Each month, the open access team of the University of Groningen Library (UB) puts a recent open access article by UG authors in the spotlight. This publication is highlighted via social media and the library’s newsletter and website.

The article in the spotlight for the month of May 2025 is titled 'Social infrastructures as pillars of resistance against housing commodification in creative city Groningen’, written by Bart Popken and Ethemcan Turhan (both from the Faculty of Spatial Sciences).

Abstract
Accumulation strategies over the urban space increasingly target the emergent creative social strata through place-branding and urban transformation. In this article, we examine the role of squatting and urban commoning in creating resilient alternatives to housing commodification in Groningen, Netherlands. The COVA factory area, a communal space for artists, was targeted for ‘Stad aan het Water’ redevelopment scheme amid a shift towards creative city policies. Concurrently, the area transformed into an urban commons called ‘Betonbos’ squatted by urban artists. Countering the hegemony of neoliberal interests in the housing realm, street art communities turned to squatting and counter-branding to reclaim urban spaces. Through eleven qualitative walking interviews with urban artists, our research reveals how these movements resist commodification and foster an alternative creative city ethos. The Betonbos commons and its ally, Groningen Undercurrent, exemplify how collective action can cultivate empowering social infrastructures. By prioritizing shared governance and use-value, the Betonbos experience demonstrates the potential for a reimagined urban landscape beyond commodification. We foreground how grassroots movements such as Groningen Undercurrent work together to generate alternative social infrastructures grounded in spaces of resistance and struggles for a creative city framework that embraces diversity, inclusion, and the transformative power of collective action.

We asked the authors a few questions about the article:

Can you explain in layman’s terms what this article is about?
Our paper explores how community groups and social movements in Groningen push back against the rising cost of housing and pressure of community displacement. More specifically, it presents a story about an abandoned industrial yard called the COVA site, located next to the Eemskanaal, once used freely by various subcultures, including artists, punks, and environmental activists. When the city decided to redevelop the area as part of its plan to promote creativity and attract investment, it promised a mixed-income neighborhood. But in reality, affordable housing was lacking, and many residents and artists using the site were left out. In response, the site was squatted and transformed into a community space called Betonbos (Concrete Jungle). 

As a response to the privatization of urban spaces, Betonbos and various other underground communities formed a movement called De Groningse Onderstroom (The Groninger Undercurrent). They protested against the city’s housing plans and fought to protect the space as a commons, a shared place run by the community. Based on eleven walking interviews with local urban artists, this research shows how these grassroots actions created strong community networks without external support or funding. The case of Betonbos demonstrates that the collective action of disenfranchised residents contributes to creating strong social infrastructures that function as pillars of resistance against the financialization and commodification of housing.

Based on your research, what would be your recommendations for housing policymakers of the municipality of Groningen? 
From our research, it turned out that some alternative housing projects are not supported or recognized by the municipality of Groningen. We believe that alternative housing projects form a valuable addition to the urban fabric and show that housing can be more than just a commodity or financial product. In this sense, we opt for a more open approach to housing commons and the commoners who are behind these organizations. We believe that by creating new institutional arrangements, attention can be directed away from market-based models based on private ownership towards democratic governance of local assets and new approaches based on common ownership.

You interviewed eleven urban artists from Groningen during qualitative walking interviews. What are the advantages of using a walk-along method compared to traditional interviewing techniques?
We used walking interviews in our research since they provide us with an in-depth understanding of the relationship between what people say and where they say it. This became particularly visible in our study as we adopted a participant-led approach, allowing artists being able to decide the route for themselves. Consequently, the participants led us to various post-industrial landscapes (e.g. Suikerterrein, Eemskanaal, Ebbingekwartier) where they worked, painted, or temporarily resided. In comparison to sedentary interviews, walking interviews are profoundly informed by the landscape itself.

As our study investigated gentrification in the Eemskanaal area, walking interviews have been very helpful to highlight particular post-industrial environmental features such as factory pipes, types of collaborative housing, artists’ studios, workspaces, abandoned sites, and so forth. While walking through areas under transformation, these features helped shape interesting discussions. During most of the walks, urban artists have been prompted by meanings and connections to the surrounding environment, and were less busy with providing the “right” answer. This unstructured setting led to spontaneous conversations and place-rich narratives about gentrification and displacement.

Could you reflect on your experiences with open access and open science in general?
Publicly funded science should always be available for the general public. Particularly in these times where post-truth shadows the public vision, free and open access to scientific information is crucial to overcome polarization. We believe that open science and access are ways to encourage collaboration and build trust between academia, industry, citizens, and public authorities. When these groups are invited to participate in the research process, the trust and creativity in science increase. This engagement also leads to more transparency in the research process, together with increasing the impact of scientific research and opportunities for global scientific collaboration. Having said this, we are also aware that some academic publishers are making windfall profits over open access publishing by charging exorbitant fees. We believe that academic journals should be handled by academics themselves in a diamond open-access fashion with no fees for authors and readers alike. This can be achieved by institutions (universities, public libraries, etc.) providing structural support to journals not held by for-profit publishing houses.    

Useful links:

• More about the Groningse Onderstroom (in Dutch)
• The municipality of Groningen’s plans for the Eemskanaal area (in Dutch)
• Diamond open access journals are free to access/read and free to publish in, authors don’t need to pay article processing charges. The University of Groningen supports several diamond open access initiatives, see this overview.

Citation:
Popken, B., & Turhan, E. (2025). Social infrastructures as pillars of resistance against housing commodification in creative city Groningen. City, 29(1–2), 150–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2025.2469018

If you would like us to highlight your open access publication here, please get in touch with us.