IDW 2020

2 Paraphrazing Pascal Gielen, “Emancipating Cultures beyond Multiculturalism From Canonizing Cultural Institutions towards Commoning Art Constitutions”, Bilgi University Istanbul, February 28, 2019. https://ccqo.eu/2019/01/29/emancipating-cultures- beyond-multiculturalism-bilgi-university-istanbul-february-28/ 2 3 WHY DESIGNING COMMONS? Commons can be defined as “cultural and natu- ral resources that members of a community can use and manage themselves.” 3 Our way of living together and the places we inhabit are chal- lenged by fast changes such as multiculturalism, hyper diversity, migration, growing population density, poverty, ageing of the population, changing forms of living, climate change. In such times of fast transitions, new resources may become available, new cultural encounters might pop up. IDW aims to explore the concept of commons for their capacity to offer alterna- tive vistas on how we can live together - com- mons as a place, commons as a device, com- mons a set of principles, commons as cultural performance… Commons as urban tactics One can think of the workshops as an act of tac- tical urbanism, instigating networks for change and increasing the organisational capacity of the civil society in appropriating government plans. From an urban perspective, IDW2020 will tackle the gap between a hyper-diverse social housing neighbourhood (Luchtbal) and a lower white middle class borough (Lambrechts- hoeken - Merksem). Today those neighbour- hoods lack ‘common’ public space and are not really interested in being connected with each other in the future. Tutors and students will de- sign and build prototypes that aim at stimulating the development of future commons by the res- idents of the two boroughs: construction-site fences, landscapes, benches, gardens, tempo- rary food stands, market, playgrounds etc. Commons as product, service or device Commons as shared use, shared experienc- es, shared goals, sharing economy. Common ‘goods’ of knowledge, which – thanks to new technologies – will reach those that never visit databases and libraries. Can the building of the cap be an occasion for commonly sharing and recycling (natural) resources: extraction, distri- bution, maintenance, profitability, etc. Digital commons in a universe of things (thingiverse). How can shared infrastructure contribute to communal feeling? Can temporary physical bar- riers such as construction site fences become a playful multifunctional device – mood walls, connecting communities rather than sepa- rating them? Can infrastructure be mobile, so that it can be enjoyed by many, bridging social differences? Does the building period contain potentials for service-designs that connects communities and cultures? Can construc- tion sites talk to inform passers-by about the progress and make the building site a common experience? What if the cap would become a soundscape rather than a landscape? Can game design help to discuss concepts for the cap and for the public space and fences during the con- struction period? Commons as interior The interior condition characterized by acts of appropriation, inhabitation and belonging and by features such as privacy, enclosure and protection can play a meaningful role in this ambition. Urban interiorism as a collective and site-specific form of social space production, in- ward-looking spaces designed to foster human interaction. This may include the transforma- tion of non-places into user-fit public interiors by creating urban living rooms; the scaling to human proportions of the vastness of the late-modern city by drawing pronounced edges and creating inhabitable places; the hacking of the public space by the temporal installations for collective use. Commons as heritage Urban heritage shapes the character of a place and the identity of people living in it. When people collectively share the same values, heritage generates social cohesion and shapes its communities, who share responsibilities towards its use and preservation and have the right to benefit from it. In urban context, mul- tiple communities attribute different values to heritage, generating complex social dynamics and potential conflicts. Heritage as a common resource becomes the playground for produc- tive dissent, negotiation and interdependency – a melting-pot of multiple perspectives, creating opportunities for tolerance, peace and celebra- tion of diversity as richness. Johan De Walsche curator 3 Bollier David (2014)Think like a Commoner. A Short Introduction to the life of the Commons, Gabriola Island; De Cauter Lieven (2013), Common Places: Preliminary Notes on the (Spatial) Commons, https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/common-places- preliminary-notes-on-the-spatial-commons “Traditionally, art institutions and cultural infrastructures such as theatres, museums and libraries were built to support the values of the nation-state. Such institutions had the task, among other things, to simulate a uniform language and a monoculture for a population within a geopolitical space. From the 1970s onwards there has been strong crit- icism on this model […]. A solution is then sought in a more multicultural approach where multiple cultures must be represented equally. How- ever, multiculturalism is based on an identity policy that takes harmony and consensus too easily for grant- ed. Other models are to be sought. Instead of smoothing out dissent and suppressing tensions, can’t we make them visible and ‘liveable’. It makes no sense to assume equality between cultures, when there is an urgent need to focus on the ‘lesser’ in a society, on those who are not yet represented and do not have a voice independent of their cultural back- ground, gender or social class. Such model does not focus on identities, but on the democratic free keeping and releasing of common neces- sary sources, such as education, language, culture, but also labour, health care and housing. Such re- sources are the subject of continuous struggle and discussion.” 2 Such solutions are yet to be designed! Opportunity Capping of the ring road and fractures of society: design and build for the meantime The capping of the heavily congested ring road in Antwerp will bridge gaps between areas and communities that have been separated for decades. For some communities this new piece of infrastructure is seen as an asset for new opportunities, whilst elsewhere communities are not really interested and even afraid of being connected with each other. Moreover, the long construction period of the new infrastructure risks to increase separation of the involved communities, rather than bringing them closer to each other. Can the cap of the ring become a new common? And for whom? Can temporary commons provide solutions for overcoming the decrease of interaction during the time of construction? Can the construction period be an occasion for intensifying communica- tion between communities? The city administration wants to involve all inhabitants of these neighbourhoods in the definition of a program, and solutions for the meantime. International Design Workshop Week (IDW) aims to lever this process. IDW2020 immerses itself in such an affect- ed area by occupying empty buildings in the area Luchtbal and Lambrechtshoeken . 17 groups of 17 students and their workshop leaders will work, lecture, discuss, eat and drink, and design new commons, either as drawn or built con- cepts, implemented product-services, or as tactical interventions. As a real living lab tutors and students will also have the occasion of working together with residents of all ages and all origins. Why design workshops? We believe that making design ideas more tangible during fun events, design sessions and building campaigns not only involves/engages residents that usually don’t attend participation events. It also increases the awareness of the residents of the issues at stake and the chanc- es for solutions for their community needs. We believe that design is able to trigger parties, to provoke interaction between actors that have not been identified before, and to inspire for solutions that have not yet been thought of.