Reviewer: Anonymous

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

The paper presents some interesting case studies that have existed in different moments of Rosario’s history. Their differences as well as similarities offer interesting insights on the internal workings of collectivities, on the conflicts with the authorities and on the role of the media in depicting them.

2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

Τhe paper lacks a theoretical discussion that would put these case studies into perspective and further discuss how they can contribute to the broader debate this special issue is concerned with. It would thus be very useful to add a section structured around relevant theoretical debates and approaches. Specifically, the only theoretical discussion of the paper is developed in the first part of the introduction. At the moment the text is too dense, uses notions that take for granted without providing any theoretical and contextual discussion. Since govermentality is a key term, I would suggest the author(s) to provide a more elaborate definition of it (based on Foucault as they write) and possibly for notions such as post-political or multiplicities or distanced dependence.

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?

Some minor points concern the lack of any reference to the methodology used in the two case studies. Just a brief reference about it and if they conducted fieldwork or if they relied on material from other sources would be enough. Significantly they should also debate their relationship with the previously developed theory and what do they specifically contribute to the discussion about social movements/actions and/or peer-production in the city (since this is the main question of the special issue which is not discussed at all in the paper).

4. Is the article well written?

The authors could try to relate more to the issues and challenges raised at the call for papers. The case studies are interesting but they could be restructured either as a time-based narrative or with sub-titles reflecting the main issues discussed. Its first paragraphs (before explaining the Rosario cases) are difficult to comprehend and need further clarification because in many cases they seem too abstract. They could become more legible if they were given substantial space in the paper, where the different theoretical approaches could be further developed and discussed. I am not sure about the use of the word artisanal for describing either the activities of the punk rock scene (for example) or for the fishermen – I think it tends to mean something else.

5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

Throughout the case studies there is the underlying issue of urban development in Rosario that takes place on specific terms (lucrative real-estate, coolture etc) and through specific hegemonic-political projects. In order to have a clearer picture of it, it would be useful to add a section that would provide some contextual information about Rosario, about the pivotal plans mentioned in the case studies and about the Municipalities’ projects.

Suggestions for improvement:

Reviewer: Anonymous

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

The subject matter of the paper is relevant as the presented cases are showing.

2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

The article is generally written in informed and well researched manner. The contextualization and description of the case studies is informative. Author resorts to using too broad terms and concepts and generalized conclusions on number of occasions, when describing the circumstances of the case studies and particular events. While in the first case there is some information provided on the challenges of the self-organization of the cultural space, and the internal dynamics, the similar is lacking when the case of the fishermen is discussed. The article would benefit from analyzing the organization potential (or lack of it) of the researched communities in relation to the more precise events, policy changes and recommendations and avoid common sense type of conclusions.

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?

Impression during reading is that this is comes from the author’s struggle with the language and not the subject matter. The work with a translator/editor might eliminate this obstacle and enable author to articulate more nuanced conclusions throughout the text.

4. Is the article well written?

See General comment. Additionally, for better flow of the text, I would like to suggest integrated info on the interviews, when they are conducted when interviewee is mentioned for the first time, with one broader sentence. I would give reader a hook and enable an argument to be followed easier.

5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

The introduction of the paper is too vague and too general for such a specific subject matter that gets addressed in the paper. It is advised to focus introduction on the currency of the waterfront development and its symbolic importance for neoliberal urbanism to root the subject of the paper from the beginning.

Suggestions for improvement:

If the paper moves further in the process and ends up being published a serious language revision is required. The help from the native English speaker is encouraged. The author is also encouraged to consult English editions of the referenced books so that terminology author is using is consistent with the terminology used in the books and recognized as related to the referenced scholars.

Reviewer: Iris Lykourioti

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

Yes the subject matter is relevant. It deals with urban contradictions in regard to the appropriation of space, public (ex industrial spaces) or of common use (riverside). It describes how different social groups (a squat, fishermen, municipal authorities and private investors) with different interests claim the spaces in reference in Rosario in Argentina in late ‘90s.

2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

I would say that the while the writer treats a very interesting subject with honesty and care, while he/she cites important and difficult literature (Foucault, Deleuze etc) as its core reference and seems to be very well informed about very important publications of the last years (books by Traficantes de Sueños editorial, in Spanish, but of international interest and relevance) he/she does not manage, at my opinion, to address and explain profoundly the social relations that have caused i) the decline of the squat and ii) the gradual disappearance of the fishermen’s community. I think that there are common processes behind the two case studies that the writer treats as alternative paradigms of a possible urban life (the squat improvised short term community and the long history of the fishermen community in the same area) as opposed to that of the neoliberal post-industrial urban planning (real-estate speculation, gentrification, tourism) but they are also fundamental differences between them. The differences have not been addressed.

I think that the key points in the article that are left with no solid arguments are:

1) the problem of self-organization. It is dealt rather superficially. At my opinion, it seems that the squat begun as an apolitical action thus based on a misunderstanding of the relationship between the individual and the group. There have been two efforts to politicize the action by the people behind both the anarchist library ‘Alberto Ghiraldo’ and the ‘Solidarity with Chiapas Network’ that made possible the widening of the squat’s activities for a short period of time. Nevertheless, they failed to transcend the middle-class values of the squatters and the effects of their ‘colonized’ perspective on squatting. According to the writer the squatters rejected to acknowledge European squatting experiences on the basis of their Europeanism but it seems they have discarded the incredible contributions of the Latin American experiences (as important as the Zapatistas and the MTS). I think it would be interesting from a southern-decolonial perspective to address this bias within the article in a more profound way.

2) The problem of the dispossession not only of the land but of the traditional means of production such as fishing (described here as artisanal fishing). The second case study opens a different subject. The interviewed fisherman brings issues like a) the ‘system of the river as a whole’ (directly linked with environmental awareness in social production), b) the rejection of wage labor (directly linked with the dispossession of the traditional means of production), c) awareness of biological-historical time (his grandchildren will not grow up by the riverside). None of these extremely important issues built, in the case of the fisherman, as lived experiences, are being scrutinized. Especially the case of the fisherman is treated with a bit of exoticism.

Finally, as far as the literature is concerned I would recommend to the writer, as much as I recommend it to myself, to try to build an understanding of the ‘South’ also in terms of theory. There is a certain degree of eurocentrism in the use of theoretical reference he/she uses. I am sure there are incredible theoretical contributions by totally unknown theorists who have dealt with experiences of governmentality or dispossession. We need a more pluralistic ‘library’. Foucault and Deleuze have enjoyed their enormous share in our epistemological views. We need more.

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?

My answer is concluded above.

4. Is the article well written?

I think there are some small problems in the use of English, as far as I control it. I would be suggesting to the journal to consider multilingual contributions as well, if possible.

5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

Please see B.

Suggestions for improvement: