Infrastructuring the Urban Commons: A portfolio of institutional tools for post-industrial Sheffield

Infrastructuring the
Urban Commons:
A portfolio of
institutional tools
for post-industrial
Sheffield.
Laura Bucero Descalzo
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON
FACULTY OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
BARTLETT 1 SCHOOL OF PLANNING
1

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON
FACULTY OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING
Infrastructuring the Urban Commons: a portfolio of institutional tools for post-industrial Sheffield.
Laura Bucero Descalzo
Being a major research project submitted to the faculty of The Built Environment as part of the
requirements for the award of the MSc Urban Design and City Planning at University College London:
I declare that this major research project is entirely my own work and that ideas, data and images, as
well as direct quotations, drawn from elsewhere are identified and referenced.
Word Count: 8,408
Main Text: 2,141
Images: 10,549
Signature: Laura Bucero Descalzo
Date: 11 th of September 2023
2

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my grattitude to my supervisor
Joost Beunderman for guiding me through the process,
from its begginings as a cluster of ideas and passions, to
a more focused and comprehensive outcome. I greatly
enjoyed our discussions, and your thoughtful feedback
consistently encouraged me to tackle challenging
questions and refine my work.
I must also thank everyone who so kindly gifted their
time to chat about the commons both during formal and
informal interviews, for our conversations have inspired
me more than all the literature ever could.
Finally, I also wish to thank my family, and Jack for their
continous support, feedback and encouragement;
Tomas for the photos, and the EASA community and all
the friends I’ve made along the way for showing me that
different ways of living, learning, creating and caring in
common are possible.
3

Contents
Abstract
List of figures and illustrations
01 > Introduction
Research question
Research objectives
Research limitations
Contribution to practice
Statement of research ethics
02 > Methodology
03 > Literature Review
Historic Commons and the Enclosure
Movement in England
Urban commons and new urban enclosures
Reciprocity
Thresholds
Cosmolocalism
The city as commons
> Learning from Bologna
> Learning from Ghent
What next? The world as a commons
05 > Design Proposal
05 > 1 > Design Framework
Introduction
UK & Sheffield policy context & precendents
Portfolio
Urban Commons flow chart
05 > 1 > Design Application
Introduction
> Commoning Pact
> Micro-contract
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
> Funding the urban commons
> Commons Economy
06 > Conclusion
07 > Bibliography
04 > Case Study Review
Urban Commons in Post-industrial Sheffield
Working > Portland Works
Living > On the Brink
Creating > Bloc Projects
Caring > SADACCA
Ethical clearance
Risk assesment
4

page left intentionally purple
5

00 >
Abstract
In recent decades, the theory and practice of the
urban commons have been the subject of extensive
research, arising from the necessity of transition
from current unsustainable and inequitable urban
systems to more collaborative, resilient, and fair ones.
Situated within the broader framework of the Social
and Solidarity Economy, the urban commons have the
potential to address complex and interrelated social,
environmental, and economic challenges by recentring
‘use value’ at the core of the relationships between
people, land, and urban resources. Additionally,
through commoning practices of self-governance and
self-management, existing structures in post-industrial
cities can be creatively reconfigured into something
new by a community of end-users, in ways that promote
community wealth and well-being. Nonetheless,
although the urban commons are gaining strength as
a design framework, the general lack of institutional
support in the UK, on top of neoliberal and austerity
policies and privatisation trends, hinders long-term
financial, spatial, and social resilience.
This project argues for the development of new
institutional tools to reconcile mainstream institutions
and policy frameworks and innovative ways of sociospatial
organisation. Thereby, infrastructuring the urban
commons by supporting their (re)emergence, long-term
sustainability and resilience, and transferability to other
contexts. Employing a research-by-design methodology,
key narratives and strategies from a literature and case
study review are identified to inform the design of a
portfolio of institutional tools that aims to bridge this
gap. The portfolio comprises funding and organisational
mechanisms that might enable communities of
commoners, government and educational institutions
and diverse stakeholders to collectivise the provision,
care and management of urban spaces, resources,
and services. Sheffield is taken both as the case study
and the site to test the proposed tools. Understanding
‘infrastructuring’ as a verb, the project emphasizes
the negotiation and re-articulation process both in the
design and in the contractual practice of the commons.
6

Figure 1.
Architecture students working at SADACCA (August 2023)
7

00 >
List of figures
Figure 1.
Architecture students working at SADACCA (August
2023) — p. 7
Figure 16.
The NEST experiment (2017 – 2019), a meanwhile
space in old library — p. 27
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Micro-contract for slices of time & space — p. 11
Architecture students gathering at SADACCA — p. 12
Methodology diagram — p. 15
Literature review diagramatic summary — p. 18
The Declaration and Standard of the Levellers of
England. — p. 19
Map showing land in public ownership in the city
center — p. 21
Figure 17.
Figure 18.
Figure 19.
Figure 20.
Figure 21.
Figure 22.
Policy co-creation lab in Ghent within the ‘School of
Commons — p. 27
Explanatory diagram of Ghent’s Commons Transition
Plan — p. 27
Summary of literature review findings — p. 29
Sheffield’s history timeline — p. 32
Photo: Sheffield’ City Centre — p. 33
Map of commoning practices in Sheffield City Centre
and surrounding areas — p. 38
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
idem — p. 21
vas.org Hubs and Welcome Places — p. 21
Explanatory diagram of the Commons
Economy — p. 22
Photo: pop-up kitchen in Heely City Farm creates a
threshold between intergenerational communities
(August 2023) — p. 23
Photo: EASA community meeting (August 2023) — p.
24
Photo: Architecture students activating and
reclaiming shaping power over public space through
temporary furniture (August 2023) — p. 25
Mercato Sonato (2016 – 2023), a community
event space in an old market — p. 26
Dynamo Velostazione (2016 – 2021… ), a bike rental
social enterprise — p. 26
Figure 15.
Explanatory diagram of Collaborare e Bologna — p. 26
Figure 23.
Figure 24.
Figure 25.
Figure 26.
Figure 27.
Figure 28.
Figure 29.
Figure 30.
Map of existing & potential commoning sites in
Sheffield City Centre and surrounding areas — p. 40
Flow diagram connecting potential actors to
resources through the different tools to achieve the
Common Goals — p. 49
Explanatory diagram of the tools interactions and
conceptual framework — p. 51
Photo: testing the Micro-contract for various projects
— p. 52
Explanatory diagram of the design application of the
tools to an specific site and time frame — p. 57
Collage — p. 59
Collage — p. 61
Explanatory diagram of the funding system — p. 63
8

page left intentionally purple
9

01 >
Introduction
Infrastructuring the Urban Commons:
a portfolio of institutional tools for
post-industrial Sheffield.
This Major Research Project sets out to broaden
the discussion of the theory and practice of the
commons, focusing on the tools for transition towards
a commons-oriented regenerative approach to postindustrial
cities. Understanding infrastructuring as
a verb, the project emphasizes the negotiation and
re-articulation process in the contractual practice of
the commons. A portfolio of institutional tools will be
designed that embraces this relationality by creating
possibilities for reciprocity between commoners and
different stakeholders in the context of post-industrial
Sheffield.
(Re)emerging commons
During the past two decades, growing social
struggles due to the effects of privatisation and
limitations of access to basic resources of urban life
have triggered a renewed interest in the theory of the
commons. Current development models have not only
been incapable of preventing socioeconomic and
environmental crises but have also accentuated them,
making apparent the urgent need for a new model.
(UNTFSSE, 2022) A Position Paper published by the
United Nations identified the Social and Solidarity
Economy (SSE) as a powerful tool for realising the
Sustainable Development Goals 2030 Agenda. Thus,
approaching commons as one of the many pathways
within the wider SSE framework and learning from
real-life commoning practices, extensive literature
has explored how the “New Urban Commons”
paradigm could facilitate the transition from current
unsustainable and inequitable urban systems to more
collaborative, resilient, and fair ones. (Rieiro, 2023)
The commons date back to 15th century England;
however, the re-emergence of the theory and
practice of the commons goes beyond a nostalgic
reinterpretation of a pre-capitalist society. Initially
introduced into economic theory by Elinor Ostrom in
the 1990s, the commons have been conceptualised
as an alternative type of social relation based on selfgovernment,
self-management, and self-organisation
of common-pool-resources (CPRs) (Ostrom, 1990)
(UNTFSSE, 2022). This project will explore relevant
narratives around the theory of commons (enclosures,
reciprocity, thresholds, cosmolocalism, and the city as
a commons) examining how these might be reflected
in practice.
The Urban Commons paradigm expands on
Ostrom’s traditional small-scale commons by
fundamentally deconstructing binary public-private
and state-market governance solutions at a city
scale. (Foster & Iaione, 2019) By prioritising social
and cultural value over monetary profit, it has the
potential to challenge modern-day enclosures and
create ongoing relations of reciprocity that can deal
with acute urban social issues and spatial inequalities
such as land injustice, disenfranchisement, poverty,
marginalisation, and loneliness (UCRC, 2022). In
addition, Urban Commons function as socio-material
thresholds, spaces of encounter and exchange
between different livelihoods, cultures and types of
knowledge and forms of knowing, (Stavrides, 2016)
that are neither part of the system nor completely built
up against it (Hardt & Negri, 2009).
As a design framework, the commons recognise
the need for structural change in urban contexts,
particularly in addressing complex and interrelated
social, environmental, and economic challenges. They
embody the cosmolocal paradigm (Bauwens, Kranjc,
& Ramos, 2022) which emphasizes the importance of
local communities in shaping their futures by actively
participating in the creation and management of urban
resources and services, that are both locally relevant
and globally connected. Ultimately, Urban Commons
reclaims the shaping power over the process of
urbanisation, expanding the right to the city (Harvey,
2012) by understanding the city as a commons, “a
shared resource that belongs to all of its inhabitants”.
(Foster & Iaione, 2019)
10

Designing (for) the commons
On an increasingly urbanised planet, post-industrial
cities have become critical spaces of experimentation
with new relationships between people, land, nature,
and resources. Urban commons have great potential
to tackle local and global issues, but first, they must
be able to overcome a series of critical issues. Most
importantly, access to space or land in cities is highly
contested, and urban commons often struggle to
secure spaces or access land to develop their activities.
In addition, the lack of appropriate indicators that define
the value urban commons bring to the community and
the environment makes it especially difficult to find
legitimacy, obtain legal permits or access capital both
in the short and long term. Inexperience or lack of
resources to deal with institutions or drawing funding
applications, excess bureaucracy, lack of long-term
funding, financial anxiety, and spatial insecurity further
hinder urban commons from emerging or lasting over
time. (Harris & Rimmer, 2019) (Dellenbaugh-Losse
2020) Thus the motivation for this project stems from
the recognition of the vulnerability of the commons
and the need for institutional tools that can support
commoning practices and allow the unlocking and
sharing of resources at city-scale.
The project aims to map Sheffield’s commons and
the social, spatial, financial, and legal (inter)relations
between each other and with local and national
institutions; as well as identify potential sites for
commoning. Mapping and tracking these practices
will reveal challenges and problems and inform the
design of a portfolio of institutional tools applicable
to post-industrial cities, designed to nurture, sustain,
and replicate urban commons. These tools would
provide the infrastructures that might contribute to
urban commons’ emergence, sustainability, and
transferability. Finally, understanding commoning
and infrastructuring as verbs, the design proposal
embraces the continuous process of prototyping and
testing and remains open to being renegotiated and
evolved, just like urban commons themselves.
The research project positions itself in the
urban landscape of the UK by taking Sheffield
both as the site and the case study. Sheffield has
a particular industrial and cultural history closely
interlinked with the commons, (Udall, 2019) however,
deindustrialisation and central government cuts have
left the city underfunded and with a great stock of
industrial heritage buildings under great pressure of
private redevelopment (Gregory, 2023)
Figure 2.
Micro-contract for slices of time & space
11

01 > Introduction
01. 1 > Research question
How might social, spatial, economic, and legal
institutional tools contribute to the emergence,
sustainability, and transferability of urban commons,
whilst facilitating the reconfiguration of existing urban
spaces and structures in post-industrial cities?
01.2 > Research objectives
1 > Understand what urban commons are and how
they unfold in the context of Sheffield, identifying the
challenges they face.
2 > Explore how existing urban spaces could be used
in a creative way and reconfigured into something
new through commoning practices.
3 > Design a portfolio of institutional tools – legal,
financial, social, and spatial infrastructures, that
incorporate urban commons into urban development
within existing institutions.
Figure 3.
Architecture students gathering at SADACCA
12

01.3 > Limitations
This Major Research Project is mainly concerned with
the design of institutional tools and their potential
impact in the transition towards a commons-oriented
approach to urban development of post-industrial
cities.
For the purpose of contextualising the design
proposal, UK’s and Sheffield’s policy landscapes are
briefly examined, although thorough investigation is
not within the scope of this project. Similarly, property
law and its implications in the use of and access to
land, and conditioning factors related to real estate
are not studied. However, the various basic principles
of property law and the constraints or opportunities
that real estate present are touched upon in the case
studies and taken into consideration in the design
proposal.
Finally, although Sheffield was chosen both as the
site and case study due to its interesting landscape of
urban commons existing in parallel to the undergoing
regeneration programme, it is hoped that lessons on
how to reconfigure spaces in post-industrial cities into
something new through collaborative efforts can be
transferred to other UK and non-UK contexts.
01.4 > Contribution to practice
Whilst existing literature is concerned predominately
with commons’ structures – internal physical and
social organisation, this project focusses on the
commons enabling infrastructures – the external
systems that support the emergence, sustainability,
and transferability of the urban commons. Thus, using
infrastructuring as a verb, the research does not only
highlight the need for new resilient institutional tools,
but emphasizes the process of institutional change
necessary for urban transition. Although research
shows that commons-enabling infrastructures must
be radically different from existing ones, the project
aims to use design to bridge the gap between
mainstream policy frameworks and alternative forms
of self-governance and self-management.
01.5 > Statement of research ethics
The proposed research presents a low ethical risk.
Interviews will be impartial and transparent, ensuring
that participation is voluntary, and responses are
anonymised. Only a brief description of the urban
commons will be identified, and this data will be used
in accordance with UCL’s Data Protection Principles
and Research Ethics Committee. Personal data
such as emails will not be shared. Respondents will
be provided with a sheet detailing the purpose of
the research, along with an individual consent form.
Everyone will have the possibility to leave the interview
at any time or decline to participate.
Additionally, to investigate the urban commons and
alternative ways to make the city, this project will aim
to acknowledge and dismantle power imbalances in
Academia and practice. To achieve this, the researcher
will question which voices are currently dominant
and present, and which ones are marginalized or
absent. The research will be informed by voices that
are not usually heard in academia to work towards
decolonising and “depatriarchising” research and
design.
Overall, the project will aim to develop an ethical
and inclusive research practice that values diverse
perspectives and seeks to address the historical
injustices that underpin socio-spatial inequalities.
13

02 >
Methodology
The project starts by formulating a research question
and three objectives. Following a research by design
methodological approach, the project combines literature
and case study review and design to address the urban issue
and generate practical knowledge that simultaneously
contributes to the understanding of the theory.
Initially, mapping is used to analyse the urban commons
context of Sheffield and visualise the existing actors
acting as commoners, the type of relations enabling the
commoning practices, the type of resources being shared
and the challenges they face. Mapping is also employed
throughout the design process to identify potential sites
for commoning amongst the derelict post-industrial urban
fabric.
The literature review examines the emergence of the new
urban commons paradigm and its relevancy in confronting
the current social, economic, and environmental crises.
Next, implementation methods of Commons-enabling
institutions and mechanisms in urban development are
explored and interrogated. Then, to understand how
urban commons unfold in the context of Sheffield, a case
study review is conducted. Defining and designing for the
commons involves taking a practice-based perspective
through the re-telling of commoning stories. Thus, design
will be informed and enriched by a combination of informal
conversations and semi-structured interviews.
Key themes from the literature and findings from the
case study review are addressed through the design of a
portfolio of institutional tools. One of the tools, the Microcontract,
is prototyped and tested through the speculative
design of two scenarios that will inform further research.
Finally, the project concludes with a reflective review,
highlighting the successful aspects of the portfolio, the
questions that arise from the design and the areas that
need further research prototyping or testing.
14

Figure 4.
Methodology diagram
15

03 >
Literature review
16

17

03 >
Literature review
context narrative
authors questions
England & UK context
Historic Commons &
Enclosure Movement
new enclosures
socio-economic and
environmental crises make
aparent they system’s failure
(neoliberalisation, austerity
programmes, privatisation of
public goods, cost-of-living
crisis...)
Ostrom & Hess 2006
Federici 2019
what are urban
commons? why is the
theory and practice of
commoning
(re)emerging?
paradigm shift
Academic literature
Urban Commons
what are the key
narratives
defining the urban
commons?
Reciprocity
Social &
Solidarity
Economy
Gift
economy
UNSSE 2022
Engle et al 2022
Chang et al 2022
Thresholds
Heterotopias
Foucault 1967
Harvey 2000
Hardt & Negri 2009
Stavrides 2016
Ostrom 1990
Polycentric
governance
Cosmolocalism
Bauwens, Kranjc,
& Ramos 2022
The right to
the city
The city as a
commons
institutionalisation
of the commons
Lefebvre 1968
Harvey 2012
Foster & Iaione
2019, 2022
How can urban
commons be
incorporated into
city-scale urban
development?
LabGov
Non-UK context
Bologna
Collaborare e
Bologna
what next?
Ghent
Commons
Transition Plan
P2P
foundation
what institutional
tools might
contribute to the
emergence,
sustainability &
transferability of
urban commons?
Global context
The world as a
commons
Standing 2019
Figure 4.
Literature review
diagramatic summary
18
universal model for
post-industrial cities
How might social, spatial, economic, and legal institutional
tools contribute to the emergence, sustainability, and
transferability of urban commons, whilst facilitating the
reconfiguration of existing structures of post-industrial cities?

Historic Commons and
the Enclousure Movement in England
Traditionally, commons are associated with CPRs
(Ostrom, 1990) and consist of three elements: a pool
of resources, a community that uses and shares
the resources, and a set of collectively agreed-upon
practices, rules and values that govern the resources.
During medieval England, historic commons were the
common land such as woodland or pastures, allocated
with shared rights including grazing, foraging, fishing,
extracting minerals or collecting wood and turf. The
common was an integral part of the manor and the
basis of the open-field system, an unfenced landscape
that required the cooperation of all residents of the
manor. Historic “commons” simultaneously describe
a shared resource, traditionally linked to land, and the
collective activity and governance rules put in place
by social processes to use and sustain that resource.
(De Angelis & Stavrides, 2009)
Figure 6.
The Declaration and Standard of the Levellers of England.
Later known as the Diggers, they were a political movement in
Surrey during the mid-17th against common land enclosures.
The name derives from the practice of levelling hedges and
walls and digging in enclosed common land during riots.
Despite being essential for the livelihood of
communities and social reproduction in agrarian
society, common land gradually diminished when the
open field system was replaced by private ownership
systems as landlords viewed privatisation of land as
a means of increasing agricultural productivity. As a
result, beginning in the 15th century, the Enclosure
Movement saw the fencing of existing holdings and
the deprivation of commoners from their rights to
access and use land as a resource for subsistence.
(Ostrom & Hess, 2006) The Enclosure Movement
drove rapid urbanisation and industrialisation, and
collective efforts, shared knowledge and livelihoods
linked to the management of the common land were
eventually lost or forgotten as commoners became
wage labourers in factories (De Angelis & Stavrides,
2009).
19

03 >
Literature review
Urban Commons and new enclosures
The Enclosure Movement was part of a historical
process by which pre-capitalist forms of production
and social organization were transformed to create
the conditions necessary for the development of
capitalism. This process known in Marxist theory
as ‘primitive accumulation’, (Marx 1867) is further
expanded upon by Harvey’s theory of ‘accumulation
by dispossession’. Harvey (2003) explains how the
accumulation of capital continues to occur through
the expropriation and dispossession of people
and resources, inevitably creating new forms of
inequality, exclusion, and social and environmental
destruction. Understanding the term “enclosures”
and how it is still relevant today is useful in explaining
modern-day privatisation (Standing 2019), as Hess
and Ostrom argue, “the narrative of the enclosure is
one of privatisation, the haves versus the have-nots”
(2006: 12). Since the late 20th century, neoliberal
economic and political ideologies have driven the
implementation of policies that emphasize private
enterprise and profit maximisation. The privatisation
of public space, goods, and services, the sell-off of
community assets and social housing, government
cuts and reduced welfare benefits and access to
education and health, and the commodification of
natural resources and cultural heritage, as well as
knowledge through intellectual property rights, are all
examples of “new enclosures” (Federici, 2018).
During the past decades, new enclosures have
taken on new forms and intensified. In the UK,
privatisation particularly targeted the social housing
model through Thatcher’s Right to Buy, which has
resulted in a net loss of 1.9 million homes since 1979
and a shift from 31.4% of the overall housing supply
in 1981 to just 18.1% today. (Hodkinson, 2012).
Furthermore, the UK government’s austerity program,
adopted after the 2008 recession and used from 2010
to 2019 and again after the COVID-19 pandemic, has
caused sustained reductions in public spending and
tax rises. This has led to the sale of more than 4,000
public buildings and spaces every year to private
developers by underfunded councils. (Locality, 2018)
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (2019) revealed
that 20,651 public buildings and spaces were estimated
to be sold by underfunded councils from 2014 to
2018. Particularly in Sheffield, by 2017 the council
raised £36.5 million by selling off 78 spaces, including
schools, playing fields, libraries, and historic listed
buildings (Williams 2019). Simultaneously, both the
market and state are demanding more from the urban
commons to address the deficits and issues caused
by the system. Austerity policies have consolidated
social inequalities, accentuated poverty and increased
food insecurity and the use of food banks (Jenkins et
al. 2021). In Sheffield, the voluntary sector has stepped
up to provide the essential services, creating alongside
the council an accessible map of Hubs and Welcoming
Places for those struggling to heat their homes or feed
themselves and their families. (VAS, n.d.)
In conclusion, the commons are becoming
increasingly instrumental for humanity in ensuring
social reproduction by counterbalancing new
enclosures and repairing the damages caused by
neoliberal markets and state institutions. (UCRC,
2022) Urban commons in particular raise the question
of how the provision of spaces, services and tangible
and intangible resources in urban contexts could be
re-claimed and collectivised. To explore how this could
be achieved, four narratives that contribute to our
thinking and of the urban commons are identified in
the literature: reciprocity, thresholds, cosmolocalism
and the city as a commons.
20

Figure 7.
Map showing land in
public ownership in
the city center
Figure 9.
vas.org Hubs and Welcome Places
Figure 8.
idem
26% of land in
Sheffield is owned by
the Council (source:
Gregory 2021, Property
Terrier Holdings
sheffield-city-councilopen-data-sheffieldcc.
hub.arcgis.com)
21

03 >
Literature review
Gift
economy
Reciprocity
Heterotopias
Thresholds
Polycentric
governance
Cosmolocalism
The right to
the city
The city as a
commons
Reciprocity & the Gift Economy
Various authors (Engle, 2022) (Federici, 2018)
(Harvey, 2012) have highlighted the inadequacies
of the current capitalist system, exposed by global
economic crises, however, capitalism’s structures run
so deep in society that also affect our non-economic
relations with each other and with the world around
us. In a competitive market environment, the private
property economy does not promote reciprocal
relations between humans, nature, and resources
as there is no bond between the object and the
subject/consumer. Under the current system sharing
is discouraged because market value is based on
scarcity and exclusivity, however, alternative economic
models based on wealth-sharing can foster new
understandings of value beyond the one-dimensional
monetary definition (Engle, 2022).
and others have been institutionalised, (Library of
Things Cic, 2023) Additionally, LoT have the potential
of forming partnerships with councils, repair shops,
community gardens and kitchens, low waste markets,
maker-spaces, arts, music, and kids’ play spaces;
thus building supportive and reciprocal commoning
networks between communities and mainstream
institutions.
bartering
The Gift Economy
time &
patience
knowledge
expertise
food,
seedlings
The rejection of the dominant capitalist logic of
private property and the transition towards more
interconnected ways of living that value human
relationships and the well-being of all is conceptualised
by Federici (2018) as ‘re-enchanting the world’. This
involves the rediscovery and celebration of alternative
ways of organising societies that promote human
dignity, collective care, and the stewardship of
resources and the environment. Similarly, in the book
Sacred Civics (2022) the authors propose reimaging
shaping cities based on ‘sacred values’, this is,
as if people, lands, and natures were unique, lifesustaining,
self-owning and uncommodifiable. (Engle,
2022)
software
sharing
& copyleft
licenses
urban space
Solidarity based
contributive system,
take what you need,
give what you can.
Library of
Commons
swap & free
shops
Thank
you
notes
materials,
tools
clothes,
furniture
incentives:
streamline planning
application if the
development
contirbutes to the
commons
An example of how this might translate to practice
is libraries of things (LoT). As part of the sharing
economy, LoT reframe value as social capital,
community cohesion, cultural identity, and well-being,
and as tangible collections of borrowable objects,
they allow users to save money and reduce waste,
all while making skill-building more accessible. In
the UK, LoT take many names and forms, some are
more grassroots such as Sheffield’s GreenCityAction
Community Toolbank based on Abbeyfield House,
Figure 10.
technical
guidance &
expertise legal &
administrative
support
time, ideas,
kinship,
care
Gifts
research &
education
meanwhile
spaces &
right to use
Explanatory diagram of the Gift Economy
22

Reciprocity
Gift
economy
Thresholds
Heterotopias
Polycentric
governance
Cosmolocalism
The right to
the city
The city as a
commons
Thresholds and heterotopias
Reciprocal relationships require specific spatial and
social settings, - for instance, GCA’s Toolbank provides
a welcoming space in Abbeyfield House where
neighbours can meet. However, a library of things
such as this is also a space that functions under its
own rules, times, and protocols, different to those from
outside, -- a heterotopia in Foucault’s (1967) terms. The
concept of heterotopia applied to the urban commons
is used by Stavrides (2016) to describe “a collective
experience of otherness … as the practice of diffusing
new forms of urban collective life”; and by Harvey
(2000, p. 194) as “spaces of alternate ordering… within
which life is experienced differently”. These spaces
allow encounters with the “other,” connecting to
diverse ways of being, living and knowing and fostering
mutual understanding, negotiation, and conflict
resolution. In this sense, urban commons are defined
as socio-material thresholds, not merely as physical
resources but as gateways to shared experiences,
mutual support, and collective action within our cities
(Stavrides 2016).
The threshold quality of the commons “separates
while connecting,” (Stavrides 2016) implying that
although commons function outside or against the
market and the state, they have an emancipatory
potential to transcend enclosures and create new
ways of living/creating/working/caring “in common.”
Likewise, urban commons are transformative
thresholds where communities reclaim and repurpose
urban spaces and resources for common use and
become catalysts in reappropriating the city as a
commons. Unlocking, locating, or producing threshold
spaces through spatial practices, such as symbolic
representation, physical occupation, temporary
adaptation of space and cooperative organisational,
ownership, governance, and management models,
allow the creation of “spaces of hope.” Spaces,
according to Harvey (2000) represent hopeful and
aspirational approaches and experiments to urban
development that embody a more just and equitable
urban future. A spatial network of urban commons,
or rather as Stavrides (2002) proposes, “a city of
thresholds” could provide opportunities for encounter
and exchange through spaces and times of departure
from dominant capitalist logic, and entry-points for
interaction between actors and stakeholders that
bridge the divide between the public and the private
realms.
Figure 11.
Photo: pop-up kitchen in Heely City Farm creates a
threshold between intergenerational communities
(August 2023)
23

03 >
Literature review
Gift
economy
Reciprocity
Heterotopias
Thresholds
Polycentric
governance
Cosmolocalism
The right to
the city
The city as a
commons
Cosmolocalism & polycentric governance
The most prominent critique against the commons
is Hardin’s (1968) “The Tragedy of the Commons”,
which argues that CRPs are inevitably unsustainable
because users always maximise extraction, thereby
depleting the resource. Hardin’s argument has been
used to justify privatisation and total state management
of common goods (De Angelis & Stavrides, 2009),
however, Ostrom’s (1990) extensive economic
research on the commons proved that commoners
are capable of developing and negotiating tools to
access and sustain their CPRs. Nonetheless, while
commons succeed in small contexts, as the number
of commoners and the territory covered expands
resource-sharing and decision-making becomes
ever more complex. Consequently, Ostrom’s theory
highlights the effectiveness of decentralized and
locally tailored governance systems in successfully
managing and sustaining common-pool resources.
Further exploring polycentric governance,
Bauwens et al. (2022) apply the cosmolocal mode of
production to the commons, which involves resourcesharing
at a global scale. In practice, it would involve
local places contributing to and benefiting from other
communities’ open knowledge, technologies, designs,
and software. On one hand, this would facilitate the
(re)introduction of the logic of the commons to sustain
communities’ resilience and wealth, and on the other,
it would accelerate the urban transition. According
to the authors, implementation of this model will
require cities to set up a four-layered system of
collaboration. The first layer consists of recognising
the existing commons in all their complexity and
building networks to expand their impact. The second
layer focuses on creating coalitions of support and
agreements between cities and commoners, through
the establishment of a new sociopolitical contract. The
third layer involves using open design and knowledge
collaboration to transform their production, sharing
it with other cities. Finally, the fourth layer forms
synergies between cities by connecting commons
from around the world.
Overall, in the context of the urban commons,
cosmolocalism emphasizes the potential of urban
communities to contribute to and benefit from
global knowledge-sharing and collaboration through
polycentric networks of governance, while recognising
that although cities are part of the global economy
and face shared challenges, their solutions should be
rooted in local knowledge, culture, and practices.
24
Figure 12.
EASA community meeting
(August 2023)

Reciprocity
Gift
economy
Thresholds
Heterotopias
Polycentric
governance
Cosmolocalism
The right to
the city
The city as a
commons
The city as a commons & the right to the city
Building on Ostrom’s work, Foster & Iaione (2022)
employ Lefebvre’s ([1968] 1996) ‘right to the city’
framework to focus the study of the commons and
decentralized governance systems in urban contexts,
As Harvey (2012), they understand the city as a site of
production of commons, revindicating the right to the
city as the struggle to reintegrate urban spaces with
the social fabric, empowering residents to collectively
care for city life and shape urban environments.
However, the right to the city is also rooted in the
conflict between the commercial exchange value
of buildings and spaces and their social use value.
Being constructed by social processes, the use value
of urban resources derives from their everyday use
and the connections between their users. As a result,
the authors propose rethinking the city as a generative
common resource, shared, and co-created by all
citizens. This would involve redesigning institutions to
bring together various stakeholders, including citizens,
governments, institutions, civic organisations, and
businesses, in the co-design process of both tangible
and intangible common-good resources and services.
Thus, the “Co-city” proposed by Foster & Iaione
(2022) aims to move away from traditional topdown
decision-making and embrace more inclusive
and participatory practices by explicitly involving
mainstream institutions. The Co-city framework is
distilled into five design principles which are: collective
governance, enabling state, social and economic
pooling, experimentalism, and tech justice (Foster &
Iaione, 2022). These principles employ institutional
mechanisms and legal, digital, and technological
tools, to foster, sustain and replicate various urban
commons. However, they are not meant to be used
as strict design guidelines, but as an interpretative
protocol or a common language that enables the
exchange of ideas and practices in-between cities
without compromising institutional diversity and
adaptiveness.
Answering the question of “What can Institutions
Do,” Milburn & Russell (2018) propose the formation
of public-common partnerships, exemplified by
the “remunicipalism” movement. For instance, in
‘Barcelona en Comú’ the council took the role of the
enabling estate by linking up with urban commons
and citizens, actively involving them in the governance
and management of urban spaces and resources,
and effectively reclaiming the city as a commons. (The
Care Collective, 2020)
Figure 13.
Architecture students activating and reclaiming shaping
power over public space through temporary furniture
(August 2023)
25

Learning from >
Figure 15.
Bologna
Figure 14.
Explanatory diagram of
Collaborare e Bologna
Figure 16.
Dynamo Velostazione (2016 – 2021… ), a
bike rental social enterprise
26
Mercato Sonato (2016 – 2023), a
community event space in an old market
The co-cities protocol developed
by Foster & Iaione (2022) within
LabGov has influenced commonsoriented
initiatives across Europe,
and most significantly the Italian
city of Bologna. Bologna’s
commoning journey began in 2007
when the concept of “common
goods” was proposed to be
incorporated into the Italian Civil
Code, sparking renewed interest
in the commons. In the aftermath
of the 2008 crisis, the city faced
dereliction and reduced citizen
participation due to a lack of trust
in the government and bureaucratic
hurdles. In response, in 2014,
Bologna launched the “Collaborare
è Bologna” project, partnering with
LabGov to create the “Regulation
for the Care and Regeneration of the
Urban Commons.” This law aimed
to foster collaboration between
the municipality and citizens,
empowering them to co-govern
and regenerate the city together.
(Dellenbaugh-Losse, Zimmermann,
& de Vries, 2020)
Bologna recognises its
residents as resourceful agents
capable of co-producing urban
solutions. To reflect this, the city
was reorganised into six districts,
each with its council and local hub,
adopting a layered approach to
decentralization. It established new
offices and processes to facilitate
citizen participation and future
collaborations. “Collaboration
pacts” and the recognition of
“the right to care” streamlined
citizen engagement, allowing
straightforward application for
urban development projects while
the city provides insurance during
citizens’ involvement. Bologna’s
polycentric governance model
ensures better allocation of city
resources, prioritizing community
needs and long-term perspectives
for each district. Bologna has also
been a pioneer in implementing
participatory budgeting, where
citizens could propose, discuss,
and vote on how a portion of
the municipal budget should be
allocated. (LabGov, 2016)

Learning from >
Figure 18.
Ghent
Figure 17.
Explanatory diagram of Ghent’s
Commons Transition Plan
Figure 19.
The NEST experiment (2017 – 2019), a
meanwhile space in old library
Policy co-creation lab in Ghent within the
‘School of Commons ‘
The recent Commons Transition
Project for the city of Ghent (Belgium)
provides further understanding of
what commons-enabling institutions
could look like. In 2017, the council
commissioned members of the
P2P Foundation to conduct an indepth
site-specific and situational
analysis of the commons in the city.
The aim of the study consisted of
understanding the emergence of
commoning practices to determine
and provide guidance to city
authorities regarding adjustments
or creation of policies in favour of
citizen initiatives centred around the
commons. Using mapping, and a
series of questionnaires, interviews
and workshops, the study revealed
there were around five hundred urban
commons in Ghent, predominantly
grassroots efforts, but found them
to be fragmented, largely enclosed
vulnerable to commodification and
overall lacking synergy in between
each other. (Bernardi, 2017)
To empower commoners and
give them more political influence,
the report advises the development
of a city-wide commons strategy,
including the creation of new
institutions. The “States-General
of the Commons” would represent
commoners and the “Chamber
of the Commons” would support
different actors in the commons
economy. The city should also adopt
cosmolocal production and a circular
finance model through which
savings in the city budget could be
redirected to commons projects.
Additionally, a “Call for Commons,”
based on openly sharing knowledge
commons, could promote alliances
involving various stakeholders
(Bauwens & Onzia, 2017).
While some recommendations
made by the report have been
implemented, such as the creation of
the Temporary Use Fund to provide
financial support for commons
initiatives, an educational program
about commons and several
spaces for commoners to meet and
collaborate; new institutional bodies
have not been established and the
future of the project is uncertain
(Turolla, 2020).
27

03 >
Literature review
What next? The world as a commons
Bologna and Ghent’s initiatives highlight how a universal
urban commons framework can be applied and
adapted to different socioeconomic and urban settings.
However, it is crucial to recognise that commons-public
partnerships are interdependent, and the fluctuating
electoral cycles pose a risk to their long-term viability.
Besides, Bologna’s Participatory Budgeting and Ghent’s
Temporary Use Fund, while commendable, might not
provide adequate financial backing for urban commons
to effectively counter the profit-driven real estate market,
especially in the short run.
Addressing this challenge, Standing (2019)
suggests a novel Charter of the Commons, reminiscent
of Britain’s 13th-century Charter of the Forest that
safeguarded common land access. The proposal
advocates for a Permanent Commons Fund on a global
scale, dedicated to supporting various commons
endeavours encompassing community-led housing,
community-owned renewable energy, gardens and
food commons, community-based education and
healthcare services, and cultural and digital commons.
Funded by a combination of public and private sources,
it would be managed by a board of trustees that would
be accountable to the global commons community.
Standing’s ambitious proposal mirrors prevalent
themes in existing literature, from the historical erosion
of commons due to enclosures to their potential revival
through interconnected cosmolocal networks fostering
reciprocity.
Expanding commons beyond cities or borders,
this vision strives to ensure that urban commons can
continue to provide essential benefits to people and the
planet.
28

Summary of findings
context
England & UK context
narrative
Historic Commons &
Enclosure Movement
findings
new enclosures
paradigm shift
1
During the past decades, new
enclosures have taken on new forms
and intensified. In the UK, privatisation
particularly targeted the social
housing model through Thatcher’s
Right to Buy. More recently, UK’s
austerity programme has led to public
buildings and spaces being sold-off by
councils, and to an increase in social
inequalities, poverty and food
insecurity.
Academic literature
Urban Commons
Reciprocity
Thresholds
Social &
Solidarity
Economy
Gift
economy
Heterotopias
Polycentric
governance
Cosmolocalism
2
3
4
Alternative economic system that
reframes “value” beyond capitalist
market logic, and that prioritizes social
and enviromental well-being instead of
solely financial profits.
Spaces of exchange and connection
between different livelihoods & forms
and knowledge & knowing.
Alternatives forms of organising society
Beyond binary state-market relations
Polycentric governance that allows &
site-spefic solutions & collaboration
and resource-sharing at a global scale.
The right to
the city
The city as a
commons
institutionalisation
of the commons
5
Recognising citizens as resourceful
agents of change and creating the
means for meaningful participation.
CREATION OF NEW INSTITUTIONAL
BODIES, PROCESSES & TOOLS
Non-UK context
Bologna
Ghent
MAP
Interactive Map (B)
Co-Cities Map
Global context
Charter of the
Commons
The world as a
commons
Permanent
Commons Fund
“Partner
City” or
“Enabling
State”
GOVER-
NANCE
Collaboration Pact (B)
Commons Accord (G)
FUND MANAGE MAINTE-
NANCE
Participatory Budgeting (B)
Temporary Commons Fund(G)
Bank of the Commons (G)
SUSTAIN-
ABILITY
Figure 20.
Summary of literature
review findings
Portfolio of institutional
tools to infrastructure
the urban commons
29

04 >
Case study review
Living >
On the Brink
Caring >
SADACCA
30

Working >
Portland Works
Creating >
Bloc Projects
31

Figure 21.
04 > Case study review
Sheffield’s history
timeline
32

Urban Commons in Post-industrial Sheffield
Sheffield’s growth as an industrial town during the
18th and 19th centuries was driven by technological
innovation in the manufacturing of crucible steel.
Concurrently to the peak of its industrial era, Sheffield
was also home to a multitude of “little Mesters,” who
defied the ever-greater transition to wage labour. The
Mesters were self-employed, owned their means
of production and formed craftsmen clusters who
rented small workshops within larger factories (Udall,
2019). Although Mesters were not exempt from
great pressures and difficulties in their work, this
form of particular industrial development allowed for
“practices of interdependence” between Mesters, as
economies became entwined with sociality. (UCRC,
2022) Towards the end of the 20th century, after over
half a century of depression, Sheffield’s industries,
along with those in various other regions of the UK,
experienced their most severe decline.
Thatcher’s influence on Sheffield in the 1980s was
profound, and her neoliberal policies led to a drastic
reduction of the public sector, as well as severe cuts
and privatisation in the steel and coal industries, which
led to high unemployment rates and the abandonment
of manufacturing factories in the city-centre. However,
in response to this challenging environment, DIY
forms of making and culture emerged, flourishing in
the abandoned spaces left by the declining industries.
The arts and music scene of Sheffield thrived alongside
these vacant areas, becoming hubs of resistance and
renewal, and as the Mesters had centuries prior, these
initiatives operated outside capitalism and fostered
alternative ways of producing cultural and social
activities. (UCRC, 2022)
a key role in policy development and service provision
and contributes significantly to Sheffield’s gross value
added (GVA). However, the report found that financial
instability and the lack of new generations of volunteers
with the necessary skills threaten their sustainability
over time. In addition, the VSA face challenges in
building relationships with Sheffield City Council due
to the current practice of funding short-term projects.
This uncertainty makes it difficult to plan for the long
term and co-produce local services.
To interrogate how can the city best support
urban commons, this project looks at four Sheffield
cases part of the VCS where an aspect of everyday
life has been collectivised. These stories of postindustrial
Sheffield’s urban commons outline both the
continuous process of resistance against or existence
within modern-day enclosures, and the potentialities
of commoning practices in shaping non-capitalist
or anti-capitalist urban socio-spatial forms of living,
working, and caring in common.
A 2019 study on the Voluntary and Community
Sector (VCA) (Harris & Rimmer, 2019) found that there
were approximately 3,389 voluntary and community
organizations, social enterprises, and community
interest companies (CICs) in the city. Of these, over
half provided social care, welfare, and health services,
while the other half provided education, training, and
research. The VCS, a network of urban commons, play
Figure 21.
Sheffield’ City Centre
33

Working >
Portland Works
Randall St, Highfield, S2 4SJ
Ownership model: commonhold
property
Shareholders of Portland Works Ltd.
own a share of the land, building and
common areas and are responsible for
the management, maintenance, repair
and servicing of them. Work spaces are
available for tenants who sign a lease
(right to occupy)
portlandworks.co.uk
Portland Works is a Grade II Listed
cutlery factory in Sheffield, historically
tied to the city’s industrial evolution.
It was occupied by Mesters since
the 1870s and later by artists and
musicians when industrial activity
began to decline. In 2009, facing
the threat of conversion into private
flats, a successful campaign was
launched to save Portland Works,
and in 2014 a social enterprise
comprising around 500 community
shareholders purchased the building
from the private owner. This effort
not only involved contributions of
money, but also of time, skills, and
knowledge, to renovate the building,
hold exhibitions and collectively
rethink Portland Works’ future role
in the city. Collaborations with
Studio Polpo and the University of
Sheffield aided in mapping mutual
relations of care and labour as a tool
of “alternative for value accounting”
(Petrescu, 2021) and exploring
ways to make the project feasible
and economically sustainable for
the tenants in the long term. (Urban
Commons Research Collective,
2022)
Portland Works now serves as a
threshold between different modes of
production, operating independently
of market speculation cycles, but in
collaboration Sheffield City Council,
Sheffield Town Trust, and Sheffield’s
universities, amongst other
institutions, and participating in citywide
events. It provides affordable
workspace for 35 tenants, fostering
relationships of reciprocity among
them. ‘Tuesday volunteers’ support
renovation and maintenance efforts.
However, financial sustainability
relies on donations from private
and institutional sources, including
the Heritage Lottery Fund and the
Architectural Heritage Fund.
In conclusion, Portland Works’
story is an exemplary case of how
‘Working urban commons’ can
counter new enclosures through
relational practices rooted in
mutuality, sharing and cooperation. It
also emphasizes the need for strong
organisational systems, in this case,
the Asset Lock, which ensures the
building will be retained within the
CIC to be used for the community
purposes. (Urban Commons
Research Collective, 2022) Finally,
although Portland Works was not
purchased under the Community
Right to Bid (Localism Act 2011),
the model has the potential to be
transferred or replicated in other
post-industrial contexts.
34

Creating >
Bloc Projects
71 Eyre Ln, S1 4RB / 2-4 & 16 Matilda
St, S1 4QY
Ownership model: Private
ownership (Asset Lock) / Meanwhile
space (right to occupy)
blocprojects.co.uk
Bloc Projects is a not-for-profit
arts organization in Sheffield that
emerged from the aspiration of
individuals to establish their own
gallery space and create a supportive
and creative environment for local
artists. Located in a former cutlery
and tuning fork factory, the gallery’s
focus lies in exploring art practices
intertwined with broader sociopolitical
contexts. Though not all its
end users own or manage resources,
Bloc Projects operates as an urban
commons by facilitating interactions
between citizens, organizations, and
institutions, and opening up spaces
for commoning the city.
The organization offers two
distinct programs aimed at different
segments of the public. The curated
program supports emerging artists
by providing financial, legal, and
logistical guidance, helping them
access grants, coordinate exhibitions
and develop marketing strategies
for their work. Additionally, in recent
years, Bloc Projects has developed a
model for managing and maintaining
meanwhile use spaces across the city
through which privately owned sites
that are due for redevelopment are
rented below market value to provide
affordable artist studios. These
studios are available at a minimal
cost to others in need of workspace
for creative activities and rent-free
to Bloc members. The revenue
generated from these meanwhile
spaces sustains the organization
while fostering collaborations and
supporting artists, thus enhancing
social capital, and contributing to the
city’s cultural prosperity.
The gallery space serves as a venue
for talks, workshops, and exhibitions,
open to the general public for free.
Bloc Projects funds its operations
through annual memberships, studio
rents, and support from national and
local institutions like the Arts Lottery
Fund, England Arts Council, Sheffield
City Council, and local universities.
While emphasizing the significance
of spaces for fostering relationships
and collaborations in the city, Bloc
Projects acknowledges the cultural,
linguistic, social, and economic
barriers that Art can present. To
address this, the organization strives
to be accessible, inclusive, and crossdisciplinary,
welcoming various forms
of knowledge and art practice. Bloc
Projects also highlights the ethical
responsibility of urban commons
to engage with diverse groups of
audiences and communities and
translate art into everyday relatable
experiences.
The case of Bloc Projects invites
us to explore the potentialities of a
network of meanwhile spaces across
the city that allows disused buildings
to be accessed and reconfigured
creatively, fostering new relations
between people, urban resources,
and diverse forms of creating and
knowing.
35

Living >
On the Brink
90 Osborne Rd, Nether Edge, S11 9BB
Ownership model: commonhold
property
On the Brink Ltd. owns the land, building
and common areas and is responsible for
the management, maintenance, repair
and servicing of them, but each resident
is responsible for their individual house.
onthebrink.community
36
On the Brink is a co-housing in
Nether Edge that emerged in
response to the 2008 mortgage crisis
and a desire for alternative ways of
living together. The co-house sits in a
residential area of suburban Victoria
Villas, developed in the 19th by
middle and upper-class landowners
seeking distance from the densely
populated and insalubrious city
centre. More than a century later,
through a mix of pragmatism and
serendipity, the Victorian villa in
particular, Brincliffe House, built
in 1852, offered an opportunity
for collective ownership due to its
spacious layout and grounds. In
2015, a group of people formed On
the Brink Ltd. and purchased the
house and the land, transforming
it into eleven flats and adding a
terrace extension for three families,
accommodating a total of twenty-six
residents. Thus, as a commonly held
property, On the Brink, has no overall
landlord, instead, it is co-owned
by the residents of each unit, who
are collectively responsible for the
management and maintenance.
What differentiates OTB from
traditional housing schemes are the
communal spaces. As thresholds
between the private and the
public, the living room, kitchen,
and courtyard are shared by the
residents and foster new forms of
living together that extend care
beyond the nuclear family.
Convivial forms of living together
do not exclude conflict, in fact, it
plays a vital role in urban commons
by pushing the community to
renegotiate and rearticulate
their collective and individual
responsibilities. The community
invites a spectrum of voluntary
participation, yet in an analogous
way to the gift economy, strives
to create relations of care that are
reciprocated and appreciated.
However, navigating financial
instability, interpersonal differences,
and motivations require a significant
investment of time and emotional
labour as well as the willingness to
understand different perspectives
and knowledge.
‘Living urban commons’ have
the potential to nurture alternative
forms of communal care and
collective kinship. Although On the
Brink exhibits a certain degree of
enclosure, as it is constituted by a
closed group of commoners and a
finite resource, the collective exercise
of reimagining the house—the
central node of social reproduction
(Federici, 2011) —could expand
attitudes of interdependence and
cooperation beyond the domestic
realm, rethinking housing as a
commons at a city scale.

Caring >
SADACCA
48 Wicker, Sheffield S3 8JB
Ownership model: leased to SADACCA
by Sheffield City Council since 1986
sadacca.co.uk
SADACCA (Sheffield and District
African Caribbean Community
Association) is an anchor
community space in Sheffield that
has been serving the needs of the
African Caribbean community since
1955. Formed by the first Windrush
generation who moved from the
Caribbean to Britain to serve postwar
labour shortages in factories,
SADACCA’s main aim has been to
provide a welcoming and safe space,
through the promotion of cultural
activities and care and recreation
services.
In recent years the organisation
has faced several challenges,
including the need for new leadership
and the risk of eviction from their
space, a listed metalworks office
building leased by Sheffield City
Council under great development
pressure. In response to these
challenges, SADACCA developed
a strategic plan in collaboration
with Live Projects, an initiative by
the School of Architecture at the
University of Sheffield. Although Live
Projects were able to argue the social
value of the community space to the
council, SADACCA’s main challenge
remains to be securing a space in
the Wicker and ensuring social and
financial sustainability.
To address this issue, the
strategic plan involved a five-yearlong
project aimed at maximising
SADACCA’s built asset to fund
further improvements and support
the organisation’s financial stability
over time. Though restrictions on
listed buildings presented some
constraints, small interventions
such improving the accessibility,
visibility, and experience of the place
through furniture and signage were
carried out, making SADACCA more
welcoming to the wider public. The
project also included the creation of
rentable units, co-working spaces
for local start-ups, a schedule
of activities and a bar which
revenues are redirected towards
the educational spaces, the care
centre and the maintenance of the
organisation and the building.
In summary, although the
long-term future of SADACCA is
still uncertain, the strategic plan
developed by SADACCA and Live
Projects highlights the significance
of meaningful partnerships,
participation, and knowledge
exchange in the resilience of ‘caring
urban commons’. SADACCA’s
strategy also serves as a model
for how real estate can be used
as a resource for the commoners,
and how community spaces can
preserve heritage, promote social
inclusion, and contribute to the
cultural and economic prosperity of
future generations.
37

Commoning practices in Sheffield City Centre and surrounding areas
38
Figure 22.
Map of commoning practices in Sheffield City Centre and surrounding areas

39

Existing & potential commoning sites in Sheffield City Centre and surroundin
40
Figure 23.
Map of existing & potential commoning sites in Sheffield City Centre and surrounding areas

g areas
41

05 >
Design proposal
42

43

05 > 1
Design framework
The conceptual framework combines strategies
derived from the literature and case study reviews,
into a portfolio of institutional tools that aims to bridge
the gap between mainstream policy frameworks in
the UK and Sheffield and innovative forms of citizen
participation and stewardship of urban spaces and
resources.
In combination with existing policies and taking
inspiration from change-makers elsewhere, these tools
could provide the necessary legal, financial, social, or
spatial infrastructures that might contribute to urban
commons’ emergence, resilience, and transferability.
UK policy context
COMMUNITY
The Localism
Act of 2011
encompasses
a range of new
opportunities
and flexibilities
for local
governments
and rights for
individuals and
communities
to assume control
of public
services, community
assets,
and to have
an impact on
planning and
development.
The most relevant
ones to
support the Urban
Commons
are:
The right to
express their
interest in
running a particular
public
service and potentially
bid to
do this.
Allows the
transfer of
management
and/or ownership
of publicly
owned
building or
land to a community-based
organisation,
below market
value, in order
to promote social,
economic
or environmental
well-b
eing.
The right to
nominate
buildings or
land for listing
by the local authority
if its use
contirbutes to
the community’s
social
well-being.
During the first
6 months that
a listed asset
goes for sale,
community
groups can
make a bid to
buy the asset
on the open
market.
Communities
have the right
to bring forward
smallscale
community-led
developments.
Liverpool (2020) and the Borough
of Southwark (2022) established
Land Commissions, set
out to rethink how land is used,
and recentre its social purpuse
at the core of planning policies.
Locality.org.uk
44

Precedents
Collaborative mapping
& workshops to identify
community priorities
and needs, and potential
sites for commoning
London’s Library
of Things &
Sheffield’s community
toolbank
Bologna’s
Collaboration Pact
UNHABITAT
Participatory
budgeting Report
Interactive map of urban commons
and projects carried out within the
Collaborare e Bologna framework
45

46

Emergence
Sustainability
Transferability
Tool A >
Collaborative
Mapping
Tool B >
Commoning
wrokshops
An interactive mapping platform
compiling everyday commoning
practices. It makes urban commons
visible and accessible to a greater
number of potential users or
commoners; and functions as a
tool of alternative value accounting,
tracking the number of urban
commons, the services provided,
the people involved, and the
relationships formed. It would
be continuously updated by the
citizens.
Periodical gatherings involving
citizens, SCC, local and national
institutions, social enterprises, and
ethical banks and foundations,
providing a time and a space for
conversation, (re)negotiation and
(re)articulation of commoning
principles and goals, discussion of
community priorities.
Tool C >
Micro-contract
for slices of
time & space
Tool D >
Commoning Pact
Tool E >
Participatory
Budgeting
Relationship formed between
SCC and the citizens that enables
and guarantees access to urban
spaces and resources for an
agreed period of time, under a set
of mutually agreed upon rights
and responsibilities.
Main policy document that legally
recognises the urban commons
and provides definitions and shared
language and establishes a set of
commoning principles to inform
and guide micro-contracts.
Alternative economic approach
used to finance the creation and
maintenance of commoning
practices, where citizens can
decide on the allocation of part
of the municipal budget. It would
be supported by commoning
workshops where citizens can bring
forward ideas or discuss different
public spending projects.
Tool F >
Bank of the
Commons
Tool G >
Library of the
Commons
Tool H >
Commoning
network
Deposit of public and private
funds which are invested through
the participatory budgeting in
commoning projects that follow
the Commoning principles in
the Pact, while simultaneously
collecting the revenues to then
be re-invested in the same or new
urban commons.
Collection of tangible and
intangible things that members can
borrow. The library could work as
a swap shop or a free shop, where
citizens must give something in
return in the capacity that they can.
Members are not passive recipients,
but contributors to the library and
therefore to the sustainability of the
commons.
Digital platform for community
outreach, communication and
connection between users, who can
register and form partnerships with
other commoners or stakeholders.
47

05 > 1
Design framework
Housing
Sheffield Community Landtrust
On the brink Cohousing
Shirle Hill Cohousing
Nature
Heeley’s People Park
Friends of Firth Park
Friends of Abbeyfield Park
Arts
Community Kino
Mondo Radio
Gut Level
Arts Catalyst
Bloc Projects
Culture
SADACCA
Pakistan Muslim Centre
Workspace
Union St.
Portland Works
Make & repair
Sheffield Community Toolbank
Reyt Repair
Sheffield Repair Café
Sheffield Hackspace
Comac Bike Project
Food & gardening
Food Works
Sheffood
Food Cycle
Regather
Abundance
Heeley’s Park Community Orchard
Pub
Gardeners Rest
Activism
Green City Action
Our Bodies Our Streets
Publishing
Now Then Magazine
Burngreave Messenger
Collaborating + Connecting
Studio Polpo
Oppus Independents
Live Works
Voluntary Action Sheffield
Local Institutions
Sheffield City Council
Sheffield Hallam University
University of Sheffield
Commoning sites
Union St
Heeley Park
Firth Park
Abbeyfield Park
121 Eyre Street
Soft Grounds
2-4, 16 Matilda Street
71 Eyre Lane
48 Wicker (Metal Works)
Woodburn Road
Portland Works
Abbeyfield House
Gardeners Rest
Public space sites
The Moor
Sheaf Square
River Sheaf
Park Hill Estate
Castlegate
Disused building sites
Abbeyfield Park stables
Old Coroners Court
Globe Steel Works
Salvation Army Citadel
Old Town Hall
Qualitative resources
Culture, heritage
Skills, knowledge
Time
Care
Ideas
Materials
Tools
Surplus food
Quantitative resources
Economic support
Administration support
Marketing & publicy
Regulation & policy
More to be identified
Sheffield
City
Council
Commoning
workshops
Library of
Commons
Citizens
Commoning Pact
Participatory
Budgeting
Incentives
Reinvestment
48
Local businesses & private owners
Funding
Lottery Funding Programmes
Arts Council England
Ethical banks & foundations
European Union Funding Programmes
Collaborative
Mapping
Interface

Definitions
Urban commons
Commoning practices
Commoning platform
Collective ownership
Micro-contract
Regenerative commons
Shared management
Public space
Urban space
Partners
The City
The Citizens
Shared values
Mutual trust
Reciprocity
Inclusiveness
Openness
Flexibility
Transparency
Common Goals
Figure 28.
Long-term
Re-munipalisation
Circular & sharing economies
Degrowth
Short to medium term
Social capital
Build environment improvements
Meaningul participation
Community development
Bottom-up placemaking
Actors involved
Purpose
Action(s)
Location
Duration
Type of resource(s)
Management model
Ownership model
Governance model
Flow diagram connecting potential actors
to resources through the different tools to
achieve the Common Goals
Risk
assessment
Micro-Contract
for slices of
time & space
Commitments
Rights
Responsibilities
Gifts
Implementation
Management
Care & repair
Scaling up
Building capacity
Training
Annual budget
& community
vote
Feasability &
Social Impact
Assessment
Support
Documentation of achievements & processes
Measuring social value
Economic
Administrative
Legal advice
Publicity & outreach
Activities coordination
Technical / expertise
Legal permit
Feedback
Civic
groups
Social
enterprises
Commoning
practices
Urban
spaces
Materials
& tools
49

replenishing cy
& gift bac
profit made from c
reinvested to
05 > 1
Design framework
tool
C
slice of space
pooling of common resources (tools, fo
to
tool
A
Micro
contract
slice of time
Lib
Co
preceden
Green
Commun
Abbey
Collaborative mapping of
existing urban commons &
potential commoning sites
tool
B
Citizen
ente
tool
D
Department for
Urban Commons
Sheffield City
Council
Sheffield City Center &
metropolitan area
tool
B
Commoning
Pact
Upon identifing
community priorities,
the Commoning pact
outlines the
commons goals &
shared values and
translates them to
co-created policies.
Field
experts
Commoning workshops
Identification of global issues &
local needs, desires, priorities
& social values
tool
E
Participatory
Budget
Ban
Com
to
redirecting funding to projects that build social cap
50

Figure 24.
Explanatory diagram of the tools interactions
and conceptual framework
cle, take something
k something
od, clothes, books, knowledge, skills, time...)
ol
G
rary of
mmons
Gifts, rights & responsibilities
t in Sheffield:
City Action
ity Tool Bank in
field House
s & social
rprises
Projects selected by
citzens are formalised
through the enacment of
micro-contracts. These
outline the mutually
agreed upon gifts, rights &
responsibilities of each
part during a specified
period of time.
Collaborative REmapping
tracing & tracking new reciprocal
relationships
Education
department
Care & management of
collectively governed urban
commons
Ethical banks &
foundations
tool
H
1
2
3 4
Commoning
network
Foster a commoning network of mutually
supportive communities who share and
exchange resources, knowledge, ideas,
skills, technology & culture
k of the
mons
Submission of
proposals
Social Impact
Assessment
Feasibility
assessment
Publication of
proposals
Community
vote
ol
F
Technical
support
ital and benefit humans & non-humans on a cosmo-local scale
Appealing
process
ommoning projects is
fund new ones
51

05 > 2
Design application
One of the tools of the portfolio, the micro-contract,
was prototyped to generate practical knowledge that
contributes to the understanding of the theory while
raising further research questions that then were explored
in an iterative design process. The micro-contract is tested
in two scenarios.
Scenario 1 explores how the Salvation Army Citadel
building, a derelict Grade II Listed building in the city
centre owned by SCC, could be given a new lease of life
through commoning as an alternative to commercialled
development. This scenario is purely speculative and
serves to refine the micro-contract that will be employed in
the second scenario.
Scenario 2 takes place in 48 Wicker, a Grade II-listed
building home of SADACCA and owned by SCC. Securing
their space in the Wicker as well as retail space for the
Africa-Caribbean community is amongst SADACCA’s main
goals. This scenario explores how this could be realised
employing the tools proposed in the portfolio. Through a
two-week-long field research, the micro-contract was usertested
on-site through informal interviews with potential
users, feedback, and observations. Scenario 2 also
revealed what was missing, what ought to be adjusted and
what was successful from the micro-contract prototyped
during Scenario 1.
The design process proved the findings from the reviews
regarding the challenging aspects of the urban commons
accessing funding and capital, dealing with real estate
and the commodification of land, and being financially
sustainable. These issues are addressed through another
two of the tools in the portfolio, the Participatory Budget,
and the Bank of the Commons, plus the design of a ‘Smart
Contract’ between the commoners and the private owner.
Finally, an alternative economic system informed by the
Sharing & Gift Economy, named the ‘Commons Economy’ is
proposed, to promote interconnectedness and reciprocity
between commoners and stakeholders in the city.
Figure25.
Usertesting of the Micro-contract
52

1
Design proposal of
prototypes of the
Commoning Pact and the
micro-contract for slices of
space and tiem
2
Q1: What would the process look like in practice? > Testing in two speculative scenarios
3
Q2: How could urban
commons be funded,
to ensure financial
sustainability & stability?
Q3: How could urban
commons interact or deal
with real estate?
53

Table A.1 Purpose, Subject and Scope
1 > This Commoning Pact recognises the city as a
commons and its citizens as active, creative and
powerful actors in its shaping process.
1
2 > This Commoning Pact acknowledges existing
Urban Commons as beneficial for communities
wealth, development and resilience, and thereby is
committed to build networks to expand their
impact; by promoting the creation local and
extralocal coalitions of support through the
establishment of a new socio-political
Micro-contract which enables socially-oriented,
commons-based organisations to access urban
spaces and resources and claim collective care and
management of them.
3 > This Commoning Pact governs the forms of
collaboration amongst citizens and Sheffield City
Council to support the emergence, sustainability
and transferability of urban commons.
4 > The regulations will be relevant in situations
where citizens’ actions contribute towards the
creation of social and cultural value and the care
and management of disused buildings or urban
spaces.
5 > This Commoning Pact regulates the actions of
shared care, management and maintenance of
Urban Commons through the provision of legal,
administrative, economic and instrumental support
for commoners, aimed to facilitate the unlocking,
activation or reconfiguration of existing urban
structures or collectivized urban resources and/or
services.
DISCLAIMER
This is an UNOFFICIAL
document produced as
part of an speculative
design proposal for the
creation of institutional
tools that might
contribute to the
emergence,
sustainability, and
transferability of the
Urban Commons.
Bologna’s
REGULATION ON THE
COLLABORATION
AMONG CITIZENS
AND THE CITY FOR
THE CARE AND
REGENERATION OF
URBAN COMMONS
was employed as a
reference for the
elaboration of the
Commoning Pact. The
project was carried out
at The Bartlett School
of Planning during 2023
as part of the module
“Major Research
Project”, and therefore
has no association with
Sheffield City Council
nor any of the
institutions mentioned
in written report.
Table A.3 Tools
COMMONING PACT
MICRO-CONTRACT
PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING
LIBRARY OF COMMONS
BANK OF THE COMMONS
COMMONING NETWORK
Table A.2 Commoning Principles
SHEFFIELD URBAN COMMONS CO-MAP
Table A.4 Definitions
COMMONING WORKSHOPS
Urban commons: a shared resource or common good (land, urban space, knowledge,
a
b
Mutual trust
gift exchanging & regard
for shared values & for
one another
Inclusiveness
in breaking down
social, cultural &
linguistic barriers
side A >
COMMONING PACT
side B >
MICRO-CONTRACT
“THERE
IS NO
COMMONS
WITHOUT
COMMMONING”
skills or culture, collectively governed and maintained by a community of end users
know as commoners, through a bottom-up, horizontal and inclusive process of
participation defined as commoning.
Commoning: set of practices, and socially agreed-upon principles, guidelines and rules
defined by commoners to sustain the common good.
Commoners: a group of people, (a community, a civic organization), not necessarily
culturally homogeneous, but united by a common mindset and shared values.
Common good: uncommodifiable pooled resources that fulfill commoners’ needs.
Commons economy: an alternative system to the traditional market-driven economy in
which common goods are shared heritage belonging to the urban community as a
whole. It is based on open access, collective management, solidarity-based
contribution, cooperation and sharing.
Table A.15How to Use this Document?
Reciprocity
in honouring the
Micro-contract,
responsabilities &
self-accountability
Openness
in mindset, being willing to
understand & welcome
other positionalities
Flexibility
in practice,
embracing the
co-design process
& future changes
Transparency
in practice &
communication of
issues & concerns
The Commoning Pact (side A) regulates the collaboration
amongst citizens and the City. The Micro-contract (side B) is to
be filled in by the citizens with the details of the collaboration
proposal in conformity with the commoning principles, and
submitted for assessment via the online Commoning Portal at
www.sheffieId.gov.uk/commoning_pact/micro_contract
W O R K
TOGETHER
EAT BREAD
TOGETHER
DECLARE
THIS ALL
ABROAD

Scenario 01 >
Application of tools
Partners
Many-to
econ
Field experts
unlocking
spaces for
commoning
tools
Education
department
research
funds
Salvation Army Citadel
Grade II Listed Building
Owner: Sheffield City Council
COMMONING
Feedback
DECEMBER
W
Commoning
Pact
NOVEMBER
time
care
OCTOBER
Implementation & monitoring
SEPTEMBER
Citizens
& social
enterprises
local
knowledge
Micro
contract
Participatory
Budget
CITADEL
AUGUST
access
funds
JULY
Local
municipality
institutional
support
economic
support
Maintenance
Weekly meeting
Annual plan
Co-working hours
Community Kino
Gut Level
Ethical banks &
foundations
Regather
Repair Cafe
Timetable
56
Mutua
relation

Figure 25.
Explanatory diagram of the design
application of the tools to an specific
site and time frame
2
-many
omy
Positive Impacts
measuring
value
measuring
invisible value
cosmolocalism
designing
new metrics
ORKSHOPS
community
needs
JANUARY
Identify
FEBRUARY
COMMONING PLATFORM
Submission
of proposals
THANK YOU NOTE
to: Gut Level
“Thank you for
providing a safe
space where I can
dance with my
friends”
THANK YOU NOTE
to: Regather
THANK YOU NOTE
to: Studio Polpo
“Thank you for
gifting your
technical knowledge,
time &
patience”
Circularity
JUNE
MAY
MARCH
APRIL
proposals
assessment of
Technical
PEACE GARDENS
Civic event
& exhibition
Community
Vote
THANK YOU NOTE
to: Repair Cafe
“Thank you for
teaching me how
to fix my toaster,
now I won’t have
to throw it away”
THANK YOU NOTE
to: the Citizens
“Thank you for
making fresh, local
produce “Thank affordable you for THANK YOU NOTE
and accessible” taking care of me to: Library
and giving me a
new lease of life”
- Citadel
“Thank you for
letting me
borrow the
sewing
machine,
upcycling
clothes was so
much fun”
Meaningful
participation
Community
cohesion
Innovation &
knowledge
exchange
lity &
ality
57

Partnerships between the City Cou
and diverse social enterprises enab
unlocking and reusing existing asse
architectural and cultural value.
Scenario 01 >
Salvation Army Citadel
“Citadel’s building is brought back to
life by people’s ideas and skills”
– NowThen
“The Heart of the City in the hands of the public one again”
– The Star, Sheffield
Monthly c
together u
ideas & pr
Eco-cafe that serves meals made
with donated quality surplus
ingredients, where volunteers &
locals hang out.
Spaces for events and meetings are
available for rent (for a small fee or
another service in lieu) for students
and youth organisations.
Revenues from the Eco-cafe, events & spaces’
rents are reinvested in future commoning projects
Urban Commons Map
Salvation
Army Citadel
Collaborative efforts
granted the Grade II
Listed building a new
lease on life,
(re)opening
it to the city
the micro-contract gives citizens
a code to access the space
Maintenance works carried out every
second day by users and volunteers.
Donation for the
Library of Commons
Collection of surplus food and locally
grown ingredients to cook and share
58

Figure 26.
Collage
2
ommoning workshops bring
niversity students & locals to source
omote continued mutual learning.
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/participatory_budget23/
Participatory
Budgeting
2023
1 > Submit your proposal
2 > Discover what other
commoners are doing
near you and think of
creative ways of collaboration
3 > Vote for projects that
YOU want to see happen
4 > Most voted proposals
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/commoning_network/
Commoning
Network
1 > Discover what other commoners are doing near you.
2 > Connect with the council, universities, civic organisations, and
local businesses to form partnerships.
3 > Find out what funding opportunities are available.
Feedback
Board
SHEFFIELDURBANCOMMONS
Commoning Workshop @
Salvation Army Citadel
thank you!
2608 people liked this
204 people will attend
shared 351 times
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,
consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam
nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut
laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat
volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim
Sheffield
City Council
Micro-contract for
slices of time & space
ncil
les
ts of
Enables community groups and
emerging social enterprises to
access “slices of space” and
urban resources and claim
collective care and management
of them during a
contractual “slice of time”.
Borrowed from the
Library of Commons
59

Scenario 02 > Wicker 48
NOVEMBER
COMMONING
FEEDBACK
DECEMBER
Investment of annual revenues
other projects (Bank of the Commons)
WORKSHOPS
Building
commons-public
relationships
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
@ 48 Wicker
Developing an
organisational
model
org
model
Developing a
MARCH
OCTOBER
anisational
SEPTEMBER
48 WICKER
Implementation & monitoring
AUGUST
JULY
JUNE
MAY
OPEN DAY
APRIL
Pooling resources & preparations
Communal
courtyard
GYM
Day-care
centre
Multipurpuse event
space for hire
Bar
SHEFFIELDURBANCOMMONS
SADACCA @
48 The Wicker
Commoning Pact enables the
community to secure the space
Find & Map Urban
Commons in your area.
Do you know of a potential
site for commoning?
Register it here.
Mapping allows streamlines the listing process of
buildings as Asssets of Community Value
60

Figure 27.
Collage
2
“it is only when the city is seen through the eyes of all,
& its story told in the voices of all who live in it & call it home,
that its real story can ever be told”
– gambinga gambinga 2022 (NowThen)
A Sewing Club (by day) where
people can meet, chat, mend or
make clothes, learn new skills &
exchange tips & tricks
A homework club
and learning/training
centre to promote
finance literacy.
An incubator that
provides mentorships &
early fundraising for local
bussiness
An Intergenerational
Domino
Club (by night)
A community radio
that broadcasts
music by local artists
and stories about
commoning projects
Revenues from co-working & event spaces are used
to finance the organisation & improve the building
Feedback
Board
Protection and celebration
of the architectural,
cultural and living heritage
thank you!
Thank you notes, story telling
living heritage, and archiving
as alternative ways of
meassuing value
The History
of Sadacca
61

r
Q2: Urban commons funding
NOMINATE
property as
an Asset of
Community
Value
SMART
CONTRACT
Private
land
owners
Citizen co-investment
schemes, crowdfunding,
philantropy, in-kind donations
proposals, ideas,
concerns, needs,
priorities
(if public
owner)
COMMU
RIGH
TO BU
time
Citizens
& social
enterprises
Commoning
workshops
DECIDE how
public funds are
distributed
Project
Micro-contract
for a slice of time
and space
Participatory
Budget
Project
Project
Building
or land
COMMUNITY
RIGHT TO
CHALLENGE
Local
municipality
micro-loans
revenue is redistributed evenly amongst contributors & future projec
Ethical banks &
foundations
Private organisations
Bank of the
Commons
62

Q3: Private property market and real estate implications
Figure 28..
Explanatory
diagram of the
funding system
3
What are the incentives for
landowners to sign Smart
Contracts?
1. The property will raise in value
after the projects
2. Streamlined application process
and lower fees after X amount of
years being used for commoning,
IF the development continues to
create social value and fullfils
communities’ priorities & needs
Property is surveyed at
the beggining of the
project. An agreed % of
improvements & citizen
co-investments that raise
its market value are
deducted from its price.
NITY
T
ILD
Gifts
non-monetary
investments
gifts are
translated
into money.
(i.e. how many
hours? ...)
SMART
CONTRACT
epair
care
Prevents commodification
of land and allows
citizens to buy Assets of
Community Value
knowledge
& expertise
(if public
owner)
SOCIAL
VALUE
IF/WHEN
owner
decides to
SELL the
property
COMMUNITY
ASSET
TRANSFER
(if private
owner)
Asset
Lock
community
can buy the
property
BELLOW
MARKET
VALUE
ECONOMIC
VALUE
ANY EXTRA
REVENUE
made from
the project
COMMUNITY
RIGHT
TO BID
IF community
does not buy
the property
and the
owner sells
ts
profits are saved in the Bank and invested in other projects
A % of the difference in price
of the property is given to the
Council either in land or in
monetary compensation
%£
63

07 >
Conclusion
This Major Research Project aimed to explore
‘infrastructuring’ methods for promoting and
sustaining urban commons, whilst revitalizing
abandoned physical assets in post-industrial cities. It
responds to the limitations of current economic and
urban development models, highlighted by global
socio-economic crises, climate change, austerity
programs, and privatization trends in the UK. In recent
years commons have regained attention as a viable
alternative within the social and solidarity economy
(SSE). Additionally, disused industrial structures are
being repurposed through commoning practices that
combine resources with human skills, knowledge,
and aspirations creatively. However, enabling the reemergence
and growth of the commons at a city or
even global scale will require new ways of thinking
and modes of action.
There are divergent perspectives on urban
commons in the literature. Some advocate Ostrom’s
‘neo- neo-institutionalism,’ attributing the issue to a
lack of suitable institutions. Others lean towards the
neo-Marxist argument, focusing on resistance against
enclosures and social reproduction while rejecting
state and market institutions entirely. This project
examined how these two perspectives could be
integrated by viewing urban commons as thresholds
between conventional market-state institutions and
alternative socio-spatial organisations. Nonetheless,
productive partnerships can only occur when public
institutions coordinate their goals and actions with
external agents of change.
Reviewing academic literature and case studies
uncovered both the potential and the challenges
associated with urban commons. Since urban
commons operate outside extractive property market
logic, long-term financial stability and accessing capital
in highly contested urban settings are the greatest
barriers, followed by capacity-building and forming
long-term relationships with institutions. These
findings hold significant implications for institutional
design, encompassing policy development,
governance structures, resource allocation, and
accountability mechanisms. In Europe, several cities
like Bologna and Ghent have initiated protocols and
transition plans following a commons-based approach
to urban development, though these efforts are recent,
and their long-term impact remains to be fully realised.
Nonetheless, valuable lessons from these cities
can be adapted to the UK context. This adaptation
involves using design to reconcile established policy
frameworks and innovative commons strategies. To
do this, Sheffield is chosen both as the case study and
the site for experimentation and testing of the design
proposal. Although the city has a long history of social
activism, a strong voluntary and community sector, a
large stock of disused buildings, and a high percentage
of publicly owned land, community-led initiatives
still lack the infrastructure necessary to develop and
sustain themselves over time. Thereby, to bring urban
resources and people together, a comprehensive
portfolio of institutional tools is designed which SCC,
or any other Council, could implement to reintegrate
commons into urban life and city planning.
For this project, the Commoning Pact and the
micro-contract were prototyped and tested to
address the research question. Firstly, on top of
the problem of accessing capital, findings from the
64

interviews and the first micro-contract prototype
emphasized the condition of the temporality of urban
commons, as reflected in tensions in the use of the
space, meanwhile-spaces, and temporary leases, or
in time of use and activities conducted. Therefore,
the micro-contract aimed to turn this constraint
into an opportunity for interaction, understanding
the urban commons as socio-spatial and temporal
thresholds. The micro-contract also emphasizes
the contractual nature of the commons, enabling
the periodical renegotiation of protocols and rules
amongst commoners and between commons-public/
private partnerships. Secondly, the design process
of the Commoning Pact and micro-contract revealed
that the term ‘commons’ presents both linguistic and
conceptual challenges due to its historical origins in
the English open field system and colonial influences,
limiting its cross-cultural applicability. Other terms
such as ‘co-city’ and ‘co-design’ offered a more
universal understanding. This highlights the need for
a shared language between citizens and the city that
reflects diverse values, leading to the incorporation
of definitions into the Commoning Pact. Developing
new institutional vocabulary is crucial for legitimising
current and future commoning practices, facilitating
policy development that officially recognizes the city
as a commons, and empowering communities to
participate in its shaping process. Lastly, user testing
and on-site interviews demonstrated that meaningful
engagement occurs when there are well-defined,
achievable, and easily accessible frameworks in
place. In practical terms, this implies the creation of an
inclusive program of in-person commoning workshops
and a robust communication strategy to enhance
awareness of success stories and opportunities. For
example, periodic workshops and a digital platform
could be used to share skills, and knowledge, and
promote legal and financial literacy.
It is essential to recognise the research’s
limitations, including time and length constraints
that limited the depth of prototyping and testing, as
well as challenges in securing formal interviews with
certain organizations. Although this project did not
delve into the complexities of real estate’s relationship
with urban commons, it underscored that this is a
significant challenge. Therefore, there is a need for
further exploration of legal and financial mechanisms
that could empower the commons economy to
compete with the private property economy. It also
remains to be examined how the urban commons
framework could be integrated within Sheffield’s urban
development model and the Council’s vision for the
city, and in-depth policy analysis would be necessary
to contextualize the tools developed and translate
theoretical concepts into practical implementation.
In conclusion, this project has explored the diverse
ways of infrastructuring urban commons through the
design of a portfolio of tools supporting commonspublic
partnerships and the reconfiguration and
repair of existing industrial structures. It has also been
shown how self-governance and self-management as
tools for commoning could foster new ways of local
sociality while helping navigate societal transition at a
global scale. It is intended that this research enriches
our understanding of urban commons, advocating
for their inclusion as structural components of urban
design and city planning strategies.
65

07 >
Bibliography
Architecture00, NESTA, Design Council CABE. (2011).
Compendium for the Civic Economy. London:
00productions.
Bauwens, M., Kranjc, R., & Ramos, J. (2022). Commons
Economics in Action. Mutualizing Urban Provisioning
Systems. In J. Engle, J. Agyeman, & T. Chung-Tiam
Fook, Sacred Civics. Building Seven Generation
Cities. New York: Earthscan, Routeledge.
Bauwens, M., & Onzia, Y. (2017). Commons Transition
Plan for the City of Ghent. Ghent. Retrieved July
2023, from https://labgov.city/theurbanmedialab/
urban-commons-initiatives-in-the-city-of-ghent-acommons-transition-plan-by-bauwens/
Bernardi, M. (2017, October 18). Urban commons
initiatives in the city of Ghent: a Commons Transition
Plan by Bauwens. The Urban Media Lab. Retrieved
from https://labgov.city/theurbanmedialab/
urban-commons-initiatives-in-the-city-of-ghent-acommons-transition-plan-by-bauwens/
De Angelis, M., & Stavrides, S. (2009, July). On the
Commons. (A. Architektur, Interviewer)
Dellenbaugh-Losse, M., Zimmermann, N.-E., & de
Vries, N. (2020). The Urban Commons Cookbook.
Strategies and Insights for Creating and Maintaining
Urban Commons.
Engle, A. C.-T.-F. (2022). Imagining shaping cities as if
people, land and nature were sacred. In J. Engle, J.
Agyeman, & T. Chung-Tiam-Fook, Sacred Civics:
Building Seven Generation Cities (pp. 8-18). Taylor &
Francis.
Federici, S. (2011, January 4). Feminism and the Politics
of the Commons. The Commoner, p. 14.
Federici, S. (2018). Re-enchanting the World: Feminism
and the Politics of the Commons.
Foster, S., & Iaione, C. (2019). Ostrom in the City: Design
Principles and Practices for the Urban Commons. In
D. Cole, B. Hudson, & J. Rosenbloom, Handbook of
the Study of the Commons. New York: Routeledge.
Foster, S., & Iaione, C. (2022). Co-Cities. Innovative
transitions toward just and self-sustaining
communities. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Foucault, M. (1967). Of Other Spaces: Utopias and
Heterotopias. Architecture/Mouvement/Continuité.
Retrieved from https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/
foucault1.pdf
Gregory, S. (2023, August 3). South Yorkshire councils
feel the strain after a decade of underfunding.
Retrieved from NowThen Magazine: https://
nowthenmagazine.com/articles/south-yorkshirecouncils-feel-the-strain-after-a-decade-ofunderfunding-cuts-austerity
Gregory, S. (2021, August 4). Who Owns Sheffield?:
Digging deep into land ownership in our city.
NowThen.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2009). Commonwealth.
Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.
Harris, J., & Rimmer, M. (2019). The University of
Sheffield, School of Health and Related Research.
Voluntary Action Sheffield.
Harvey, D. (2000). Spaces of Hope. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Harvey, D. (2003). The New Imperialism.
66

Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the
City to the Urban Revolution. London: Verso.
Hodkinson, S. (2012). The new urban enclosures. City,
16:5, 500-518.
Kershaw, A. (Producer). (2021). Saving Portland Works
[Motion Picture]. Retrieved from Saving Portland
Works: www.portlandworks.co.uk/
LabGov. (2016). Bologna Lab. Retrieved from LabGov
City: https://labgov.city/explore-by-lab/bolognalab/
Library of Things Cic. (2023). Why Library of Things?
Retrieved from Library of Things: www.libraryofthings.
co.uk
Locality. (2018). Great British Sell Off. London: Locality.
Milburn, K., & Russell, B. (2018). ‘What Can an Institution
Do?’ Towards Public-Common Partnerships and a
new ‘Commons-sense’. Renewal, 45-55.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: the
evolution of Institutions for collective action.
Ostrom, E., & Hess, C. (2006). Understanding Knowledge
as a Commons. From Theory to Practice. Cambridge:
The MIT Press.
Patti, D., & Polyák, L. (2017). Funding the Cooperative
City. Community Finance and the Economy of Civic
Spaces. Vienna: Cooperative City Books.
Petrescu, D. (2021). Calculating the value of the
Commons: Generating Resilient Urban Futures.
Environmental Policy and Governance, 31.3.
Stavrides, S. (2002). From the City-Screen to the City-
Stage. Athens.
Stavrides, S. (2016). Common Space: The City as
Commons. London: Zed.
TBIJ. (2019, March 4). Revealed: The thousands of
public spaces lost to the council funding crisis. (L.
Power, Editor) Retrieved August 12, 2023, from The
Bureau of Investigative Journalism: https://www.
thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2019-03-04/
sold-from-under-you
The Care Collective. (2020). The Care Manifesto. The
politics of interdependence. London: Verso.
Turolla, G. (2020, November 11). Establishing
connections in intermediate spaces: Policy
participation in Ghent. UrbanAct Articles. Retrieved
August 28, 2023, from https://urbact.eu/articles/
establishing-connections-intermediate-spacespolicy-participation-ghent
Udall, J. (2019). Mending the commons with the ‘Little
Mesters’. Ephemera, 253-281.
Urban Commons Research Collective. (2022). Urban
Commons Handbook. Barcelona: pdr-barcelona.
VAS. (n.d.). Sheffield’s Network of Hubs and Welcoming
Places. Retrieved from Voluntary Action Sheffield:
https://www.vas.org.uk/what-we-do/sheffieldsnetwork-of-hubs-and-welcoming-places/
Standing, G. (2019). Plunder of the Commons. A
Manifesto for Sharing Public Wealth. Pelican.
67

page left intentionally purple