Reviewer: Anonymous

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

The content of the paper is highly related to the call for the special issue City of the Journal of Peer Production. It discusses the emergence of a collective called Macao in Milan, and the way cultural initiatives engage with social organisations and inhabitants to ease disinvestment strategies by the local government in public spaces. It relates to academic discussion of the commons offering new insights of strategies developed by grassroots, enriching evidence with empirical data over participation practices and peer production governance.

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 makes use of up to date literature on the commons and commoning. However, it lacks a clear section of literature review. The connection to the literature develops partially in relation to the case study. Many times the way the references are posed, a strong impression is created to the reader that the author in reference is actually discussing the Macao collective. I strongly suggest that the authors resubmit the paper engaging with the literature about commoning in an initial section, followed by analysis of their empirical data. I would suggest a more elaborated engagement with Harvey’s work, use of Neil Smith’s analysis on the revanchist city and his paper “New globalism, new urbanism…”, Simon Spinger’s paper “Fuck neoliberalism” and Raul Zibechi’s analysis on zones of dignity, autonomy and emancipation and territories of resistance.

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

Although the authors refer to the methodology and the literature used for their analysis, there is no explanation why this literature is considered as most appropriate for the purposes of this research. The emphasis in the whole document is centred around the case study, while the academic discussion and engagement with academic discussion acquires a secondary role.

4. Is the article well written?

The article is written in excellent English. However, the structure is confusing as research aims and objectives are found in the analysis section, there is no analytical reflection of the bibliography and the structure of the article impedes the reader to understand the purpose of the research. The most clear section of the paper is the concluding one. I would suggest that the authors reshape every subsection and present their case the way they have done so in the conclusion.

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

The article offers an innovative case with a strong potential which gets diminished due to lack of structure. I suggest that the authors rewrite the abstract in 250 words and offer an introduction containing research questions, aims and objectives. This should be followed by a literature discussion and a presentation to the case study area. The final parts should draw on the analysis of the research findings. I would be interested in seeing better analysis of the collective’s engagement with the arts, projects, and the society, analysis over their funding initiatives and more elaborated analysis when referring to governance and trans-local scale.

Suggestions for improvement:

Reviewer: Alessandro Froldi

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

The paper discusses forms of peer production within an Italian social center in Milan named “Macao” and explore the tension between local and trans local audiences and peers.

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 author mentions Macao as an “urban common” and later refers its activities as “practices of commoning”. It would be useful if a more specific definition of urban commons could be provided. Later the author claim that the aspiration of “right to the city” emerging from residents in the social housing blocks are not met by the activities promoted in Macao. Here it would be useful to define what are the contrast between urban commons and “right to the city” movements and more broadly urban social movements and urban commoning movements.

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

In the paper the author refer to Macao as “the very first public expression of the diverse underground social movements animating the cultural life of the city” (p.2). There are multiple problems with this statement as it seems to ignore the existence of social movements in Milan connected with underground culture. The paper does not explore the history of social movements in Milan, nor that of underground culture in Milan or Italy. The initial statement would need to be discussed in more critical ways.

4. Is the article well written?

The article is generally well written. At page 7 there seem to be some small typos: in the sentence starting with “It is worth…” and in the following one “Consequently….”

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

The abstract would benefit from shortening to make more clear the main argument of the paper.

Suggestions for improvement:

The case study presented would benefit from being more rooted within the existing literature on Milanese, Italian or European social centers, cultural organizations and institutions promoting commoning practices, underground cultures and artistic events.

Reviewer: Giulia Testori (IUAV University of Venice & KULeuven)

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

Yes it is and it is adequate to the journal’s call.

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 think the author lacks a better expression of what she/he means by ‘right to the city’. Sometimes it is just mentioned but without specifying or offering his/her own interpretation of it vis à vis the case study. An introduction of what this can mean in Milan vis à vis (Lefebvre or Harvey or Mayer…) might be a way. – Pratt’s definition of ‘cultural production’ should be better developed in order to adapt it to the case study.

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

There are various moments in the paper in which some assumptions are not well justified. (in the edited file are all underlined) – The topic of ‘trans local’ misses of literature review and it is not clear what means in this contribution.

4. Is the article well written?

Some paragraphs are very well written, but in general the entire paper is full of spelling/grammar mistakes and needs rigorous word-proofing.

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

– I rather suggest to better structure it, focusing on a clearer subdivision. Would be useful to specify which is the problem statement and which are (specifically) the research questions; it seems there are three, but then there are other questions that appear inside the text.

– I would also recommend, if possible, to end the paper with some hypothesis related to the role of Macao in relation to the neighborhood, as it seems there is a missing link with the local inhabitants. Where your questionnaires shown to Macao’s organizers? Are they aware they should reinforce this aspect in the management of the association? If the answer is ‘yes’, it would be interesting to arrive at some conclusions and discuss future scenarios and suggested improvements.

Suggestions for improvement:

• The paper has to be restructured (the idea of choosing a non-linear structure doesn’t help to clearly understand the contribution)
• There are some very short and some long paragraphs.
• They should be balanced. Would be even more consistent if pieces of interviews were added, as they seem to cover a good part of the methodology but they are never present.
• Two maps are mentioned but missing.
• All the corrections and suggestions and comments on the ‘edited’ document.