Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
59
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
Reclaiming public spaces: Radical alternatives
to the exclusionary project of rightsizing
policies
Luisa Rossini
ICS – University of Lisbon, Portugal
luisa.rossini@ics.ulisboa.pt
Under the growing pressure of financial markets, the shrinking of public resources and
services have been justified by discourses on inefficiency or redundancy in cities adhering to
a dominant growth paradigm in urban development and planning, within the framework of
austerity policies. Related rightsizing policies are then identifiable as forms of smart shrinkage
and can be described as exclusionary projects in a context of increasing social polarisation.
In response to these developments, groups of inhabitants have begun employing reclaiming
strategies for the co-/self-management of public spaces and services, countering the
conversion of common, collective, and state forms of property rights into exclusive private
property rights. While these initiatives may, on one hand, be driven by the mainstream rhetoric
of the citizen entrepreneurship, social market and “Big Society,” which often align with
neoliberal frameworks emphasising privatization and individual responsibility, on the other
hand, these forms of “subsidiarity with the state” emerged from a counter rhetoric rooted in
solidarity, social sustainability and urban justice. This counter rhetoric advocates for collective,
community-driven approaches challenging the logic of privatisation and for more equitable and
sustainable planning models. Building on these reflections, the article seeks to analyse a
paradigmatic case of resistance against privatization through the creation of a radical
alternative social project for the self-management of public spaces and service delivery. By
examining the compelling case of the illegal occupations and subsequent legalisations of the
former hospital Bethanien in Berlin, the article explores how this experience of self-
management demonstrated effective alternatives to the reduction of public spaces through the
implementation of bottom-up practices aligned with the principles of degrowth.
Keywords: grassroot urbanism, public space privatization, smart shrinking, austerity, urban
degrowth, Berlin
Copyright: author. Protected under CC BY 4.0. ISSN 2468-0648.
Please cite as: Rossini, L. (2024). Reclaiming public spaces: Radical alternatives to the exclusionary project
of rightsizing policies. plaNext – Next Generation Planning, 14, 59–82. https://doi.org/10.24306/plnxt/99
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
60
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
Introduction
This article analyses the illegal occupation and later legalisation of the South wing of the
Bethanien complex in Berlin. It explores how organised citizens proposed and implemented
alternative strategies for the co-/self-management of public spaces and services, thereby
challenging the logic of privatisation. It argues that grassroots resistance to rightsizing and
privatisation—exemplified by the emblematic Bethanien case—represents a radical
alternative to growth-centric planning paradigms. Drawing on concepts such as distributed
agency, “horizontal subsidiarity” and degrowth, the article points to the ways in which
community-led practices can contribute to more equitable and sustainable models of urban
planning.
The analysed case study represents a case of contested public space where urban memory,
planning provisions, and socio-political claims collide, over the conversion of common
properties into exclusive private assets. It also illustrates how the discourse of smart shrinkage
has been strategically employed to legitimize the privatization of public infrastructures as part
of broader growth-oriented urban strategies. The analysis highlights how the same, apparently
redundant public asset—the Bethanien complex in Berlin—was treated in two distinct ways in
local urban policy debates at different historical moments, reflecting shifts in the dominant
economic paradigms before and after the fall of the Berlin Wall. In 1970, a demolition plan was
proposed for the Bethanien hospital, justified by population loss and outmigration linked to the
construction of the Berlin Wall (Bader & Bialluch, 2009). However, due to strong local
resistance against the destruction of an historical building, the complex was preserved and
eventually transformed into a public asset. By the early 2000s, the same Bethanien complex
was once again at the centre of urban policy debates—this time shaped by strategies aimed
at managing urban decline within a broader context of neoliberal urban development and
austerity measures (Aalbers & Bernt, 2018). In the case of Berlin, while the 1970s were
marked by substantial public investment, the 2000s brought a markedly different scenario,
characterized by public disinvestment, the progressive privatization of public assets and
services, and a concerted effort to attract private capital flows. Local decision-making has
been significantly shaped, since the 2000s on, by budgetary adjustments imposed by the
national government, largely in response to the city’s high levels of debt—an outcome partly
attributable to costly urban development projects of the 1990s designed to attract national and
international capital (Marcuse, 1998). Within this neoliberal framework, underutilized or
neglected public properties (Bontje, 2004) were increasingly reframed as opportunities for
capital accumulation. These strategies typically involve the relocation, reduction or
privatization of public and social services, along with the privatization of the spaces where
these services are situated. This was particularly true in areas like Kreuzberg East—where
the case is situated—which were targeted for actual or potential gentrification.
Andrej Holm’s work (2011, 2013, 2014) provides a crucial foundation for understanding how
the privatization of public housing and land in Berlin has facilitated the mainstreaming of
gentrification as an urban development strategy. He traces this shift to broader changes in
planning paradigms, property regimes, and post-reunification economic restructuring.
Particularly after the city’s financial crisis in the early 2000s, policy decisions enabled the large-
scale sell-off of municipal housing stock, reducing affordability and opening space for
speculative investment. In neighbourhoods like Prenzlauer Berg, Kreuzberg, and Neukölln,
these dynamics intensified displacement pressures and reconfigured urban space.
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
61
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
Against this backdrop, the resistance to the privatization of the Bethanien complex becomes
a key case for understanding how these urban conflicts unfold in a wider political economy of
urban transformation, where privatizations, smart shrinking and gentrification are no longer an
exception, but a strategic orientation embedded in neoliberal urban governance. Additionally,
the analysis of the radical actions (including squatting, occupation, organized protest and self-
management) resisting rightsizing policies and its side-effects, offers a comparative political
economy perspective while integrating a social production framework (Lefebvre, 1991; Soja,
1980). Furthermore, the conflict-driven citizenship in the analysed case, through its
experimentation and implementation of diverse forms of radical participation (De Nardis &
Antonazzo, 2017; Kusiak, 2024), highlights the constructive and planning potential that
participation can embody (Rossini & Bianchi, 2019).
Sheila Foster (2006) argues that through networks of trust, community engagement, and
shared resource management social capital fosters urban commons that help revitalize
distressed and undervalued neighbourhoods, generating and realizing value in urban
contexts. Ongoing experiments in self-organisation and empowerment—such as the insurgent
grassroots practices illustrated in the case study—challenge “profit-based urbanisation” by
advancing alternative, radically democratic, and sustainable forms of urbanism (Brenner et al.,
2012, p. 177). Grounded in the notion of a “city for people, not for profit,” these forms of social
innovation can act as catalysts for transformative urban development. They confront
entrenched institutional practices and open up spaces for grassroots initiatives to thrive
(Moulaert et al., 2007). Within this framework, the concept of distributed agency (Healey,
2022) becomes essential to understanding how such processes unfold and gain relevance in
the realms of community planning and local governance. This perspective foregrounds a
decentralised view of agency—emphasising how it is dispersed across multiple networks and
actors, each playing a role in shaping collective decision-making. The analysis of concrete
cases of successful grassroots practices and experimentation with alternative governance
approaches to resist and oppose privatization processes can help challenge traditional top-
down planning by advocating for more inclusive and collaborative governance models.
By examining grassroots alternative solutions grounded in forms of “horizontal subsidiarity”
between informal and formal actors, this article explores how such models of socio-economic
governance can resonate with degrowth principles—rethinking cities to move away from
endless growth and toward a more sustainable, equitable, and well-being-focused approach.
These initiatives challenge the growth bias embedded in planning by demonstrating that
“shrinking cities could do better with reduced resources” (Aalbers & Bernt, 2018, p. 2). In this
light, Kraker et al. (2024) pose the question of whether shrinking cities might serve as testing
grounds for the practical application of degrowth’s radical sustainability principles. Responding
to this, Hermans et al. (2024) offer an optimistic perspective, suggesting that degrowth-
oriented planning practices can be conceptualized as experimental approaches. Such
practices aim to harness the conditions of urban shrinkage to foster social and ecological well-
being through collaborative learning and innovation.
At the same time, Demaria et al. (2013) argue that dominant growth-driven rationales in urban
planning often fail to engage with the pressing social, economic, and ecological limits
communities face (see also Bailey et al., 2010; North, 2010). Lehtinen (2018) reinforces this
critique by linking degrowth to the promotion of autonomy, relocalisation, and a dismantling of
economic dependencies (Latouche, 2010; Kallis et al., 2015). Importantly, urban movements
opposing austerity and rightsizing policies reveal the multi-scalar nature of these struggles,
highlighting how local territories are embedded in and shaped by global capital flows. This
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
62
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
raises broader questions about the need to challenge the mainstream economy itself as a
driver of both urban shrinkage and socio-spatial exclusion (Aalbers & Bernt, 2018).
After this introduction, Section 2 situates the case within broader debates on how neoliberal
restructuring influences rightsizing policies and resistance to them. Section 3 examines the
national and local contexts that have enabled or justified such strategies, particularly in relation
to austerity and the privatisation of public goods. Section 4 outlines the methodology adopted
for the empirical analysis. Section 5 presents the case study, focusing on how organised
resistance to privatisation projects in Berlin has articulated bottom-up alternatives. Finally, the
conclusion reflects on the transformative potential of these initiatives and discusses their
relevance for rethinking planning policies through the lens of degrowth and sustainability.
Right sizing exclusionary project and the emergence of forms of resistance
Trust, Rightsizing, and Privatization
As David Harvey (2012) argues in Rebel Cities, contemporary urban spaces are increasingly
shaped by conflicts rooted in dispossession and exclusionary dynamics. The commodification
of collective resources pits global capital interests against the social needs of local
communities, resulting in the privatization of public assets, the displacement of low-income
residents, and growing socio-spatial inequalities. In the wake of the global financial crisis and
overlapping systemic shocks, these tensions have exposed the reciprocal relationship
between planning and crisis (Ponzini, 2016), further fuelling public distrust and disillusionment
with institutional planning frameworks.
This sense of exclusion is reinforced by the persistence of rigid, non-negotiable master
narratives—such as austerity urbanism, smart shrinking, and growth-centric planning—that
continue to dominate urban agendas. As a result, urban development strategies are
increasingly perceived as bureaucratic, disconnected from community needs, and aligned with
powerful interests. Discretionary planning practices often bypass democratic mechanisms,
consolidating elite-driven priorities and side-lining grassroots demands (Swain & Tait, 2007;
Kwok et al., 2018; Swyngedouw et al., 2002). These exclusionary dynamics become
particularly evident in the policy framework of “rightsizing,” which exemplifies how growth-
centric and austerity-driven narratives are operationalized in urban governance under the
guise of pragmatic planning.
Initially framed as a pragmatic solution to population loss and disinvestment, rightsizing has
often reinforced the neoliberal logic of austerity and privatization. Narratives of actual or
anticipated urban decline are commonly linked to economic stagnation, state deregulation,
and the erosion of socio-economic governance (Brenner & Theodore, 2002; Harvey, 2001;
Peck & Tickell, 2002). Aalbers and Bernt (2018) argue that, while rightsizing policies are seen
by some as pragmatic, they frequently deepen socio-economic inequalities, marginalizing low-
income and minority groups. Rooted in neoliberal urbanisation, these policies typically focus
on downsizing infrastructure, privatizing public spaces, and repurposing land, prioritising
profit-driven objectives. Haase et al. (2014) discuss how urban shrinkage and austerity
programs can create critical moments in the governance of contemporary cities. They argue
that shrinkage is not merely a demographic or economic issue but also a governance
challenge. Their findings underscore how urban shrinkage, under conditions of austerity,
reveals structural tensions and can intensify poverty and governance pressures. Ferreira et
al. (2024) investigates how pro-growth urban policies—specifically those linked to real estate
speculation—can paradoxically induce urban shrinkage, using the city of Coimbra, Portugal,
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
63
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
as a case study. Contrary to dominant theories that view urban shrinkage as a consequence
of insufficient economic growth, the authors argue that urban decline in Coimbra is driven by
policies aimed at promoting growth through real estate investment. The commodification of
housing, incentivized by national and EU fiscal policies, results in soaring housing prices,
displacing younger and vulnerable residents to peripheral areas. This phenomenon is
described as a form of induced smart shrinking, in which the state and local authorities benefit
from rising property values—through taxes and fees—while disregarding the social fallout.
In many cities, including Berlin (Holm, 2011, 2013, 2014), rightsizing policies have provided
new spatial fixes for capital investment (Aalbers & Bernt, 2018) and are frequently framed as
an exclusionary strategy (Bernt, 2009; Rhodes & Russo, 2013). These programmes often
target public properties and services, leading to forms of alienation that disproportionately
impact low-income and ethnic-minority neighbourhoods (Aalbers, 2014; Brandes Gratz 1989;
Wallace and Wallace 1998). This can further justify dynamics that are defined by Harvey
(2004) as “accumulation by dispossession,” where public resources and spaces are
commodified and privatized. As cities restructure to attract investment and enhance
competitiveness, public spaces are transformed into commodified assets, accessible only to
those who can afford them (Smith, 1996). Furthermore, the prioritisation of flagship projects,
such as waterfront developments and cultural landmarks, channels public resources into
spaces designed for tourists and investors, while neglecting the everyday needs of local
communities (Colomb, 2017).
This process further marginalizes vulnerable populations, diminishing public spaces as sites
of democratic engagement and collective ownership. Patterns of “planned shrinkage,”
including budget cuts and service reductions, disproportionately harm low-income
neighbourhoods, exacerbating inequalities (Wallace & Wallace, 1998). Additionally, “classical
strategies” aimed at attracting businesses and middle-class residents often divert resources
from supporting liveability and social welfare, further destabilizing vulnerable populations
(Bernt et al., 2014; Pallagst et al., 2017). In the U.S., rightsizing has been criticized for fostering
“shrinkage machines” that prioritise market reconfiguration over social equity, enabling
predatory capital accumulation (Hackworth, 2015). By contrast, European cities, supported by
centralised funding structures, tend to experience less severe impacts compared to U.S. cities
reliant on local property taxes (Aalbers & Bernt, 2018). Yet, in both U.S. and European cases,
rightsizing policies are marked by their role in reshaping markets, consolidating services in
dense areas while neglecting less profitable ones. This dynamic underscore the inherently
exclusionary nature of such policies, which frequently result in gentrification and displacement.
Insights from the analysis of Berlin’s “interim spaces” by Colomb (2017) provide an additional
layer to understanding rightsizing policies. Temporary uses of vacant urban spaces, initially
framed as innovative and community-oriented solutions to address underutilized land
(SenStadt, 2007), often become co-opted by market-driven logics. The trajectory of these
spaces highlights tensions between grassroots initiatives and their incorporation into formal
urban policies, where temporary uses are exploited to enhance the marketability of areas
targeted for redevelopment (Colomb, 2012). This dynamic exemplifies how rightsizing can
serve as a prelude to gentrification, with interim uses and forms of transition urbanism acting
as tools to attract investment while marginalizing original users and communities (Mould,
2014).
Yet, in contexts where institutions have failed to adequately plan the future of decommissioned
spaces, entire districts, or even economic sectors, bottom-up initiatives have often assumed
a crucial role in reclaiming and repurposing abandoned areas. These experiences illustrate
the capacity of informal actors to realize collective projects, responding to a growing demand
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
64
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
for participation. These “voids,” precisely because they are “not fixed to a single interpretation
or intention,” have the potential to become genuinely public spaces, where conflicting interests
are continuously negotiated and no definitive resolution is ever reached (Borret, 2009).
Sheridan (2007) defines indeterminate territories as “any area, space, or building where the
city’s normal forces of control have not shaped how we perceive, use, and occupy them” (p.
98). This understanding points to a perception of “freedom of opportunity” in indeterminate
spaces, where the low degree of institutional determination does not limit—but instead
enhances—the potential embedded in the vacant site (de Solà-Morales, 1995). If we consider
these indeterminate urban areas as places where multiple interests and desires are
negotiated, we begin to see how power relations—shaped by political, economic, and social
dynamics—play a fundamental role in determining whose visions, needs, and claims prevail.
This section helps to convey that rightsizing is not merely a reaction to decline, but often a
strategic tool for neoliberal restructuring. It highlights how austerity and market logic are
embedded in urban policy under the guise of efficiency, while actually facilitating exclusion,
displacement, and spatial inequality. Furthermore, the concept of indeterminate urban spaces
offers a critical lens through which to examine the contradictions of smart shrinking that can
act as pretexts for future exclusion. Bottom-up initiatives in urban voids reveal the capacity of
informal actors to produce collective value outside institutional frameworks. However, as these
spaces are increasingly instrumentalized in market-driven redevelopment strategies, their
original social function is marginalized. This tension highlights how smart shrinking policies
risk co-opting grassroots energy while reinforcing exclusionary dynamics, ultimately
subordinating spatial indeterminacy to capital-driven urban renewal agendas.
Grassroots Creativity, City marketing and the “Big Society” discourse
Colomb (2012) highlights how temporary uses of space in Berlin during the 2000s became a
focal point for understanding the intersections between grassroots creativity, city marketing,
and neoliberal urbanism. Initially arising from bottom-up initiatives to reclaim underutilized
spaces, these practices were later absorbed into the “creative city” discourse, which reframed
temporary uses as strategic tools for urban branding and economic development. For
instance, the integration of these practices into city marketing campaigns allowed Berlin to
position itself as a hub of innovation and creativity, while simultaneously paving the way for
the displacement of the very communities and activities that initially made these spaces
vibrant. Novy and Colomb (2013) explore how urban social movements in these two German
cities have responded to the rise of neoliberal urban policies, particularly those that promote
the “creative city” agenda. By critically examining how these policies, often framed as fostering
cultural vibrancy and innovation, contributed to processes of gentrification, displacement, and
the commodification of urban space, they highlight the ways in which local residents, activists,
and grassroots organizations have mobilized to contest these developments, reclaim urban
spaces, and articulate alternative visions for city life.
Mayer (2013) further highlights how neoliberal urbanism has absorbed activist principles into
its agenda. Public-private partnerships and entrepreneurial governance frameworks co-opt
these principles, offering a veneer of inclusivity while continuing to prioritise the interests of
elites. Forms of solidarity and resistance have often been incorporated into market-driven
frameworks. The Big Society
1
discourse, for example, reframed collective action and voluntary
1
The Big Society was a socio-political concept for a redefinition of the relationship between citizens and the state.
Prominent during the first 15 years of the 21st century, it was developed by the populist strategist Steve Hilton. It
aimed to merge free market economics with a conservative paternalist vision of the social contract, drawing
inspiration from the civic conservatism of David Willetts in the 1990s. The concept significantly shaped the 2010
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
65
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
efforts as substitutes for state-provided services within the context of austerity (LSE Politics
and Policy, 2011). This approach is based on the premise that the “big state” has not been
effective and is economically unsustainable and sought to redefine governance by
decentralising power and encouraging civic engagement. The intention behind it is to move
from a culture where people look to officials and government to solve their problems, to a
culture where people solve the problems they face themselves aided by government.
By promoting local entrepreneurialism and citizen-led initiatives as gap-fillers for shrinking
public budgets, this discourse masked the withdrawal of state responsibilities and framed
community action within a neoliberal logic. Such co-optation often redirects grassroots energy
in implementing local-based solutions, based on sustainability and solidarity into a tool for
cost-cutting rather than a pathway to systemic change. Ultimately, these trends can serve to
further justify rightsizing policies since these practices are not immune to absorption into the
very frameworks they oppose.
Performing de-growth and “the right to the city” through the defence of the commons
As mentioned before, “urban social movements” (Castells, 1983) arise from these tensions,
embodying the “right to the city” as a demand for agency over urbanisation processes (Harvey,
2012). These movements resist the commodification of urban spaces, advocating for the
reclamation of the urban “commons” (Ostrom, 1990), where governance and resources are
managed collectively rather than through market-driven or neoliberal frameworks (Brenner et
al., 2012; Harvey, 2012). In this context, interest in the commons—as mechanisms that
address responsible resource appropriation while fostering autonomous management and
democratic decision-making—has grown significantly in recent years and has taken on new
political significance, as highlighted by Di Feliciantonio (2017), contributing to a more radical
and progressive understanding of governance mechanisms.
At the heart of these movements lies Lefebvre’s (1991) concept of the “right to the city,” which
calls for a fundamental shift in urban governance to serve the collective needs of residents
rather than capitalist interests. It emphasizes limiting commodification in favor of democratic
urbanism based on use-value. According to Purcell (2002), this right comprises two core
elements: participation—direct involvement in urban decision-making—and appropriation—
the ability for residents to shape and transform urban spaces to meet their collective needs.
These movements have proven to seek to reorient urban planning away from growth impulses
and toward sustainable practices that emphasise social equity, ecological balance, and
community-driven agency. In order to propose viable solutions for the “right to the city” and
the commons, the grassroots practices described in this article align with the principles of
degrowth movements and reclaim forms of horizontal subsidiarity with the state.
The concept of "degrowth" emerged as a critique of the unsustainable and unequal
consequences of economic growth. Gaining prominence in the early 21st century, degrowth
has evolved into both a theoretical framework and a grassroots movement focused on
UK Conservative Party general election manifesto and informed the legislative agenda of the Conservative–Liberal
Democrat coalition government. Its stated objectives included: Empowering communities through localism and
devolution; Promoting active participation in community life (volunteerism); Shifting authority from central
government to local authorities; Supporting cooperatives, mutuals, charities, and social enterprises; Increasing
government transparency by publishing data. https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/download-big-
society-look-97a.pdf
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
66
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
ecological and social sustainability (Latouche, 2009; Demaria et al., 2013).
2
It promotes
deeper democracy, grassroots action, and equitable wealth redistribution. Among practical
applications of degrowth we can mention “distributed agency” as a practical expression of
degrowth, particularly through feminist perspectives that redefine agency as emerging from
interdependent care relationships that define and fulfil fundamental human needs across time
and space, as discussed by Alves de Matos (2024).
As we will see, the concept of horizontal subsidiarity offers a concrete institutional pathway for
operationalizing degrowth-oriented urban governance counteracting the spread of
privatization linked to rightsizing policies. Horizontal subsidiarity is either explicitly codified or
implicitly embedded in the governance principles of many European nations. The concept
supports the role of civil society and private actors in addressing societal needs, often framed
within broader themes of decentralisation, community empowerment, and public-private
collaboration. While horizontal subsidiarity is not explicitly mentioned, its principles are
indirectly supported by the German model of governance in several ways: the commitment to
being a “social federal State” suggests a focus on decentralisation, citizen participation, and
support for collective social responsibility; while not specified in Article 20,
3
Germany’s social
market economy (Soziale Marktwirtschaft) and welfare system incorporate subsidiarity
principles, fostering cooperation between State and non-State actors (e.g., civil society
organisations, cooperatives, and private institutions) in delivering public services; the principle
of subsidiarity in Germany is operationalized through its welfare system (e.g., partnerships
with non-governmental organisations, churches, and social institutions), reflecting horizontal
subsidiarity in action.
To name another European country, the concept of “subsidiarity” is explicitly mentioned in
Article 118 of the Italian Constitution—introduced during the constitutional reform of 2001. The
article generally highlights the principle of vertical subsidiarity, while the concept of horizontal
subsidiarity is explicitly addressed in its second part: "The State, regions, metropolitan cities,
provinces, and municipalities shall promote the autonomous initiatives of citizens, individually
or in association, to carry out activities of general interest, on the basis of the principle of
subsidiarity.”
This clause embodies horizontal subsidiarity by emphasising the role of individuals,
communities, and private entities in supporting the public interest, often in collaboration with
public authorities. It establishes that public authorities should support and collaborate with
individuals and civil society groups to enable them to engage in activities that serve the public
interest.
As Liu (2020) notes, such actions can gradually become normalized practices facilitated by
formal institutions (Haase et al., 2012; Murtagh, 2016). These initiatives bypass conventional
plan-making and effectively address urgent needs. They reveal opportunity spaces that
challenge the logic of path dependency (Garud & Karnøe 2001; Grillitsch & Sotarauta 2018).
Yet, when negotiating bottom-up visions within stakeholder dynamics, it is essential to
2
Degrowth draws from diverse intellectual streams, including ecological economics, critiques of development,
justice, democracy, bioeconomics, and the quest for well-being beyond material consumption. Among the
foundational works, Serge Latouche's (2009) Farewell to Growth critiques the growth imperative inherent in
capitalist economies and advocates for degrowth as a necessary shift toward sustainability and equity. Similarly,
Schneider et al. (2010) explore the theoretical underpinnings of degrowth and its potential to address ecological
and social crises. Kallis (2011) further advances the discussion by addressing criticisms of the concept and
explores its capacity to promote well-being within ecological limits.
3
The concept of horizontal subsidiarity is present in the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany
(Grundgesetz), Article 20.
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
67
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
consider that agency can be included or excluded through narratives, visions, and agendas,
and these dynamics can shift with local conditions (Liu, 2020). A shift toward governance
approaches that integrate distributed agency (Healey, 2007) and social imagination in
strategy-making is then the key redefining power dynamics (Albrechts 2004; Alexander 2000).
Berlin between crisis and smart shrinking dynamics
During the 1990s, largely as a result of the East Germany annexation process, Germany
experienced massive privatizations. These were framed within a political discourse
emphasising the need to reduce the surplus of public properties inherited from the former
socialist German Democratic Republic (GDR). This process also aimed to attract foreign
companies to invest in the newly privatized entities, thereby fostering the internationalization
of the economy (Marcuse, 1998; Häussermann & Strom, 1994; Häussermann, 2003).
Simultaneously, Berlin faced significant economic challenges. The collapse of the city's
industrial base—due to the closure of most factories and the cessation of state subsidies that
had sustained West Berlin for decades—led to the loss of productive activities in both the
eastern and western parts of the city. This, combined with heavy investment in infrastructures,
pushed Berlin's finances to a breaking point. However, the spending spree of the 1990s came
to an abrupt halt in 2001 due to a large-scale banking scandal involving significant portions of
Berlin’s political class. The near-bankruptcy of Berlin in 2001 forced the City-State of Berlin
(Land) to implement severe cuts in public expenditure in an attempt to address its mounting
debt. Yet, the debt grew from 80 billion DM, approximately 35 billion euros in 2001 (Hooper,
2001) to approximately 60 billion euros by 2010 (Colomb, 2012).
Under the combined pressures of the federal government, in the 2000s, a second phase of
financial restructuring began, the Berlin government launched an unprecedented programme
of divestments and privatizations (Calandindes & Grésillon, 2021). This included the sale of
housing, gas, electricity, and other assets. Among these measures, the most consequential
was the massive sell-off of social housing, urban land, and public companies to private real
estate companies and international investment funds, a decision that would have lasting
impacts on the city’s urban fabric (Colomb, 2012; Holm, 2011, 2013, 2014). Public assets were
systematically listed and classified into pools to serve as collateral for third-party investments.
Concurrently, new laws were introduced to reform the local taxation system on public
properties. These reforms involved implementing a new property tax and revaluing cadastral
values, putting pressure on local administrations to privatize a wide array of public assets
(e.g., the Kalkulatorische Kosten law introduced in Germany in 2005—see page 14).
Furthermore, increasing cuts in public funding, driven by neoliberal restructuring programmes,
exacerbated the challenges municipalities faced in maintaining public services. Consequently,
privatization of public tasks and entities often became the only perceived viable solution for
local governments struggling with mounting financial pressures.
According to the interviewee KFBA 1 (politician from the Green Party and part of the
Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg Borough Administration since 2001), after reunification, Berlin was
a city with very low rents, a lot of empty spaces and many buildings owned by the State, the
Senate of Berlin or the city districts:
Many were not in use anymore or not needed, like many schools because of the decrease in birth
rates. On the other hand, Berlin was—and in part still is—a very poor city, and the city
administration had accumulated many debts. That’s why the policies in Berlin, after 1989, were
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
68
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
designed to try to gain a better economic situation, for instance, selling public properties.
4
However, as the large-scale privatization of public spaces reduced access to public resources,
grassroots movements emerged, challenging these policies and reviving the debate on the
'right to the city' (Colomb, 2012, 2017; Rossini, 2017; Rossini et al., 2018; Rossini & Bianchi,
2019; see also Kusiak, 2024, on the Deutsche Wohnen & Co. enteignen referendum).
Furthermore, since the 1970s, numerous bottom-up initiatives have emerged in Berlin, with
urban social movements reclaiming spaces through organized action.
Methodology
Berlin has been selected for this research analysis because it has experienced both urban
shrinking dynamics and the application of smart shrinking discourse to urban development
strategies. Moreover, it is relevant to mention the special status of Germany’s federal system
that grants significant independence to the Länder (regions / states). In Berlin case, this
independence is further reflected in the governance of its boroughs. Berlin’s boroughs are
managed by Borough Councils (Bezirksamt), which enjoy a high degree of independence from
the city government due Berlin’s unique status as a city-state since 1990. Because Berlin is a
“unified community,” district offices are not dependent on local government functions but
practice. The Borough Council oversees district administration and decides the district's
budget, although this budget requires approval from the House of Representatives. Berlins
executive body is the Senate of Berlin. Furthermore, in 2004, the city approved the District
Administration Act (§ 44-47 – BzVwG), which allows for local referendums (Burgerbegehren)
to address conflicts related to local policies and development plans.
This research was conducted between 2013 and 2023 using a qualitative interpretative
methodology, including participant observations, interviews, and discourse analysis of media
sources and legislation (including “A new concept for Bethanien” document). The latter is a
comprehensive document that compiles ideas and concepts generated during workshops and
meetings organized by the Initiative for Future Bethanien group. It outlines concepts
developed for the South wing of Bethanien, intended to serve as foundational principles for
the property’s future development. The analysis of the case study discussed in this paper
refers to Chapter 4 of the aforementioned document (“A new concept for Bethanien”), which
details the administration of Bethanien, including models of self-government, residents’ forum,
and sponsorship structures.
I was hosted at the New Yorck im Bethanien housing project (an alternative housing strategy
for collective living) for two weeks and participated in assemblies and activities in its “public
space” over several months. The final interviews for this research were conducted in 2023.
For the Berlin case study, the following interviews were conducted: four semi-structured
interviews with tenants/activists from the New Yorck im Bethanien project (NYB 1, 2, 3, 4) and
informal interviews with residents of the house project; informal interviews with individuals
involved in the Initiative for Future Bethanien project; one semi-structured interview with a key
actor from the “Bethanien for all” campaign (Bfa 1); one semi-structured interview with a
politician from the Kreuzberg-Friedrichshain Borough Administration (KFBA 1, Green Party);
two semi-structured interviews with activists/scholars engaged in action research on housing
movements in Berlin in 2013 (Andrej Holm and Armin Kuhn); annual conversation with one of
the founders, tenants, and activists involved in the New Yorck im Bethanien project.
4
For population data on Berlin since the 1990s, see Statista: https://www.statista.com/statistics/505892/berlin-
population/
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
69
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
The Bethanien: The history of a public space and grassroots resistance to its
privatization
The Bethanien complex is located in East Kreuzberg and is surrounded by a large green public
square known as MariannenpIatz (Figure 1). Despite its geographical centrality within the city,
East Kreuzberg was considered marginal during the Cold War due to its position: “Kreuzberg
SO 36 became a pocket extending into the East, bounded on three sides by the Berlin Wall»
(Bader, Bialluch, 2005, 93). During the Cold War, the area’s buildings decayed and its
marginality made it home to precarious workers, seasonal Turkish workers, radical political
activists, students, unemployed people and artists. This unique demographic contributed to
the definition of the so-called Kreuzberg Mischung (Kreuzberg mix), a term that describes both
Kreuzberg’s diverse social fabric and the peculiar mix of commercial and residential activities
(Rada, 1997). Additionally, this mix fostered the development of politically and socially
alternative and resistant milieus in the area (Störve, 2012).
In particular, as a consequence of the construction of the Berlin Wall, the city experienced a
steadily decline in its German population (Miller, 1993). To counteract this trend (Pugh, 2014),
the Federal Republic of Germany implemented a continuous stream of subsidies for West
Berlin, which remained in place until 1994. These aids were intended to lower business taxes
(Störve, 2012) and cover relocation expenses for West Germans willing to move to West
Berlin. By the time of reunification, approximately 300.000 foreigners were living in West
Berlin, including 128.000 Turkish immigrants (Störve., 2012).
After the construction of the Wall, the need to expand public housing stock was addressed
through the implementation of the policy known as “clear-cut renovations” (Kahlschlag or
Flächensanierung). However, this approach “only exacerbated an existing housing crisis
through rampant speculation and local corruption” (Vasudevan, 2011, 290). Designed to
address “future middle class” with higher rents, this policy for constructing subsidized housing
led to a housing shortage and contributed to the emergence of a resistant and conflict-driven
community in the area (Berger, 1987). Among the groups formed in response was the Berlin
Squatters’ Movement (Holm & Kuhn, 2011; Vasudevan, 2011, 2014, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c).
Today’s, the district, now central to the new geography of the city, has become focal point for
Berlin’s urban marketing strategies. “Visit Berlin” promotional website noted in 2014:
“Kreuzberg is Berlin's most interesting and fascinating district, where to experience urban
buzz, vibrancy and diversity at every turn”. Consequently, the district has undergone
significant gentrification and touristification, alongside major urban regeneration projects,
including mega-projects along the river Spree. These developments have intensified pressure
on the privatization of public estates, exacerbating displacement and sparking new local
conflicts. The story of Bethanien is closely tied to Kreuzberg’s history and the urban conflicts
mentioned above.
Bethanien was established as Deaconess Hospital in the years 1845 and 1847. In 1963,
following the construction of the Wall in 1961, which separated East and West Berlin, the first
Urban Renewal programme for the Kottbusser Tor area, including Mariannenplatz where the
Bethanien complex is located, was initiated. The division of the city caused a dramatic drop in
the number of patients and nuns coming from the eastern part, leading to the insolvency of
the hospital. In 1968, the city administration planned closing the hospital and implementing
large-scale demolition and redevelopment of the area to create public housing stock. However,
in 1969, demolition was halted due to the “Struggle for Bethanien” (Kampf um Bethanien), a
protest campaign organised by community groups and preservationists. The campaign
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
70
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
included strategic site occupations (Figure 2). As a result of these efforts, in 1970, the
Bethanien complex was transferred to city ownership. The management of the building was
entrusted to several local non-profit organisations engaged in cultural and artistic activities, as
well as providing community services.
Just a year after, the student movement, advocating for alternative cultural spaces and
collective housing (Hausprojekt), illegally occupied the dormitory formerly used by the nurses-
nuns (Figure 1). They established a students’ housing project named after Georg von Rauch,
a young anarchist killed in a police shootout just days prior. This squat was officially
regularized as a “youth hostel” just one year later. In 1974, the South wing of the Bethanien
complex was repurposed as a community service space, accommodating a big job centre, a
nursery, a kindergarten, a public gym, among other services (Figure 1).
The situation remained stable until 2002, when the district of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg
planned to sell the Bethanien complex to a private investor. Existing institutions were forced
to vacate the building to make way for the planned “International Cultural incubator”
(Internationale Kulturelle Griinderzentrum). In 2005, the Senator of Finance, Thilo Sarrazin,
introduced the Kalkulatorische Kosten law, which required local governments to bear
significant “indirect” costs associated with public property under their jurisdiction.
When I started my political experience in the parliament of the Friedrichshain-kreuzberg city
district in 2001 the issue of the Bethanien was representing the symbol of the shift from
indifference to concern about the sale of public assets. The district parliament considered the
privatization as the only possible solution due to a very complex financial issue: a financial cost
Figure 2. 1975’s newspaper cover:
“Bethanien is occupied”. Source: Dem
Volke dienen 5.2.1975, 4 Jahrgang, Nr.3
Figure 1. Map of Mariannenplatz and the
reappropriation of the Bethanien space that took
place between 1970 and 1975. Source: created by
the author
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
71
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
voice called Kalkulatorische Kosten that were invented to make public properties too expensive
particularly if the properties are underutilized or vacant. (KFBA 1)
The job centre, which had been active for 30 years, was closed, and the three floors of the
South wing were vacated. In the preceding years, other public services, important for the
community, were also shut down, including the Turkish-German library and the seniors’
meeting space in 2004, while the kindergarten and music school faced threats of relocation.
This series of closures and threats fuelled widespread discontent, as displaced or endangered
public services were vital resource for many neighbours. Once the local administration’s
privatization plan became public, protests began to take shape. According to one of the
neighbours (Bfa 1):
The preconditions for the spreading of discontent among the neighbours, particularly within the
Turkish community, was that the German-Turkish library had been removed from the complex.
Some considered it to be an important place for the neighbourhood, because it was a place of
encounter for people from different cultures.
Many neighbours attempted to gain access to these vacant spaces by proposing activities and
projects to the district, such as workshops and workspaces, but all of these proposals were
either rejected or ignored, with officials claiming that no spaces were available at all” (Bfa 1).
For residents and citizens, the proposed privatization of the complex was seen as a
consequence of mismanagement and the lack of a programmatic “new concept” for the
Bethanien complex:
The district administration failed for years to develop a coherent and cost-recovery concept for
the use of Bethanien. By mid-2005, after years of district administration, the situation was marked
by vacancy, the absence of a general concept, deferred rehabilitation, and an unclear financial
framework. (From “A New Concept for Future Bethanien” document)
Due to forecasts predicting changes in the neighbourhood’s social fabric, local authorities
considered relocating all facilities not explicitly connected to art and culture out of the complex.
This implicitly supported the slow but progressive gentrification of the area, attracting middle
and creative classes more interested in cultural and artistic activities. It is worth noting that, by
the time of the planned project, the Mariannenplatz area including the Bethanien complex,
was part of the Quartiersmanagement project. This shows that the anticipated gentrification
process was planned in an area that was, in fact, part of a project identifying zones in Berlin
significantly affected by social degradation and high levels of social disadvantage—classified
as “areas with special development needs” (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. The Mariannenplats Quartiersmanagement (red area); the Bethanien complex area (red
dashed line). Source: Quartiersmanagement / detailed localisations created by the author
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
72
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
The privatization plan proposed by the Borough Council was not well understood by the
citizens, who feared both the relocation of essential services away from the area and the
unintended consequence of contributing to the displacement of the local population. On June
11, 2004, as a form of protest, the three vacant floors of the Bethanien South wing were
occupied by former tenants of the historic Hausprojekt Yorckstrasse 59, just days after their
violent eviction (Figure 4). In response, neighbours and community groups decided to join the
forces with the squatters to launch the Bethanien fr alle (“Bethanien for all”) campaign.
At the beginning we were more focused on finding a new place to start a negotiation. Then some
neighbours came in the next days and told us about the story of the privatization. So, we joined
our forces and started the struggle for Bethanien. (NYB 1)
Figure 4. Photos of the Bethanien complex during the occupation: main entrance, squatting action
banner, and tags on the South wing. Source: photos provided by the New Yorck im Bethanien tenants
Figure 5. Franz Schulz (centre left in the photo) and Kristian Ströbele (to his right) at the press
conference organised in the recently squatted Bethanien South wing. Source: photos provided by the
New Yorck im Bethanien tenants
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
73
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
The day after the squatting action took place, the squatters organised a press conference,
inviting newspapers and local politicians (Figure 5) who attended the event: “For us, it meant
that they were supporting us” (NYB 1).
The entire neighbourhood quickly became aware of the action:
This resulted in a large gathering of neighbours who supported the occupation because it meant
that the doors had been opened and they finally had access to these spaces. So, the two things
came together—the local community campaign and the action of the squatters. (Bfa 1)
Soon after the occupation of the vacant premise, the campaign Bethanien für alle was
established through the merging of interests and political actions:
We invented the campaign together with the neighbours after we took over the space. Some
individuals had the intention of building a campaign against the privatization, but at that time, it
was a very small group, mainly including people directly affected by the privatization, such as
those working in activities located in the South wing, like the kindergarten, which would have to
move if the property was sold. The issue became known by the public opinion after the
newspapers got involved and real protests mobilisation began. (NYB 2)
The campaign Initiative Zukunft Bethanien (IZB – Initiative for the future Bethanien)
successfully collected 14.000 signatures, enough to launch a citizens’ initiative for a local
referendum (Bürgerbegehren) to halt the privatization of Bethanien. The group began to meet
in the squatted South wing to develop alternative proposals for the building’s future public use,
which they aimed to negotiate with the local authorities. In 2006, the Borough Council of
Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg decided not to call the referendum. Instead, the council initiated
negotiations with the group involved in the campaign Bethanien für alle, including the squatters
(Figure 6).
Figure 6. Photos from Bethanien’s St. Thomas Church, where discussions were held with groups
involved in the Bethanien für alle campaign and the squat. Source: photos provided by the New Yorck
im Bethanien tenants
As a result of the collaborative effort of various individuals involved in the framework of the
IZB’s activities, to individuate alternatives to the privatization, the “A new concept for
Bethanien. On the way to a cultural, artistic, political, and social centre from below” was
published as a printed book in 2006 (Figure 7).
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
74
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
Figure 7. “A new concept for Bethanien. On the way to a cultural, artistic, political, and social center
from below”. Book created by the groups active in the IZB (Initiative for Future Bethanien) in 2006.
Source: document provided by the New Yorck im Bethanien tenants
The Initiative Zukunft Bethanien (IZB) is a free association of diverse individuals and initiatives
from Kreuzberg and beyond. Our goal is to prevent the privatization of Bethanien as an
"International Cultural Incubator" and instead, with the participation of all current users, to create
a cultural, artistic, political, and social center from the bottom up, especially with the involvement
of local residents. In this context, we are also working on issues related to the future of Bethanien,
such as the privatization of the city, the loss of public space, changes in the social structure and
Hartz IV, migration and racism, cultural policy, etc. (extract from the book).
It also included an analysis of the costs and management challenges that needed to be
addressed with the Kreuzberg-Friedrichshain Borough Administration, demonstrating the
feasibility of the project. Thanks to the citizens’ ideas and proposals detailed in the document,
an agreement was reached after three years of negotiations over the alternative plan
developed by active participants involved in the process.
The critical issue to address was primarily the excessive costs of management. On closer
examination, the system of imputed costs (Kalkulatorischen Kosten) was revealed to be
opaque, a problem that became particularly evident in the Bethanien case. Due to the costs
imposed by the Berlin Senate on public property management, districts are subjected to
inaccurate assessments that produce the controversial outcome of renting private land being
cheaper than using publicly owned buildings for public purposes. This results in a systematic
and engineered push towards the privatization of public estates.
Since 2006, districts have been required to calculate the management costs of public
properties (which are managed by the districts in Berlin) to include a “fictitious return on
capital”, known as “imputed costs”, for approval by the Berlin Senate. The Friedrichshain-
Kreuzberg Borough Administration presented an unsustainably high-cost estimate for
managing the Bethanien complex. In the case of Bethanien's main building, its market value
was assessed at € 2.6 million, while its acquisition value was estimated at € 32 million. Due to
the Kalkulatorische Kosten, the Borough had to pay capital interest on this value. Until that
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
75
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
point, the actual costs (bar 1 on Figure 8) for managing and maintaining the building had been
less than € 500.000 annually. Private sector management (bar 2), including a return on capital,
would spend less than 600.000 euro per year. However, because of Kalkulatorisch Kosten
law, the Borough (bar 3) was required to spend approximately 1,4 million euro annually.
Figure 8. Impact of the privatization bill based on Bethanien’s main building. Source: “A new concept
for Bethanien” document, 2006
The citizens’ working on the economic issue, including some economists, identified a method
to avoid the “indirect costs” associated with property management. This approach
demonstrated that a self-financed project for the self-management of the Bethanien could be
feasible. By establishing a third-party entity to manage the property on behalf of the public
administration, Bethanien could be transformed into a “cost-free” property, effectively
addressing the main justification for privatization. In the section 4.3 (“Ownership Model”) of the
document “A new concept for Bethanien”, the IZB proposed managing the South wing through
a non-profit association:
It would support, on the one hand, professionally handling the finance issues, management of
revenues, balance, and proper expenditures and, on the other hand, the implementation of
renewal, maintenance, conservation, and modernization measures”. (Bfa 1)
An administrative higher organisational structure would be required to define the management
framework for Bethanien’s South wing, similar to what is needed when signing a lease
agreement. This would ensure that the new management model can be supported both by the
skills of the users working in Bethanien’s South wing and by the participation of the tenants
and users.
The negotiation with the borough concluded with the approval of the project proposed by the
active citizens, facilitated by the implementation of a zero-cost management model, which
relieved the public administration of nearly all the management costs for the property:
The Bethanien occupation and the beginning of the campaign against its privatization coincided
with an institutional discussion about the legitimacy to keep selling so many public properties.
While the debate emerged few years later on the Media Spree urban conflict, focused more on
urban planning, participation, and on the critic to the city policies which are dictated by private
investors, the Bethanien discussion was rather a discussion about how we want to manage public
estate. (KFBA 1)
In 2009, the not-for-profit Society for Urban Development, Trustee of Berlin (GSE GmbH),
became the owner and managing body of the building lifting the administration of the “indirect”
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
76
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
costs imposed on public properties. That same year, the not-for-profit association Sdflgel
e.V. (Bethanien South wing) was established, comprising all the entities that autonomously
manage the South wing (New Yorck “public space”, the theatre, the nursery, the kindergarten,
the school of alternative medicine, the artists’ workshops). The Sdflgel e.V. entered into a
15-years lease agreement with the Society for Urban Development (GSE), officially taking
over the management of the South wing. The agreement requires Sdflgel e.V. to cover the
maintenance expenses for the building, ensure compliance with current regulations, and pay
a quite affordable rent to GSE. In a recent interview to one of the tenants (2023), they
expressed confidence that the contract will be renovated for other 15 years after its expiration
in 2024, particularly given the district government’s ongoing support for their project.
The Sdflgel e.V. brings together various entities under its legal framework, including the
Kreuzberg North children’s daycare group, the Healer School, the Association of Theatre
Alliance Druzhba e.V., the New Yorck Emancipatory Space project, and three feminist
bureaus. The theatre, children’s and medical schools, ateliers and workspaces are attended
by a diverse group of individuals, mostly from the neighbourhood. The New Yorck project
includes a Hausprojekt housing approximately 30 residents from various countries,
occasionally including children. During the period of participant observation, tenants originated
from Germany, Italy, Spain and Cameroon. Some residents are temporary, while others are
permanent tenants. The rent is fixed at a rate significantly lower than current market prices in
the area. Additionally, the New Yorck space includes a “public space” that is attended by
people of various nationalities involved in local political groups, such as anti-gentrification or
pro-refugee rights groups. The space also organises an Anarchist info-cafè and a borderless
kitchen event called People’s Kitchen, which provides free meals for many people every week.
Last but not least, the space offers an anarchist library with a great collection of books.
Since spring 2008, a group of local residents established a neighbourhood garden in a corner
of the public green area surrounding the Bethanien complex. Following discussions about the
transformation of the Bethanien park’s free areas, the district council allocated 2.100 square
meters of green space behind the Bethanien North wing to this group. This led to the formation
of a garden association cooperating with the district office.
Conclusions
Since the 1990s, Berlin’s urban agenda has been shaped by competition-driven and
gentrification-friendly strategies, reinforced by austerity rhetoric legitimizing privatization. This
case study demonstrates how resistance to privatization can reveal alternative pathways for
managing the shrinking of public spaces and services—challenging the idea that such
measures are inevitable, and instead exposing them as political choices rooted in dominant
narratives of efficiency and fiscal sustainability.
The tensions between grassroots actors and formal institutions highlight the complexities of
integrating bottom-up demands into urban policy. While reclaiming public spaces fosters
radical approaches to degrowth, community-led governance, and self-management, these
efforts are not immune to co-optation. Informal actors engaging in co-production risk becoming
instruments of cost-efficiency rather than agents of systemic transformation. Yet, this case
shows how grassroots initiatives can successfully contest dominant power structures by
operationalizing horizontal subsidiarity, where community-driven management replaces the
logic of privatization with forms of collective care and responsibility.
Importantly, the Bethanien case illustrates how the radical appropriation of symbolic public
space can prompt the re-politicization of urban land use and ownership. By securing legal
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
77
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
recognition and public property assignment through an intermediary cooperative (GSE),
citizen collectives were able to implement a form of self-management that not only reduced
public spending but also expanded access to community-based activities—housing, cultural
production, education, and political organizing. In this way, the initiative avoided the sale of
public property while offering the municipality a fair and functional governance model.
Such re-appropriated spaces have demonstrated in recent years a programmatic and
proactive capacity to generate “Public Policies from the Bottom”. These include microcredit
systems, educational programs, circular economy initiatives, housing and gender policies,
immigration support, and architectural heritage regeneration. Their effectiveness is especially
pronounced in contexts where local governments face fiscal austerity and shrinking welfare
capacity. In these cases, bottom-up practices offer viable alternatives to the privatization of
public spaces and the dismantling of public services.
Rather than relying on rapid economic growth, these initiatives propose governance models
rooted in solidarity, social justice, and sustainability. They counter speculative urban agendas
by offering low-cost, community-centered alternatives that serve both local needs and fiscal
logic. While some practices risk being absorbed by neoliberal discourses like the “Big Society”
or social entrepreneurship, the Bethanien case shows how cooperative, democratic
management of public assets can become a structural and enduring strategy, not merely a
reactive or symbolic one.
Urban development strategies are always shaped by contingency, socio-material interaction,
and distributed agency. In this light, grassroots movements defending the right to the city and
the urban commons offer a compelling framework for rethinking planning priorities beyond
growth imperatives. They illustrate how degrowth-oriented strategies, grounded in forms of
subsidiarity between formal and informal actors, can foster autonomy, reduce structural
dependencies, and open space for inclusive, sustainable, and transformative public policy
innovation. Recognizing and formalizing these forms of co- and self-management may thus
represent a crucial step toward developing just, democratic, and economically sound
alternatives to privatization in cities facing crisis and austerity.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the editors, two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments, which
helped to improve the first version of this article. I would also like to thank all the activists and
informants who generously contributed to this research. I hope this analysis will positively
contribute to their own reflections and struggles. I’d like to thank specifically the activists
involved in Bethanien for the daily work done for the support of the local struggles and of their
community and the constant experimentation and implementation of strategies of sustainable
city co-production and community creation and for the time they gave for the interviews that I
conducted on the field. A particular thanks goes to Azozomox.
Funding
Funding for this research has been provided by the Fundaço para a Ciência e Tecnologia
(Luisa Rossini’s individual grant CEECIND/04070/2018).
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
78
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
References
Aalbers, M. B. (2014). Do maps make geography? Part 1: Redlining, planned shrinkage and
the places of decline. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies,
13(4), 525–556. https://doi.org/10.14288/acme.v13i4.1036
Aalbers, M.B., & Bernt, M. (2018). The political economy of managing decline and
rightsizing. Urban Geography, 40(2), 165–173.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2018.1524654
Albrechts, L. (2004). Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined. Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design, 31(5), 743–758. https://doi.org/10.1068/b3065
Alexander, E. R. (2000). Rationality revisited: Planning paradigms in a post-postmodernist
perspective. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(3), 242–256.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0001900303
Alves de Matos, P. (2024). Distributed agency: Care, human needs, and distributive
struggles in Portugal. Critique of Anthropology, 44(1), 82–96.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X231207732
Bader, I., & Bialluch, M. (2009). Gentrification and the creative class in Berlin-Kreuzberg. In
L. Porter & K. Shaw (Eds.), Whose Urban Renaissance? An International
Comparison of Urban Regeneration Strategies (pp. 93–102). London: Routledge.
Bailey, I., Hopkins, R., & Wilson, G. (2010). Some things odd, some things new: The spatial
representations and politics of change of the peak oil relocalisation movement.
Geoforum, 41(4), 595–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.08.007
Berger, J. (1987). Kreuzberger Wanderbuch: Wege ins widerborstige Berlin. 2nd ed. Berlin:
Goebel.
Bernt, M. (2009). Partnerships for demolition: The governance of urban renewal in East
Germany’s shrinking cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,
33(3), 754–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00856.x
Bernt, M., Haase, A., Großmann, K., Cocks, M., Couch, C., Cortese, C., & Krzysztofik, R.
(2014). How does(n't) urban shrinkage get onto the agenda? Experiences from
Leipzig, Liverpool, Genoa and Bytom. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 38(5), 1743–1761. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12101
Bontje, M. (2004). Facing the challenge of shrinking cities in East Germany: The case of
Leipzig. GeoJournal, 61(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-004-0843-7
Borret, K. (1999), “The Void as a productive concept for urban public space”, in Ghent Urban
Studies Team (Eds.) The Urban Condition: Space, Community and the Self in the
Contemporary Metropolis (pp. 236–251), Rotterdam.
Brandes Gratz, R. (1989). The Living City. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and the Geographies of “actually Existing
Neoliberalism”. Antipode, 34(3), 349-379. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00246
Brenner, N., Marcuse, P., & Mayer, M. (2012). Cities for people not for profit. London:
Routledge.
Calandides, A., & Grésillon, B. (2021). The ambiguities of “sustainable” Berlin. Sustainability,
13, 1666. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041666
Castells, M. (1983). The city and the grassroots: a cross-cultural theory of urban social
movements. London: Edward Arnold.
Colomb, C. (2012). Pushing the urban frontier: Temporary uses of space, city marketing, and
the creative city discourse in 2000s Berlin. Journal of Urban Affairs, 30(2), 131–152.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2012.00607.x
Colomb, C. (2017). The trajectory of Berlin's 'interim spaces': Tensions and conflicts in the
mobilisation of 'temporary uses' of urban space in local economic development. In J.
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
79
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
Henneberry (Ed.), Transience and permanence in urban development (pp. 131–149).
Hershey, PA: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119055662.ch9
Demaria, F., Schneider, F., Sekulova, F., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2013). What is degrowth?
From an activist slogan to a social movement. Environmental Values, 22(2), 191–
215. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327113X13581561725194
De Nardis, F., & Antonazzo, L. (2017). Some theoretical insights on social movements and
resistance practices in the era of de-politicization of representative politics. Società
Mutamento Politica, 8(15), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.13128/SMP-20852
De Solà-Morales, I. (1995). Terrain vague. In Cynthia C. Davidson (Ed.), Any place
(pp. 118–123). Cambridge: MIT press.
Di Feliciantonio, C. (2017). Spaces of the expelled as spaces of the urban commons?
Analyzing the re-emergence of squatting initiatives in Rome. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 41(5), 708–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-
2427.12513
Ferreira, A., von Schönfeld, K. C., Augis, F., & Conceição, P. (2024). Shrinking cities for
economic growth? Insights from the housing sector. Urban Planning, 9, Article 7721.
https://doi.org/10.17645/up.7721
Foster, S. (2006). The city as an ecological space: Social capital and urban land use. Notre
Dame Law Review, 82(527), 527–582.
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol82/iss2/1
Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (Eds.) (2001). Path Dependence and Creation. Mahwah, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grillitsch, M., & Sotarauta, M. (2018). Regional growth paths: From structure to agency and
back. Papers in Innovation Studies, 1, 1–23.
Haase, A., Hospers, G.-J., Pekelsma, S., & Rink, D. (2012). Shrinking areas: Front-runners
in innovative citizen participation. The Hague: European Urban Knowledge Network.
Haase, A., Rink, D., Grossmann, K., Bernt, M., & Mykhnenko, V. (2014). Conceptualizing
urban shrinkage. Environment and Planning A, 46(7), 1519–1534.
https://doi.org/10.1068/a46269
Hackworth, J. (2014). The limits to market-based strategies for addressing land
abandonment in shrinking American cities. Progress in Planning, 90, 1–37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2013.03.004
Hackworth, J. (2015). Right-sizing as spatial austerity in the American Rust Belt.
Environment and Planning A, 47(4), 766–782. https://doi.org/10.1068/a140327p
Harvey, D. (2001). The art of rent: globalization and the commodification of culture. In
Harvey, D. (Ed.), Spaces of Capital (pp. 394–411). London and New York:
Routledge.
Harvey, D. (2004). The 'new' imperialism: Accumulation by dispossession. Socialist Register,
40, 63–87.
Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. New York,
NY: Verso.
Häussermann, H. (2003). Berlin. In W. Salet, A. Thornley and A. Kreukels (Eds.),
Metropolitan governance and spatial planning. London: Routledge.
Hussermann, H., & Strom, E. (1994). Berlin: The once and future capital. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 18(2), 336–346.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.1994.tb00269.x
Healey, P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for
our times. London: Routledge.
Healey, P. (2022). ‘Localism’ and the varied practices of community activism. Town &
Country Planning, 91(4), 257–262.
Hermans, M., de Kraker, J., & Scholl, C. (2024). The shrinking city as a testing ground for
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
80
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
urban degrowth practices. Urban Planning, 9, Article 8008: 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.17645/up.8008
Holm, A. (2011). Gentrification in Berlin: Neue Investitionsstrategien und lokale Konflikte. In
H. Herrmann, C. Keller, R. Neef and R. Ruhne (Eds.), Die Besonderheit des
Städtischen. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-
93338-2_11
Holm, A., & Kuhn, A. (2011). Squatting and urban renewal: The interaction of squatter
movements and strategies of urban restructuring in Berlin. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 35(3), 644–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2427.2010.001009.x
Holm, A. (2013). Berlin’s gentrification mainstream. In M. Bernt, B. Grell, and A. Holm (Eds.),
Berlin reader: A compendium on urban change and activism (pp. 171–188).
https://doi.org/10.14361/transcript.9783839424780.171
Holm, A. (2014). Gentrifizierung – mittlerweile ein Mainstreamphänomen? Informationen zur
Raumentwicklung, 4, 277–289.
Hooper, J. (2001). Bankrupt Berlin turns off fountains. Cuts programme of city £25bn in debt
threatens Germany's cultural gems. The Guardian. Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/may/28/johnhooper
Kallis, G. (2011). In defence of degrowth. Ecological Economics, 70(5), 873–880.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.12.007
Kallis, G., Demaria, F., & D´Alisa, G. (2015). Introduction: Degrowth. In G. Kallis,
F. Demaria, and G. D´Alisa (Eds.), Degrowth: A vocabulary for a new era (pp. 1–15).
London: Routledge.
Kraker, J., Scholl, C., & Bontje, M. (2024). Urban shrinkage, degrowth, and sustainability: An
updated research agenda. Urban Planning, 9, Article 8815.
https://doi.org/10.17645/up.8815
Kusiak, J. (2024). Radically legal: Berlin constitutes the future. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009516914
Kwok, M., Johnson, L., & Pojani, D. (2018). Discretion and the erosion of community trust in
planning: Reflections on the post-political. Geographical Research, 56(2), 203–215.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12310
Latouche, S. (2009). Farewell to growth. Cambridge: Polity.
Latouche, S. (2010). Degrowth. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), 519–522.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.02.003
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lehtinen, A. A. (2018). Degrowth in city planning. Fennia, 196(1), 43–57.
https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.65443
Liu, R. (2020). Strategies for sustainability in shrinking cities: Frames, rationales and goals
for a development path change. Nordia Geographical Publications, 49(5), 49–74.
https://doi.org/10.30671/nordia.97970
LSE Politics and Policy (2011). Big Society risks undermining state and civil society.
Retrieved from https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/big-society-risks-undermining-
state-and-civil-society/
Marcuse, P. (1998). Reflections on Berlin: The meaning of construction and the construction
of meaning. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22(3), 331–338.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.00143
Mayer, M. (2013). First world urban activism. City, 17(1), 5–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2013.757417
Miller, W. (1993). IBA's "models for a city": Housing and the image of Cold-War Berlin.
Journal of Architectural Education, 46(4), 202–216.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1993.10734560
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
81
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., González, S., & Swyngedouw, E. (2007). Introduction: Social
innovation and governance in European cities: Urban development between path
dependency and radical innovation. European Urban and Regional Studies, 14(3),
195–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776407077737
Mould, O. (2014). Tactical urbanism: The new vernacular of the creative city. Geography
Compass, 8(8), 529–539.
Murtagh, B. (2016). The role of the social economy in the shrinking city. In H. Schlappa and
W. J. V. Neill (Eds.), Future directions for the European shrinking city (pp. 55–68).
New York, NY: Routledge.
North, P. (2010). Eco-localisation as a progressive response to peak oil and climate
change – a sympathetic critique. Geoforum, 41, 585–694.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.04.013
Novy, J., & Colomb, C. (2013). 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, 37(5), 1816–1838. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2427.2012.01115.x
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective
action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pallagst, K., Fleschurz, R., & Said, S. (2017). What drives planning in a shrinking city? Tales
from two German and two American cases. Town Planning Review, 88(1), 15–28.
https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2017.3
Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing space. Antipode, 34(3), 380–404.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00247
Ponzini, D. (2016). Introduction: Crisis and renewal of contemporary urban planning.
European Planning Studies, 24(7), 1237–1245.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1168782
Purcell, M. (2002). Excavating Lefebvre: The right to the city and its urban politics of
inhabitant. GeoJournal, 58: 99–108.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GEJO.0000010829.62237.8f
Rada, U. (1997). Hauptstadt der Verdrängung: Berliner Zukunft zwischen Kiez und
Metropole. Berlin: Schwarze Risse, Rote Strasse; [Hamburg]: Libertäre Assoc.
Rhodes, J., & Russo, J. (2013). Shrinking ‘Smart’? Urban redevelopment and shrinkage in
Youngstown, Ohio. Urban Geography, 34(3), 305–326.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2013.778672
Rossini, L. (2017). Conflicting citizenship and (re)active zones in the urban areas:
Confronting the cases of Berlin and Rome. [Doctoral dissertation, Technische
Universität Berlin, Germany]. https://doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-5933
Rossini, L., & Bianchi, I. (2019). Negotiating (re)appropriation practices amid crisis and
austerity. International Planning Studies, 25(1), 100–121.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2019.1701424
Rossini, L., Azozomox, & Debelle, G. (2018). “Keep your piece of cake, we’ll squat the
bakery!” Autonomy meets repression and institutionalization. In M. Martinez López
(Ed.), Urban politics and squatters’ movements in Europe: Contexts, cycles and
comparisons (pp. 247–270). Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95314-1_12
Schneider, F., Kallis, G., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2010). Crisis or opportunity? Economic
degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special
issue. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), 511–518.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.014
Sheridan, D. (2007). The space of subculture’s in the city: Getting specific about Berlin’s
indeterminate territories”, field, 1, 97–119.
NEXT GENERATION PLANNING
Open Access Journal
82
AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS
NETWORK
Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung (SenStadt). (2007). Urban pioneers: Berlin –
Stadtentwicklung durch Zwischennutzung = temporary use and urban development in
Berlin. Berlin: Jovis Verlag.
Smith, N. (1996). The New Urban Frontiers: Gentrification and the revanchist city. London:
Routledge.
Soja, E. W. (1980). The socio-spatial dialectic. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 70, 207–225. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2562950
Störve, B. (2012). Berlin, a short history. Mnchen: C.H. Beck.
Swain, C., & Tait, M. (2007). The crisis of trust and planning. Planning Theory & Practice,
8(2), 229–247.
Swyngedouw, E., Moulaert, F., & Rodriguez, A. (2002). Neoliberal urbanization in Europe:
Large–scale urban development projects and the new urban policy. Antipode, 34(3),
542–577.
Vasudevan, A. (2011). Dramaturgies of dissent: The spatial politics of squatting in Berlin,
1968–. Social & Cultural Geography, 12(3), 283–303.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2011.564734
Vasudevan, A. (2014). Autonomous urbanism and the right to the city: Squatting and the
production of the urban commons in Berlin. In K. Bradley & J. Hedren (Eds.), Green
utopianism: Perspectives, politics and micro-practices (pp. 205–225). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Vasudevan, A. (2015a). The autonomous city: Towards a critical geography of occupation.
Progress in Human Geography, 39(3), 316–337.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132514531470
Vasudevan, A. (2015b). The makeshift city: Towards a global geography of squatting.
Progress in Human Geography, 39(3), 338–359.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132514531471
Vasudevan, A. (2015c). Metropolitan preoccupations: The spatial politics of squatting in
Berlin. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Von Mahs, J. (2011). Homelessness in Berlin: Between Americanization and path
dependence. Urban Geography, 32(7), 1023-1042. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-
3638.32.7.1023
Wallace, D., & Wallace, R. (1998). A plague on your houses: How New York City was
burned down and national public health crumbled. New York: Verso.
