchell, 2003; Marcuse, 2009; Bruijn, 2010; McCann,2002). In the two following
descriptions Lefebvre tries to define his concept:
the right to the city is like a cry and a demand. This right slowly meanders through the
surprising detours of nostalgia and tourism, the return to the heart of the traditional city,
and the call of existent or recently developed centralities. (Lefebvre, 1967, p. 158)
the right to information, the rights to use of multiple services, the right of users to make
known their ideas on the space and time of their activities in urban areas; it would also
cover the right to the use of the centre. (Lefebvre in Mitchell, 1995)

7
Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of interpretations of the concept, the radical one which I will
outline the following paragraphs including the writing of Lefebvre, Harvey etc - and the reformist
interpretation. The latter defines a collection of rights that should the exercised in the city while its
predecessor emphasized that the right to the city is more than just a sum of its parts. (Zrah et al,
2011). The problem about the reformist right to the city is its proximity to the structures that
Lefebvre was trying to rebel against. The right to the city is adopted into the UN-Habitat and UNESCO
agendas which raises questions about the de-politization of the concept and what was the essence of
the radical call for social, political and economic change (Lamarca, 2009). It is a question of means
because the goals of both approaches are close, if not the same. One looks towards grassroots
bottom-up claims and the other to institutional level. The only considerable difference is that
Levebfre dreamt of a structural change (of uprooting the capitalist social relations) which is not a
part of the reformed interpretation of the concept (Lamarca, 2009; Boer and Vries, 2009).
8
However, the concept has often been criticised for being unclear. It is possible that the ambiguity is
the result of a range of different interpretations and meanings coming various disciplines like urban
studies, of course, but also human right and development, citizenship and so forth (Plyushteva,
2009).
9
I would like to add that this theory takes for granted the idea that city is a discursive construct and
also a material entity. It is a discursive because next to the physical entity, a city can also only exists
because it is about the interactions between people, it is inhabited and modified by people,
individually and collectively. A city-that-is is companied by the city-discourse and both are important.
Both are necessary for the discussion over the elusive concept right to the city (Plyushteva, 2009).

10

The idea was re-discovered by David Harvey, a American neo-Marxist , who brought Lefebvres
work into the contemporary context. Although the two eras, the 1960s and the post-1990s, are very
different, there are many similarities. The writers underlined the need for stronger democratic
processes and wider participation in the struggles of reshaping cities, in both periods of time (Zrah
et al, 2011). Harvey sees the right to the city as a political platform and a slogan to inspire, rather
than a legally codified practice (Plyushteva, 2009).
The right to the city is far more than the individual liberty to access urban resources: it is
a right to change ourselves by changing the city. () The freedom to make and remake
our cities and ourselves is, I want to argue, one of the most precious yet most neglected
of our human rights. (Harvey, 2008, p.23)
Both writers see the right to the city as a cry and a demand. The cry is for those who are
deprived of basic resources and legal rights the homeless, the hungry and those who are
persecuted for their gender, religion or race. It is also an aim of those who are discontent with urban
life because it is limiting their potential for growth and creativity. The demand is of those who are
excluded, the cry is of those who are alienated; the demand is for the material necessities of life, the
aspiration is for a broader right to what is necessary beyond the material to lead a satisfying life
(Marcuse, 2009, p.190). Nevertheless, the culturally alienated and the immediately deprived have
the same goal to create a supportive life environment - and a common enemy, namely capitalism,
neo-liberalism, greed, multinationals, the elite, the bourgeoisie, and the capitalist class
10
.
The right to the city is also a direct call for action - the inhabitants should contribute to the
production of the urban space and reclaim its uses. It is a passionate plea for improved urban politics
for a transformed and renewed right to urban life (Lefebvre, 1967, p.158). Lefebvre and Harvey see
the solution in all kinds of social movements in which marginalized city dwellers organize themselves
in order to claim the city for their own uses and to make it a place that responds to their needs,
instead of someone elses (Marcuse, 2009)

A central concept to Lefebvres work is the oeuvre - a city as a collective artwork of inhabitants.
Inhabitants can achieve this by collectively shaping the future of urban space and by inhabiting their
urban environment actively, for example by participating in the public life of their community, but
especially by the appropriation of both time and space of their city (Boer & Vries, 2009, p.1322). All
dwellers are supposed to have the right to use spaces of the city that provide the necessities of daily
life. The right to the city is a cry against the problems of the bourgeois city in which the oeuvre is

10
This is a rather plain-spoken view of Marxism. I apologize to those who think it is a little too blunt.

11

alienated. The city has become not a site of participation but of expropriation where capitalist
interests do not allow the city to be for cohabitation and differences. Thus, city life is increasingly
created for people, not by them (Boer & Vries, 2009; Mitchell, 2003).
The right to the city is about two grand aspects - the right to appropriate and the right to
participate. The latter refers to the possibilities for taking direct part in the citys management. If
control over the city is limited then those who are in power will exploit their privileges and shape the
city in their perspective and advantage while reinforcing and extending the isolation and oppression
of the marginalized. All inhabitants (not only citizens) should be allowed to have influence on the
decisions made on the production of city space (Plyushteva, 2009). The right to appropriate, on the
other hand, highlights the importance of making use of the citys spaces, and make use of its
advantages and services. For Lefebvre, the social function of space is superior to its profit value
11
. He
believes that the right to property leads to exclusion and isolation. Harvey illustrates this by saying
that it is a fundamental human right to change the city after our hearts desire. (Boer & Vries, 2009;
Mitchell, 2003; McCann, 2009). Put simply, the Right to the City defends two elements of
citizenship: the ability of all groups and individuals to live in the city, being present and enjoying in all
its parts; and partaking in the control over the decisions that shape the city, using its spaces to
exercise their citizenship (Plyushteva, 2009, p. 85)
12
.
I would like to elaborate on one more aspect of the right to the city - its relation to the public
space. Plyushteva (2009) emphasizes that the right to access and influence public spaces is an
important part of the right to the city. Public spaces should be relevant politically and socially instead
of just being transport arteries from home to work, and back. Public spaces should not be static and
untouchable but dynamic, changeable, shaped according to the dwellers needs and full of surprises.
Special activities like live music or reading out literary work have to be mostly exercised in
commercially bought spaces. If public spaces were free and open, they would allow such events to

11
Lefebre summarises this as such : The right to the city manifests itself as a superior form of rights:
right to freedom, to individualization in socialization, to habit and to inhabit. The right to the oeuvre,
to participation and appropriation (clearly distinct from the right to property), are implied in the right
to the city (1968, p. 174).
12
The two sides of the right to the city intersect, for example, in political protests and street actions.
Going to the streets can bring the urban political agenda closer to every citizen, and remind them of
the instruments within their reach to insert themselves into this agenda (p.95). The right to the city
feeds on the struggles for all kinds of rights. Right[s] to speak freely in public, the right to enjoy
recreation in open air, the right to see ones historical heritage in a museum and the pursuit of
these is what makes the right to the city a critical valve in the making of urban citizenship
[participation] and appropriation (Plyushteva, 2009, p.95).


12

happen no matter the participants financial or other background. A city must be public, free for
social interaction and exchange. This demands heterogeneity because only with difference can we
claim that there is a working and accessible public realm, and the right to citizenship (Pluyshteva,
2009; Brown & Kristiansen, 2009). Don Mitchell argues that where rights are defined by private
property, public space as the space for representation[of differences] takes on exceptional
importance, but is increasingly policed and controlled (Mitchell, 2003, p.34)
The right to the city is a critique to capitalism and a counter-narrative to an upsurge of
neoliberal reforms which changed the relationship of the private sector, the state and the civil
society (Zrah et al, 2011). It should be a taken as a tool of resistance directed towards neoliberal
globalization which has led to greater inequality and increase in social problems (Boer & Vries, 2009).
This resistance, however, can take many shapes. And I will be concentrating on one of them in the
following section.

Urban Social Movements

13

3

As a response to Lefebvres call for collective action against the erosion of free urban space, there
have emerged initiatives and movements around the world which address the problematic aspects of
contemporary urban spaces and increasingly regulated public spaces
13
. They can be gathered under
the name of urban social movements, a term introduced by Manuel Castells, to refer to city dwellers
attempts to achieve control over the urban environment. By urban environment I mean the built
physical materiality of the city, but also the social fabric of the urban space and the local political
realm (Martinez, 2011). Urban social movements can be some rather insignificant acts of
randomness that indirectly claim the city, like planting seeds at public spaces
14
, or they can also be
networks of movements with serious political agendas and published manifestos, like the Right to the
City Alliance in US which focuses on fighting for democracy, justice and sustainability in cities across

13
I do not discriminate between practices that have counsciously adopted Lefebvres slogan and the
ones which have not because in one way or another they all contribute to the same goal even if they
use a different words to describe their actions.
14
Also called guerrilla gardening.
URBAN
SOCIAL
MOVEMENTS
SQUATTING

SQUATTED
SOCIAL
CENTRES
SQUATTED
CULTURAL
CENTRES

14

the country. Jeffrey Hoe described an array of urban social movements that appropriate, reclaim,
transgress, pluralize etc
15
public spaces. Instances of self-made urban spaces, [...] temporary events,
and flash mobs, as well as informal gathering places created by predominantly marginalized
communities, have provided new expressions of the collective realms in the contemporary city.
These practices challenge conventional, confined notions of public and the making of space (Hou,
2010, p.2). One example of the many possibilities to do this will be outlined in the following
paragraphs.
Squatting (Empty Urban Spaces)

The police, the property owners, the privileged neighbours and society in general often see squatted
buildings as places of criminality, disease, danger and filth. But they can also be seen as a survival
strategy, an act of political activism and a performance of identity (Melo, 2007, p. 7). Put simply,
urban squatting is the unauthorized occupation of empty buildings
16
. Housing is the most common
usage but there are also other functions. While squatting is often associated with the Third World
and its rapid urbanization, poverty, and migration, the movement has a long history in the West as
well. Contextual differences already indicate that there are different incentives for squatting (see
Appendix B). For one, it is an action to acquire shelter, but at the same time the practice is used as a
political tactic for drawing attention to neglect, lack of affordable housing, and homelessness. Hans
Pruijt, a Dutch sociologist, outlined the motivations behind squatting as following (2011):
1 Deprivation based squatting
2 Squatting as an alternative housing strategy
3 Entrepreneurial squatting
4 Conservational squatting
5 Political squatting
Without going too deep into the specifics of these 5 reasons, it is necessary to emphasize the
political agenda behind squatting. Squatting activism highlights the right for housing, it is a struggle

15
... participate, trespass, uncover, and contest.
16
Martinez (2011, p.7) defines squatting more elaborately: squatting is a direct action aimed to
satisfy a collective need through social disobedience against the oppressive protection of property
rights. The mostly temporary appropriation of abandoned spaces is a partial attack on the unjust
distribution of urban goods, but it is also a grassroots political intervention at the core of urban
politics. Squatters defy the rules of the urban growth machine both for the sake of their own needs
and to promote citizens' protests that can be easily imitated until the last vacant space is reclaimed
by those who are dispossessed.


15

for the uses of space instead of letting the urban canvas exist with idle moth-eaten holes. It is a fight
against modernist urban development and a fight for open places where urban (sub-)cultures can
breed and where local needs for affordable housing and social cohesion could be satisfied. The
right to the city proposes urban spaces should be in full and complete usage. If exchange value
cannot make use of the full potential of the citys spaces, as it has proved to do, then use value could
be better employed. Buchholz (2009, p.214) summarizes it as such:
Demanding radical changes in city development squatter movements appropriate urban
space by the means of mere inhabitance and the use value of space and thus can be
viewed as close to the Lefebvrian approach: contesting the exchange value, the right to
real estate speculation, the right to vacancy and non-movement in capitalist city
development.

Social and Cultural Squatting

Squatted houses which organize and host cultural activities is yet another story in the narrative of
urban social movements. But before getting to the breed of squats that is most relevant for this
research I will look at the phenomenon of squatted social centres in general and only then zooming
in even further.
To trace the beginnings of cultural squats, we have to go back to the 1970s in Italy where
juvenile social movements wanted to reclaim the city and improve their status quo by establishing
the Occupied Social Centres. They evolved from tolerated ghettos into autonomous political centres
for cultural production and networking, and often also protest-planning. Soon enough such initiatives
spread further. In 1990s, squat cafes emerged in the UK. These evolved into social centres where
many local autonomist movements were based. Such centres contested the urban competition,
commoditisation and marketing by the act of claiming unused spaces and upgrading then (Leontidou
2010). They also played a key role in the squatting movement in general by having a more open
attitude, a transparent organization, and a platform for people who are interested in squatting
(Martinez, 2011).
Squatted social centres differ from residential squats in that they, in addition to reclaiming
private space, unveil it to the public. They occupy vacant buildings and make them into free, open
and public space. In this, they contest the general developments in contemporary urban cities as
outlined in the previous sections (Hodkinson & Chatteron, 2006; Patz, 2011). Hodkinson and
Chatteron said that:

16

Social centres represent an open challenge to this neo-liberal process by taking these
buildings emptied or abandoned by capital and regenerating them back into non-
commercial places for politics, meetings and entertainment. In the face of rapid changes
to the urban fabric, social centres constitute a new claim to the citya demand that land
and property be used to meet social needs, not to service global, or extra-local, capital.

Many of squatted social centres have taken art, culture and cultural activities to be their focus, so
that it becomes a place where independent artistic and cultural initiatives can experiment
(Hodkinson & Chatteron, 2006). Many new artistic and musical experiments can find help in squatted
buildings to gain popularity and experience. If they become successful, they can move on to new
places and audiences. In that way these cultural centres act as breeding places for new art and
music (Martinez, 2011). Squatted cultural centres is a relatively wide spread phenomenon from
Amsterdams old harbour, where many world famous cultural centres are located, to London, Berlin
and Los Angeles (Keller, 2010).
An excellent example that illustrates how cultural squats fight for their right to the city is the
Kunsthaus Tacheles in Berlin, Germany. For more than 20 years, Tacheles has been a squat where
many (international) artists live and work. In recent years, it has been under constant pressure of
eviction. The conflict between the inhabitants of Tacheles and the company that owns the building is
often seen as an example of the fight for public space in the city of Berlin, but also elsewhere
(Connolly, 2012). Their manifesto which was published in summer 2011 addressed the issue by using
the rhetoric of the right to the city (using the words of David Harvey) Tacheles wants the freedom
to make and remake our cities, and they fight for the use value of the urban spaces. In contrast
to private art spaces with entrance fees, Tacheles claims to be a free, open space in the middle of a
European capital enriching the public space with the diverse artistic endeavours. And they wish to
be open to all of society - the beggars, immigrant families and teenagers as well as the elite art
collectors and tourists. They say they fight for a deeper understanding of public space and a joyful
and independent approach to art (Unknown, 2011).
In conclusion, it is evident that squatting and squatted social and cultural centres as urban
social movements are active protagonists on many levels and dimensions in the claim for the right to
the city, such as claiming physical spaces, creating public spaces, setting up communities and opening
working spaces for artists, to name a few.
Cultural Squatting in Maastricht

17

4
Cultural Squatting in Maastricht a Case Study

This part of the research will examine the squatted cultural centres in Maastricht in the light of
Lefebvres right to the city. I will use the theoretical background that has been tackled in the previous
sections to explore the relationship between the city of Maastricht, its cultural environment and the
cultural squats.
Methodology

Methodology of this research followed a qualitative approach
17
in which I used two techniques
qualitative interviewing and participant observation. The total of 3 interviews were carried out in a
semi-structured manner. I asked questions such as What is the objective (goal, purpose) of the
cultural squats? (see Appendix A) yet predominantly I followed the lead of the interviewee. All
interviews took place in Maastricht and the participants were selected according to their
involvement and/or expertise in the field. I interviewed Pieter Calj, a professor in Maastricht
University, an inhabitant of Maastricht, who primarily contributed to the information about the
general cultural character of Maastricht. I also interviewed two squatters. Sndor Sink is the
founder and manager of the Kunstfront cultural squat, and a ceramics artist. Tim Bokern lives
currently in the Landbouwbelang cultural freezone and is involved in the organization of several
activities in the LBB. Participant observation is a form of research that represents the knowledge I
have collected while living in the city of Maastricht for the past 3 years as a student, and more
importantly being involved and in close contact with the Maastricht squatting scene, especially
with the Mandril cultural centre. I have visited many of their events, but also helped to organize
others, such as the WE festival. I have volunteered for working days to help to clean up the garden,
and Ive worked in the bar during bigger events. I have close contact with the people living in Mandril
and seen the inside perspective of the squatting life style. At the same time, I have also frequently
visiting the Landbouwbelang for many of its activities, such as the Student Workforce, concerts and
festivals. My contact with the Kunstfront cultural squat was established during the WE festival when I
approached them for organising some of the events (a ceramics workshop and a discussion on

17
Nevertheless, not all of the following section is based on the qualitative research, some
information about the city was retrieved from regular literary sources.

18

squatting) in their building. While I was able to use such experiences for the research, I also engaged
in additional activities, such as the Maastricht University Council meeting with the Cultural Alderman
of Maastricht, a public discussion over cultural exclusion in the city, co-organized a tour around the
squats of Maastricht for the WE festival, took part in squat meetings and so forth. The knowledge
and information that I collected through these methods allowed me to analyse the case of
Maastrichts cultural squats and place them into the discourse of the right to the city.
Maastricht and its Culture

Maastricht is a city of 120,000 inhabitants at the Southern corner of the Netherlands, in the province
of Limburg. By Dutch standards, it is one of the larger cities in the country. Maastricht has a very
colourful history having been a Roman fort city, and one of the earliest industrial cities in continental
Europe. However, due to deindustrialization, the citys economy started to suffer. Recently, the
Sphinx ceramics factory was closed at the North-Entrance leaving large areas derelict whilst on the
Southern side the ENCI cement factory awaits a similar future (Hlsgens & Ghys, 2010). So the
beginning of 21st century has brought a new era to the city. Peter Calj believes that due to the
global changes and the low-skilled-orientation of Maastricht, restructuring the economy was and is
inevitable. Confronted by an expected exodus of and a general trend for companies to move their
production sites to low-wage countries, Maastricht sees itself having to restructure its industrial
heritage towards a creative future (Hlsgens & Ghys, 2010, p.3). In 2003 Maastricht started to look in
the direction of reinforcing the relationship between economy and culture. In his interview, Pieter
Calj pointed out the key points that Maastricht is now relying on, or at least is trying to gear
towards, to make the most of its opportunities: knowledge industries
18
; tourism and shopping;
networking in the region; and lastly, the cultural and creative industries (Calj, 2012).
There are some examples that exemplify the cultural character of Maastricht and the recent
turn towards cultural economy. First, Tefaf is an annual internationally noted fine art and antiques
fair taking place each spring. A few hundred selected art dealers gather in Maastricht to showcase
their best pieces to the audiences of the art world (Tefaf, 2012). The entrance fee, however, costs
50. This gives a clear hint of what kind of event Tefaf wishes to be - a high class festivity for those
who appreciate high art. Furthermore, Maastricht is a city of charming cafs which give the city a
special character, yet they are also relatively expensive. Going out at official places often turns the
night into a quite an expensive endeavour, says Sndor Sink (2012). He also points out the Carnival

18
Maastricht very much strives for being a university city. Moreover it has chosen to focus on health
and biometric industries.

19

culture of Maastricht. Carnival is another annual festival which takes place every February over a
long weekend. It is an important event in the city life where preparation starts months beforehand to
get the necessary elaborate costumes and carts ready. Sink acknowledges the significance of this
event but highlights the fact that because of the established position of the Carnival, the city offers
initiatives that contribute public money to the festival compared to, for example, young artists
projects. These examples illustrate what Sink referred to as the bourgeoisie character of the city.
The official culture was and to a certain extent is still very limited. He pointed out that some years
ago it was difficult to find non-snob places as an artist. This, however, links back to the concerns
that Lefebvre and the others had about the homogenization of cities and urban space catering to a
specific kind of audience the middle class bourgeoisie, in this case. It would be probably too
farfetched to say that this is all what Maastricht has to offer, but from my point of view, oftentimes
this is the feeling that one gets about the accepted cultural scene of the city. Pieter Calj (2012)
illustrates this by saying that Maastricht wants to be, and to a great extent is, a city of glamour. The
non-glamorous initiatives are not welcome in the city centre and the anarchical parts are in danger of
being placed on the fringes.
Next to the already existing cultural scene of Maastricht, there are two specific examples that I
would like to highlight in the context of the new direction of cultural economy the Belvdre and
Maastrichts aspirations for becoming the European Capital of Culture 2018. To revitalize the North-
West Entrance area of Maastricht a master plan was developed in 2003 and it was called the
Belvdre, meaning beautiful view. By the following year, the three parties involved in the
development - the municipality of Maastricht and two private investors created an organization,
the Belvdre Wijkontwikkelingsmaatschappij, which was to take care of the project. The project
itself is ambitious and covers nearly 1/6 of the urban area of Maastricht. It is been referred as the last
chance for Maastricht to promote itself. While some of the plans for areas included in the project
were made and finished already at the end of last century, a lot of it is still on the paper. The
transformation of the Belvdre area, which in 2004 was planned to take up to 25 years, has suffered
some setbacks as the recent financial crisis has brought the project to a (temporary) stop (Keller,
2010). The private investors have withdrawn and, according to Calj, the major dreams to develop
the Belvdre have long vanished (2012). Nevertheless, the plan was to make the area into a high
class neighbourhood for living and for creative industries. Brian Keller phrased this as a process of
turning Maastricht into a utopian haven for the elite creative classes (2012, p.114). The
redevelopment is intended to draw in highly skilled members of the creative class to make
Maastricht more attractive, and to initiate an economic growth (Hlsgens & Ghys, 2010). Keller
(2010) places the project in the line of third generation gentrification where private investments are

20

mixed with state partnerships and which often focus on establishing, promoting, and maintaining
culturally innovative urban identities to fill the voids left by abandoned industrial buildings. He is
highly critical about the agenda of Belvdre because it conforms to the neo-liberal urban strategy
which grooms the creative city and the urban spaces. If left unchecked, it threatens to polarize
and fragment the heterogeneous class demography of Maastricht (p.117). Keller thinks that the
project strives for creating an upper-middle class urban environment that cannot deliver to the
needs of other inhabitants of the city. Yet Pieter Calj (2012) brings up another interesting point
due of the financial crisis and the pause in the redevelopment project, other forces can have an
opportunity to make their point, such as grassroots initiatives. Big money throws out little money.
But this is not the case at this moment he said.
The other important example is the citys plan to become the European Capital of Culture in
2018. Although the fate of Maastricht will not be decided until September 2013, the project is up
and running. The initial bidbook was presented in March 2012 and it laid emphasis on involving the
Euregio Meuse-Rhine to its candidacy. The main theme is Revising Europe which aims to promote
the forgotten section of the 25 year old Maastricht Treaty. The Maastricht Capital of Culture 2018
Foundation, or VIA2018, is in charge of the project (VIA2018, 2012). Pieter Calj (2012) however
looks at the critical side that it was launched top down. Nevertheless, the management of VIA2018
quickly realized that this approach will not work if they want to win the title, as they need the
support of the people. VIA2018 is now working on incorporating different groups to participate in the
making of the cultural capital. Calj gives the example of the organization visiting the neighbourhood
committees (himself being one of the neighbourhood heads) to spread the idea. Thus, there has
been a change in the project and they are now trying to work from the bottom up. Although the
previous European Capitals of Culture have raised concerns about the inclusiveness of the project in
terms of offering activities to the lower segments of the society, Maastricht might be able to prove
them wrong. In light of the commoditised bourgeois culture and neo-liberal urbanization that
characterise the city, this recent development is a ray of hope to those who felt alienated the youth
and the young artists (Sink, 2012). Calj adds that the real estate crisis and deindustrialization have
led to a great number of spaces being purposeless. This, together with the open attitude from the
Capital of Culture initiative lay a foundation for new and improved possibilities for the grassroots.
Nevertheless, I must emphasize that this inclusive attitude of VIA2018 is a very recent development
which has not had a significant impact yet, but only shows that new winds are blowing and that there
might be room for optimism for the future.
Another interesting recent development is the discussion about a pop podium in Maastricht.
Peter Calj said that the fact of Maastricht not having one is on top of the list of the citys

21

weaknesses. I participated recently in a student organized public debate, Stop het culturele
uitsluiting!
19
, which brought together the city officials, the students and the university
representatives to throw some light on the problems of the citys cultural environment and to ask for
more inclusive policies. It was acknowledged that the problem is important also for the municipality
and VIA2018. Yet some recent occurrences have led the students to state in a open letter to the
Alderman of Culture that throwing stones in the way of citizens who want to add to the cultural
offer by closing down more and more open spaces does not come across as an integrative approach.
We want to be considered as equal citizens that should have equal weight in the cultural community
(Aranyo et al, 2012). They refer to the single-dimensionality of culture in the city with which many
young people cannot relate. Moreover, they disapprove of the municipalitys actions against the few
places that have been able to contribute to the pop scene of Maastricht. For instance, Muziekgieterij,
a venue where many concerts take place was banned to host two of the most successful events, both
oriented to students and electro music, by the municipality, leaving these events and their audiences
hanging up in the air.

The right to the city is a concept that is concerned with the inclusiveness of urban spaces. As the
discussion on the cultural character of Maastricht showed, there are a number of weak points that
inhibit many from feeling included. Lefebvre would have called them culturally alienated. Sink
(2012) mentioned in the interview that the bourgeoisie are still prevalent in the culture of the city,
and there were no places that the young artists could use because they cannot afford them. Calj
also points out that students are not well enough integrated in the city and even the mayor had to
publicly admit that fact (Aranyo et al, 2012; Calj, 2012). Many students feel that the official culture
of Maastricht does not match their interests and ideas and at the same time, the most recent
developments show that there is a certain degree of opening up in the context of the Capital of
Culture with public debate about the student culture etc. I will now see what the position of the
squatted cultural centres is in this issue and context.

We started to do this because there was nothing in the city I liked. There were the
people but not the spaces. See other cities had these and we believed we can do it here
too. Tim Bokern about the Landbouwbelang (2012)

19
The English translation is Stop the cultural exclusion!

22

In the Netherlands, the term culturele vrijplaats
20
is often used to describe cultural squats.
Sndor Sink (2012) said that it is about providing a space for all segments of the society, the rich and
the poor. It is about not being involved in any kind of institutions that lay rules and limitations on the
space
21
. I have chosen 3 cultural squats of Maastricht the Landbouwbelang, the Mandril and the
Kunstfront
22
, all located at the industrial buildings within the Belvdre regeneration area to
discuss their take on the right to the city.
Landbouwbelang (LBB) is an abandoned grain mill on the West side of the River Maas just to
the North of the city centre. During the last 10 years it has been transformed into a residence, caf,
community centre and a very successful cultural centre
23
with more than 20.000 visitors annually.
LBB is a diverse space offering a variety of cultural activities for a range of audiences while trying to
keep its semi-professional status and non-for-profit attitude. It is established and well-known in the
cultural scene in and outside of Maastricht (Pires, 2010; Bokern, 2012). Compared to the LBB, the
Mandril
24
cultural foundation is a fairly new squat that started to function as an active space from the
autumn of 2011
25
. Organized by a group of university students who took the building over from the
previous squatters, the Mandril is an important actor serving the interests of the (international)
students who otherwise feel alienated in the student association culture of Maastricht. It organizes
weekly jam-sessions, art-sessions, movie screenings and occasional parties
26
. The Kunstfront is

20
The English translation is cultural freezone.
21
Here Sink referred to the Ainsi, another industrial building that was made into a cultural centre,
also used the name of culturele vrijplaats. But that was wrong, according to Sink. They were build
from the top down, and a lot of public money was put into this project. A culturele vrijplaats cannot
be an official institution because there is a different vibe there. As Ainsi was created with money on
no existing active attitude, the project has turned out to be a failure. The commercial idea collapsed.
While everybody is still talking about the LBB , nobody is talking about the Ainsi.
22
Due to reasons of convenience and simply because of having to make a choice, I have left out the
B32 (http://www.b32.org/), another active cultural squat , which organizes art exhibitions and other
modern art activities, but also film sceenings and such. I have also left out the Hotel De Ossekop for
similar reasons. Thirdly, there is a fairly recent active squat called the Landhuis, which also hosts
cultural activities but it mainly oriented at providing a community centre.
23
They host parties, dinners for vegetarians, work spaces for artist and design studios like the
Demotech, an interfacultary student organization Student Worksforce that deals with sustainability
topics, concerts, festivals etc.
24
The first squatters of the building found a pile of magazines classed Mandril on the attic.
25
While there were occasional events in the building beforehand, as from this time the Mandril was
registered as a cultural foundation and started to offer a more clear program of events.
26
The parties and jam-session are not taking place at this moment because of a recent letter from
the municipality and the Belvdre which threatened them with eviction in case such population
events continued.

23

representing a more art oriented non-residential organization that offers spaces for upcoming artists
for studios and organizes ceramics and other workshops to whoever wants to join but also
specifically to handicapped people. It was squatted about 6-7 years ago and is managed by artists
Sndor Sink
27
and his wife Diana Gambardella (Sink, 2012). (see Appendix C for the map)
Appropriation

In many ways these spaces have corresponded to the Lefebvrian idea of making the city into an
oeuvre. This implies that the city spaces are used for the wellbeing of the inhabitants and do not
serve a primarily economic function (Boer & Vries, 2009). The squatters have put some of the empty
industrial buildings into use for the benefit of the inhabitants of the city like themselves and others.
What used to be derelict buildings, voids in the urban fabric, are now popular gathering places.
Taking the effort to make the abandoned spaces usable again is in itself already a great contribution
to the city. Not only do they make sure that the buildings serve a good purpose, but it indirectly
contributes to the decrease in the price of real estate which is one of the core aims of squatting in
the first place (Bokern, 2012).
The cultural squats make use of the city by giving the space which they have taken from the
owners of the property back to the community said Tim Bokern (2012). LBB decided already from
the start that it was going to take cultural activities as its main purpose. As there are no restrictions,
artists and others can experiment with their ideas as much as they want. Some things start to work
and others do not. But for those initiatives which work, the LBB acts as a jumping board. This was the
place where they could do their first performances, when other venues were not accessible for
them. I see the Kunstfront in a similar position. Sink (2012) mentioned that some bands that had
rehearsal studios at the Kunstfront became successful over time and could then afford professional
studios.
Furthermore, cultural squats are a key point in the integration of students to the city life. This
is where the experiences are created asserted Calj. I propose that the Mandril cultural centre
serves as the best example in this case. The centre was one of the main hosts of the WE festival
28
, a
series of events over the course of the 6 days organized by and largely for the students. Taking place
for the third time, the festival brought together many young people who found their place in the city

27
http://www.sandorsinko.nl
28
www.we-festival.org

24

through these activities
29
. Being closely involved in the organization of the festival showed me how
such non-for-profit and community-strengthening activities can be very fulfilling for the participants
and the organizers. The festival was a clear case of a grassroots initiative that filled a gap that was in
the cultural environment of Maastricht. Additionally I would like to draw attention to the
aforementioned pop podium issue. In reference to the public debate organized under the name of
Stop het culturele uitsluiting!, the Mandril is an important actor in this matter. It has acted as an
unofficial pop podium for the past year with its Tuesday night jam-sessions and occasional parties.
Especially with the Muziekgieterij being prohibited to host certain events, the Mandril fills a gap in
the youth culture of Maastricht.
Participation

One of Lefebvre many wishes was the possibility for inhabitants to participate in the making of the
city. Although it would be probably too optimistic to say that this is the case between the squatters
and the municipality of Maastricht, I found that my interviewees often emphasized the change that is
now happening in the city of Maastricht. They were delighted to see the city management opening
up to the grassroots movements and non-middle-class inhabitants. Bokern and Sink (2012) both
believe that it has been partly due to their persistent efforts of the cultural squats of Maastricht,
which have shown positive results that could also benefit the city as a whole. The city is changing
now because this is what we have been fighting for, said Sink
30
.
Sndor Sink (2012) brought forth an example of the Groene Links political party organizing
an evening at the Kunstfront
31
for discussing the issues of the current economic crisis and how
different groups in the city see the city life and what is important for them. He was delighted by this
event happening and took it as proof that relations between the city management and the
Kunstfront as a part of the cultural squat in Maastricht were improving. Tim Bokern (2012) was also
very optimistic about the LBBs current position within the city. He said that the LBB never aimed to

29
I recall a girl from Poland, one of the co-organizers of the festival, talking at the last gathering
before the start of the events that before the beginning of the organization process she thought that
Maastricht was not a very exciting city. She did not feel welcome and even considered discontinuing
her studies there. But after getting involved with the festival she found a whole new perspective on
Maastricht that she enjoyed and felt comfortable with.
30
I would like to point out a discrepancy between the theory of Lefebvre and the case of Maastricht
in terms of the actions of the movement leading to a revolutionary social change or not. While
Lefebvre is a rather radical theorist who believes in a complete shift in the management of a city is
the solution to the problem of cities not being an oeuvre. It would be probably unacceptable for him
that the squatted cultural centres of Maastricht are having good relations with the municipality.
31
The discussion took place on the 30th of May, 2012.

25

protest per se. This is why they have been able to come close to the Gemeente
32
, the dialogue has
been going on for at least 5 years. Moreover, the city has gradually come to realize that the cultural
squats are valuable and it is not in the citys best interests to throw them out. The city government
is not rejecting the LBB anymore and would like to cooperate instead, because LBB and other cultural
squats are already doing what the city wants to do in the long run being a cultural hot spot.
Nevertheless, the cultural centres do not yet have a full voice in the matters of their own fate
and the development of Maastrichts cultural life but there is a definite move towards the first steps
of participation. The municipality has (somewhat) acknowledged their deeds as a value for the city
and this allows them to come closer to participating in the matters they are active in and interested
about in the field of culture.

I would like to wrap up this line of thought with a couple of quotes from my interviewees which
illustrate what the cultural squats can give to a city as a physical and, more importantly, a social
entity.
There is more than the economic value in the culture of the city. The cultural squats are
creating a different kind of value, an atmosphere, for the young people and the others. -
Peter Calj (2012)
Slowly these places [the cultural squats] together make an important statement for the
city and in the city. They add something to the urban environment. Without them the
city bleeds to death. - Sndor Sink (2012)
Public space

As a last thought I will shortly elaborate on the idea of public space in relation to these cultural
squats. I perceive the LBB, Mandril and the Kunstfront as public spaces but when looking back at the
definitions from the beginning of this piece and the kind of public space that Lefebvre addresses, it is
rather questionable whether my perception is worthy. Lefebvre talks about a city where all
differences are welcome and inhabitants are able to appropriate and participate to the same degree.
That is to say that in public spaces everything should be allowed and no differences should be
discriminated against. However, that is a rather utopian conception, an ideal, and should be thus
treated. It is most likely that in every real public space there are certain limitations, in contrast to
the ideal public space. The story of public space within the squatted cultural centres goes along

32
*The English translation is city municipality.

26

these lines despite the fact that it would not be able to live up to this ideal, it is nevertheless a form
of public space and can function as one in regards to contributing to the oeuvre of the city.
In the eyes of the people who manage the cultural squats, creating public space is one of
their main aims. They do not want to be a closed sub-culture that does its own thing but rather an
accessible, open and public platform of which everyone can be a part of. But at the same time they
realize that there are a certain set of rules that they have set themselves or which have evolved over
time which apply to this space despite the idealistic aspirations. Tim Bokern (2012) said that the LBB
cant let everything in, it has some principles and we dont have the energy to do everything.
Everything doesnt have to be here, we are just another one of such places. And that is true, it
would be rather utopian to make such a place absolutely and unconditionally open because that
would kill any kind of purpose and vibe. While LBB tries to be more inclusive by consciously
rejecting professionalization, there is a certain aspect that makes these spaces less accessible. For
instance, the cultural squats are a part of a sub-cultural scene which has its own principles and not
everybody can or will click with this group of people. Moreover, the cultural squats are also
residences and the inhabitants have to live their everyday lives in these places. However, having
acknowledged that there might be a certain bubble emerging around the LBB community, they have
decided to seek volunteers who they could let in and simultaneously learn about the walls that
have grown around this community. I think that is a rather sensible move. My last point to add is
that being all-inclusive is probably not the wisest option in the long run. Bokern (2012) illustrates this
by saying that as many other spaces have disappeared in the city, LBB is becoming an important
space for even a wider variety of people, not just the old community that respected the values and
implicit rules of LBB. He recalls the last party which was visited by taggers
33
and hard drugs which
was previously not be a problem, and is not welcomed. We are just one piece of the pie, and there
is a need for other kinds of spaces he said referring to the LBB not being able to cater for all people
and all tastes. They have simply created a space, a public space, for their piece of the pie.

33
People who use sptrycans of permanent markets to sign their name of another word on walls and
other surfaces. It is also associated with graffiti.
Final Thoughts

27

5
Final Thoughts

The right to the city is a compelling framework that brings together many different kinds of
ideas and criticism about urban spaces. It also gives a common strategy and focus for many social
movements. Urban social movements that are mentioned throughout the research make up just a
fraction of all the different possibilities for claiming the right to the city through collective actions. As
well as the various kinds of squatting, there are also movements like flash mobs that highjack
urban public space by gathering many people to do random acts like freezing, pillow fighting or
dancing. There is also street art (graffiti, sculptures, installations etc) which is a rather well known
urban practice that has its own way of appropriating the urban space making use of the physical
urban surfaces. Parcour or free running is the practice of moving around urban spaces in innovative
ways - jumping, sliding, climbing and rolling. Ian Bordon wrote a book about skateboarding as a
performative critique to the city. All these examples use the city as we know it in an innovative way
(Golani, 2011). It reminds us that the work of architect and planners, while commenting of space
through buildings and planned spaces, does not constitute urban space. Urban space is a continual
production, involving not just material objects, practices and representations, but also imaginations
and experiences of space (Golani, 2011, sl. 14).
In this research I picked one option of all the ways that the right to the city could be
targeted cultural squatting and showed how it tackles the problems of the contemporary cities
and public spaces as a move towards achieving this renewed right to urban life (Lefebvre, 1996,
p.158). The short answer to this question is that cultural squats claim their right to the city by
forcefully taking a piece of the urban space and making it function as an alternative public space
where the culturally alienated can feel at home. Instead of summarizing the whole path this research
took, I will make a short point of reflection. Throughout the paper I took the perspective of the
common urban inhabitants, whilst the interviewees were looking at these issues from an everyday
viewpoint, one which is closest to mine and therefore can be rather unbalanced. This viewpoint is
probably only one side of the multifaceted story. For example, it would be interesting to know the
opinion of the city officials, the municipality, regarding this topic (especially in terms of the cultural
character of Maastricht, and the reasons behind it). Thus, I would propose that for further research it
would be useful to extend the variety of perspectives, and also the number of people from the point
of view that was studied here, to get a more profound understanding of the topic. I will conclude
Final Thoughts

28

with a quote that emphasises why the right to the city is important to urban inhabitants. It delicately
illustrates the balance between the interactions and effects of the city and the urban environment on
those who live and exist within it.
The right to the city is the right to reshape it according to our collective heart desires,
and to remake the city in a difference image, knowing that in remaking the city we
remake ourselves. Therefore we cannot separate the question of what kind of city we
want to have from what kind of people we want to be (Golani, 2011, sl.18).

References

29

6
References

Amir, A. (2006). Collective culture and urban public space. Retrieved from
http://www.publicspace.org/es/texto-biblioteca/eng/b003-collective-culture-and-urban-
public-space on 12.05.12
Aranyo, A., Bnder, T., Bres, R., (2012) Open Letter to the Maastricht Alderman for Culture, Dhr.
Costongs. Maastricht.
Arendt, H. (1961). Between Past and Future. New York: The Viking Press
Boer, R.W.J. & Vries, J. de (2009). The Right to the City as a Tool for Urban Social Movements: The
Case of Barceloneta. The 4th International Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism
(IFoU). Amsterdam. pp. 1321-1330
Bokern, T. (2012) Interview by Johanna Rannula (Maastricht)
Brown, A. & Kristiansen, A. (2009). Urban Policies and the Right to the City: Rights, responsibilities
and citizenship. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0017/001780/178090e.pdf
on 20.05.12
Buchholz, T. (2009). To Use or Not to Use Urban Space. Retrieved from
http://rug.academia.edu/tinobuchholz/Papers/1447097/TO_USE_OR_NOT_USE_URBAN_SPAC
E on 11.05.12
Bruijn, R. de (2010). Claiming the Right to the City: Contesting Forced Evictions of Squatters in Cape
Town during the run-up to the 2010 FIFA World Cup (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Retrieved from
http://abahlali.org/files/Masters%20Thesis%20Rosalie%20de%20Bruijn.pdf on 23.05.12
Calj, P. (2012) Interview by Johanna Rannula (Maastricht)
Carr, S., M. Francis, Rivlin, L.G. & Stone, A.M. (1992). Public Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1993.
Connolly, K. (2012). Berlin artists' lock-in protest to halt developers. Retrieved from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/25/berlin-bohemian-artists-kunsthaus on
25.05.12
Fenster, T. (2005). The Right to the Gendered City: Different Formations of Belonging in Everyday Life.
Journal of Gender Studies. 14(3). pp. 217231
Golani, E. S. (2011). Public Space The Right to the City [PowerPoint slides]. Tokyo: Waseda
Univerity
References

30

Hlsgens, R., Ghys, T. (2010) Introduction . Old Buildings, New Ideas : A note on the Emerging
Creative Industries in Maastricht. Maastricht: Fasos. pp. 1-9
Hodkinson, S & Chatterton, P(2006) Autonomy in the city?. City: analysis of urban trends, culture,
theory, policy, action. 10(3). pp. 305-315
Hou, J. (eds.). (2010). Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary
Cities. Frances & Taylor: New York
Keller, B. (2010) Utopia and Dystopia: The Gentrification of the Belvdre area of Maastricht. Old
Buildings, New Ideas : A note on the Emerging Creative Industries in Maastricht. Maastricht:
Fasos. pp. 104-118
Lamarca, M. G. (2009). The right to the City: Reflections on Theory and Practice. Retrieved from
http://www.thepolisblog.org/2009/11/right-to-city-reflections-on-theory-and.html on
20.05.12
Lefebvre, H. (1996 [1967]) The Right to the City, in E. Kofman and E. Lebas (eds) Writings on Cities,
pp. 63184. London: Blackwell.
Leontidou, L. (2010). Urban Social Movements in Weak Civil Societies: The Right to the City and
Cosmopolitan Activism in Southern Europe. Urban Studies. 47( 6). pp. 1179-1203
LOW, S. (2006) The erosion of public space and the public realm: paranoia, surveillance and
privatization in New York City. City and Society. 18(1). pp. 43-49.
Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and Private Space of the City. London: Routledge
Marcuse, P. (2009). From critical urban theory to the right to the city. City. 13 (2-3). pp. 185-196
Martinez, M. A. (2011) The Squatters' Movement in Europe: A Durable Struggle for Social Autonomy
in Urban Politics. International RC21 conference 2011. Amsterdam. Retrieved from
http://www.miguelangelmartinez.net/IMG/pdf/2011_squatting_europe_Amsterdam_revised.
pdf on 11.05.12
McCann, E. J. (2002) Space, citizenship, and the right to the city: A brief overview. GeoJournal. 58. pp.
77-79
Melo, C. (2007). Squatting dystopia: Performative invasions of real and imagined spaces in
contemporary Brazil. (Doctoral dissertation). DAI-A 69/01
Melo, C. (2010). Performing sem-teto: the transversal tactics of artivismo and the squatters'
movement. Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies: Travesi. 19(1). P.1-21
Mitchell, D. (1995). The End of Public Space? People's Park, Definitions of the Public, and Democracy.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 85 (1). pp.108-133
Mitchell, D. (2003) The Right to the City. Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New York: The
Guilford Press
References

31

Novy, J. and Colomb, C. (2012), Struggling for the Right to the (Creative) City in Berlin and Hamburg:
New Urban Social Movements, New Spaces of Hope?. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01115.x
Patz, C. (2011) Okupacin [Motion Picture]. Retrieved from http://vimeo.com/26359795 on 23.05.12
Pickvance, C. (2003). From Urban Social Movements to Urban Movements: a Review and
Introduction to a Symposium on Urban Movements. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research. 27(1). pp.102-109
Pires, A. M. S. (2010) Creative squatting: The co-dependence of economics and culture in innovation:
A case study of Landbouwbelang. Old Buildings, New Ideas : A note on the Emerging Creative
Industries in Maastricht. Maastricht: Fasos. pp. 88-103
Plyushteva, A. (2009) The Right to the City and Struggles over Urban Citizenship: Exploring the Links.
Amsterdam Social Science. 1(3). pp. 81-97.
Pruijt, H. (2011). The Logic of Urban Squatting . International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research. (Unpublished). Retrieved from http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/25656/The%20logic%20
of%20urban%20squatting%20IJURRSAM.pdf on 24.05.12

Sink, S. (2012) Interview by Johanna Rannula (Maastricht)
Smith, N. (2003). Introduction. In Lefebvre, H. The Urban Revolution. Minnesota: The University of
Minnesota Press
Tefaf (2012) About. Retrieved from http://www.tefaf.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=18 on
01.06.12
The Strickland Distribution (2011) Right To The City: Glasgow. Retrieved
from http://rttc.strickdistro.org/ on 21.05.12
Unknown (2011) TACHELES / MANIFEST. Retrieved from http://tachelesmanifest.blogspot.nl/ on
30.05.12
VIA2018 (2012) Europe Revisited: Bid book Version 1. Retrieved from
http://www.via2018.eu/data/files/alg/id311/M-2018_MINI-KRANT_EN.pdf on 23.05.12
Zukin, S. (1987). Gentrification: Culture and Capital in the Urban Core. Annual Review of Sociology.
13. pp. 129-47
Zrah, M., Tawa Lama-Rewal, S., Dupont, V., Chaudhuri, B. (2011) Introduction: Right to the City and
Urban Citizenship in the Indian Context. Urban Policies and the Right to the City in India:
Rights, Responsibilities and Citizenship. New Dehli: UNESCO

Appendices

32

7
Appendices

Appendix A. Interview Questions

What would you call a squat where cultural activities take place?
What makes culture squats special among/different from other squats, and among other cultural
centres?

[overall objective] What is the objective (goal, purpose) of the cultural squats (CS) ?
How does this facility , the cultural squat, make it easier/better or more difficult to achieve
these goals? What role does the squat have in carrying out these goals? ... compared, for
example, to a legal building, platform, office space.
What is the role of culture and cultural activities in these goals?
How far do CS succeed in realising these goals?

[CS and political] Do CS have a political agenda? What is it?
What is the agenda of squatting? Is it a protest, or a solution to a need?
Do CS claim some kind of rights or social justice in their activities?
How does it relate to the globalization, democracy, private property, capitalism?
Why cans CS do what they do through legally (etc?) accepted practices?

[CS and the city] What is the CSs contribution to the city (life) / of Maastricht?
What kind of value do CSs create for the city, the inhabitants, the squatters/people involved
...? Do the people who organize CS see some problems or something missing in the rest of
the city?
How do CS see themselves in the city of Maastricht? What kind of actors are they?
Do squatters see themselves as people who want to or who actually do make a change in the
city?
Who are they doing this for?

How do CSs facilitate participation in and appropriation of urban space?
What kind of activities of CS participate in and appropriate urban life?
In your opinion, what is the role of CS in the use and production of urban space?

Do cultural squats create public space? Or private space? How are CS positioned in the citys
overall space in term of the private/public dichotomy?

Appendices

33

Appendix B. The Categories of Squatting.
An illustration by Miguel A. Martinez (2011).

Appendix C. The locations of the cultural squats in Maastricht.
Map by Tim Strasser (2012)
Cultural Freezone
Landbouwbelang
Biesenwal 3
Mandril Cultural
Foundation
Boschstraat 5
Het Kunstfront
Cabergerweg 45
Hotel de Ossekop
Boschstraat 1-3
Landhuis
Biesenwal 3
B32
Bourgognestraat 32

Bachelor Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bachelor Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Re-)Claiming Maastricht

Through Cultural Squatting

You might also like