Reviewer: Ileana Apostol (NetHood Zurich)

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

The article deals with an important topic that is often overlooked; placing this particular case within similar studies and also in reference to theoretical writings on the right to the city would enhance what is already a good proposal.

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?

In the aftermath of the May 1968 urban movements, Henri Lefebvre wrote Le manifeste différentialiste (Paris: Gallimard,1970) together with The Urban Revolution (2003), which are essential in understanding the following writings on the right to the city (e.g., John Friedmann 1993, David Harvey 2008) including The City and The Grassroots of Manuel Castells. Although the Differentialist Manifesto is available in the French language, some notes on the right to difference are comprised in the English translation of The Production of Space (1991). Recent related studies form the edited collection by Brenner, Marcuse and Mayer (2012), Cities for People, Not for Profit; in particular an interpretation of Lefebvre’s writings on cultural production are provided by Gavin Grindon’s 2013 article on Revolutionary Romanticism.

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

The paper is mainly descriptive; the author announces in the introductory section that this paper forms the first part of a research project on the topic. Thus it is critical to mention in which directions the study will develop through the lens of this theoretical framework, for instance, how the theory would inform future analyses of the “concrete connections with successive movements” noted in the Conclusion. – A broader perspective on the topic may be provided by the literature on the right to the city, specifically the right to difference.

4. Is the article well written?

The narrative flows well, however, as the paper’s aim is to present a brief history of the events, the reading may be improved by providing a timeline, which may be annotated, that highlights the main actors and events, and their temporal connections. The many abbreviations make the reading sometimes cumbersome , so a list of actors and their names’ abbreviations might be helpful, making sure to keep them consistent in the English language (i.e., not alternating PIF and BIP).

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

An abstract explaining the reader what this paper is about is necessary, suggesting how the proposed theoretical framework enables new understandings of the role of social movements in the history of city’s built environment, and mentioning why this study is interesting to read, how it relates to other similar ones, what it brings different, what the main findings are, and how they can be advanced in the future. Some of this information is already included in the Introductory Section.

Suggestions for improvement:

To include an abstract that will introduce the reader to the paper, as well as to develop the concluding notes by summarizing how the article fulfilled its aims presented in the Introductory section, how the proposed theoretical framework enables new understandings of the role of social movements in the history of city’s built environment, and some ideas of what is left for future research.

Reviewer: Anonymous

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

The subject matter is relevant, timely and fits well into the discussion. I would stress the importance of introducing into a discussion on the occupation and self-organization in culture examples from previous decades and various geographies, as the body of knowledge which can be influential for today.

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 subject matter is intellectually interesting. The theoretical framework is well elaborated and meaningful for the example author is discussing. The socio-economical context of the subject matter of the paper is well detailed and gives the reader plenty of necessary information to understand the context of the occupation. In contrast to that, there is a lack of the same granular approach to the occupation itself and the self-organized institutions that appeared. While some of the processes are mentioned, mostly through the quotes from the contemporary papers and public exchanges, the paper would benefit from a more precise description of the bodies that were formed, decision making protocols, number of people involved … This precision would enable reader to understand more precisely and with more insight in tangible processes that took place into the creation of the new urban meaning which author highlights as important and how it challenges the cultural hegemony. Output of the occupation is at the moment introduced through critique and anecdotal. While the critique part and the reception in the general public is really important and valuable part of this paper, author did not introduce enough precise information about the self-organizations that were formed in and around theatre to follow precisely. On page 10 author mentions how the theatre was declared cultural patrimony during the occupation, this process should be elaborated more, as paper would really benefit from understanding who initiated heritage listing of the building, was it something that was directly connected to the occupation, as it from this state of the paper seems like one of the key points in the construction of cultural hegemony through built environment and urban meaning, and the discussion of author if this was a response of the power structures to face.

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

Author introduces and follows well one’s line of argument and there is an overall coherence with the intention and output of the paper. However, the second part of the paper reads rushed and lacks more detailed analysis and elaboration, so some of the judgements of the paper would benefit from a more nuanced explanation in relation to more precisely narrated context.

4. Is the article well written?

Article is well written and without major problems language wise. Author should pay attention the style.

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

The second part of the text which discusses the occupation, institutions that formed and how they worked should be thoroughly explained and reworked, as the key part of the paper. More on that I have elaborated on the point 1. The paper has a potential and discusses the important example which has a long influence in a local struggles and with revisions could have a potential to bring to the growing discourse on the self-organized cultural institutions in occupied spaces and the challenge to cultural hegemony they represent.

Suggestions for improvement:

• Introduce into the discussion on the occupation and self-organization in culture examples from previous decades and various geographies
• The second part of the paper reads rushed and lacks more detailed analysis and elaboration, so some of the judgements of the paper would benefit from a more nuanced explanation in relation to more precisely narrated context.
• The paper has a potential and discusses the important example which has a long influence in a local struggles and with revisions could have a potential to bring to the growing discourse on the self-organized cultural institutions in occupied spaces and the challenge to cultural hegemony they represent.

Reviewer: Anonymous

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

It is relevant as the conflict around the INBA Theater is a very interesting key study, however there are no analysis on the core challenges and proposed topics of the special issue as the peer production and practices in the city, right to the city, right to the internet, urban commons-commoning. Also there is a lack of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary methodologial approaches. The only theoretical concept that is relevant to the special issue is the Gramscian concept of hegemony and governmentality although they need more evaluation in a critical way.

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 propose the author to focus on the Lefebvrian “Right to the City” and “urban commons” literature. Some references proposals are:

Brenner, N., Marcuse, P., Mayer, M. (2009). Cities for people, not for profit. City 13(2-3) pp. 176–184.

Dellenbaugh, Mary, Kip, Markus, Bieniok Majken, Müller, Agnes and Schwegmann, Martin (eds). 2015. Urban Commons: Moving Beyond State and Market. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlang.

Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel cities: from the right to the city to the urban revolution. Verso, London and New York.

Hodkinson, St. (2012). The new urban enclosures. City 16 (5) pp. 500–518.

Lefebvre, H. (1996/1968). Writings on Cities. Blackwell, Oxford.

Lefebvre, H. (1991/1974). The Production of Space. Blackwell, Oxford.

Mayer, M. (2009). The ‘Right to the City’ in the context of shifting mottos of urban social movements. City 13 (2-3) pp. 362-374.

Stavrides, S. (2016). Common Space. The city as commons. Zed Books, London.

Vasudevan, A., McFarlane, C., Jeffrey, A. (2008). Spaces of enclosure. Geoforum 39 pp. 1641-1646.

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

The article avoids the methodological choices. Not a single methodological question is addressed by the author. We do not learn of:

1. the justification of the case selection

2. how and when was the data collected and by whom?

3. how was the data analysed?

I propose the author to examine militant ethnography literature like:

Casas-Cortés M., Osterweil, M. and Powell, D.E. (2013) ‘Transformations in engaged ethnography: knowledge, networks, and social movements’. In: Juris J.S. and Khasnabish A. (eds) Insurgency Encounters: Transnational Activism, Ethnography, and the Political. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 199-228.

Gordon, U. (2008) Anarchy Alive! Anti-Authoritarian Politics from Practice to Theory. London: Pluto Press. Juris, J.S. (2007) ‘Practicing militant ethnography with the Movement for Global Resistance in Barcelona’. In: Shukaitis, S., Graeber, D. and Biddle, E. (eds), Constituent Imagination: Militant Investigations. Collective Theorization. Oakland, CA: AK Press, pp. 164–178.

Juris, J.S. and Khasnabish, A. (2013) ‘Introduction: ethnography and activism within networked spaces of transnational encounter’, in: Juris, J.S. and Khasnabish, A. (eds) Insurgency Encounters: Transnational Activism, Ethnography, and the Political. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 1-36.

4. Is the article well written?

it needs editing especially the reference style

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

A tighter theoretical argument will benefit the article considerably. Rewrite the entire introduction and theoretical section to include: the central argument, emphasize the notions of “Right To The City”, “Urban Commons”, brief notes on methodology, emphasize your contribution in the conclusion and editing the reference style.

Suggestions for improvement:

A tighter theoretical argument will benefit the article considerably. Rewrite the entire introduction to include: the central argument, emphasize the notions of “Right To The City”, “Urban Commons”, brief notes on methodology, emphasize your contribution in the conclusion and editing the reference style.