Public space and urban movements: scope, content and practices

Since the mid 90s and after the organisation of the 2004 Olympics, things changed radically. The Olympics gave the state an opportunity to flagrantly violate all rules and regulations protecting public spaces (Τότσικας 2004). As a result, local groups and organisations realised that the protection of public spaces is not a neighbourhood issue, but a problem concerning the entire city. They proceeded to establish networks to coordinate movements and develop joint actions. The organisations mobilised included informal structures (residents’ committees or initiatives) and others with formal legal status (mainly associations). Their members –especially those with an organisational role– were often highly educated and in many cases had good knowledge of city issues (Καβουλάκος 2009). Their requests mainly concerned the protection of existing public and unbuilt spaces, rather than the creation of new ones. The frequency of collective actions increased gradually and peaked in 2003 –one year before the Olympics.

The most common actions included protests, people’s assemblies, marches and public speeches. Appeals to the Council of State, which had a favourable decision track record on such matters, contributed greatly to the effectiveness of those actions (Καβουλάκος 2013). By the end of this period, besides rescuing several public and unbuilt spaces, the city movements had managed to expand their political impact. In the 2006 municipal elections, open spaces became a key issue in many candidate programmes , while in Attica some elected mayors adopted the movements’ views (Gianniris 2013).

Gradually, after the Olympics, new groups and collectives began to organise actions for public spaces, while their scope expanded in new dynamic and creative ways, such as the occupation of contested private spaces and their self-management as public spaces (Petropoulou 2010). Most of the new groups and collectives consisted of libertarians. These informal groups operated on a neighbourhood basis, often around a hangout, developing multiple political, social and cultural activities. They are informally and loosely networked with each other. Their members mostly belonged to younger generations. These groups often chose unconventional forms of action. Overall, they frequently clash with law enforcement units, while the occupation and self-management of contested spaces changed the city and its life in real time, without the mediation of the local or central government.

The crisis and subsequent policies changed things. On the one hand, the crisis was used as an excuse by political elites and entrepreneurs. Under the pretext of an emergency need for private investments, the movements’ discourse was delegitimised and the privatisation of public spaces was presented as a method to address the recession and tackle unemployment. On the other hand, the activity of movements for open spaces was significantly attenuated (Gianniris 2013).To some extent, this was because these organisations focused on dealing with the impacts of the crisis, by creating and operating   social pharmacies, groceries, time banks, social educational centres, collective kitchens, actions without intermediaries etc. Meanwhile, networking activity between those organisations halted, while the role of SYRIZA was amplified. During the crisis, SYRIZA increased its electoral appeal to eventually become the main partner in the coalition government.