In this section, we share a selection of maps and illustrations that have been produced for issues related to housing in Belgrade, Berlin, and Barcelona that we found relevant to our endeavors in this CMMM project. Some of these were produced by civic initiatives, others by scholars, and some were part of investigative journalism pieces. Some were created with the specific target of impacting local urban policies, others identify powerful speculators to organize effective resistance, and others visualize and disseminate collected data to draw attention to particular issues.

As this selection illustrates, in Berlin and Barcelona, maps (especially GEOdata-based ones) and visualizations are relatively widely used by those involved in struggles for the “right to the city” to support civil mobilization against real-estate speculation, evictions, and social segregation. In contrast, in Belgrade, mapping practices are sporadic and project-based. In most cases across the three cities, the maps provide information on the geographic location (as a dot on a surface, often from a large provider like Open Street Map or Google) of evictions, displacements, and similar issues, while further qualitative data are not included. In a few cases, attention was paid to aesthetics, making the contents of the map more vivid.

A recurring problem for many mapping projects by and for local housing movements is that the resources and capacities are not sufficient for producing nuanced and customized maps and for ensuring they are maintained and updated, which limits their usability over time. Interlocutors in Belgrade stressed the fact that the mechanisms and dynamics of funding often force civil society groups to jump from one project to the next, which negatively impacts the dissemination and sharing of produced knowledge and work, including maps. At the same time, it represents a structural challenge for keeping topics in focus for longer periods of time so that they can reach maturity and have a more tangible impact on public awareness and political discourses. In Barcelona, interviewed housing activists noted that the lack of time and technical knowledge is the main obstacle to producing and updating critical maps. The severity of the housing crisis forces them to channel most of their scarce resources into fighting the daily evictions and critical cases, leaving little to no time and energy left over for undertaking wider research and data visualization projects for the much-needed communication strategies with decision-makers. 

At a different level, while web-based geodata maps can cope with temporary hibernation and be reactivated when resources are available again—such as the case of Berlin’s Leerstandsmelder map—it is more difficult to update information on maps that are created in static formats such as PDF, as is the case for the “Valuation, Displacement and Resistance in Kreuzberg 36” map. It is worth nothing that in parallel to the development of the latter map, the Orangotango and Pappsatt collectives created the “Berlin not for sale” mural at the corner of the streets Manteuffelstraße and Naunynstraße, an activity that highlights the power of communicating and aesthetically articulating housing struggles within the everyday lived spaces of the city and beyond virtual and print mediums.

As shown in Section 10 and Section 11, which report on the workshops conducted by our team with partners and peers, the examination of existing maps and visual illustrations informed our decisions when narrowing down and defining the specific targets, designs, and foreseen operationalization and lifespan of the three maps that we eventually produced and that can be found in Section 13. In addition, having noted the importance of reaching out beyond virtual and print mediums, we produced posters that go hand in hand with the maps, which can also be found here. 

[1]  Aruri, Natasha, and Katleen De Flander, Andreas Brück. 2022. Mapping Change Logbook. Berlin: Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-15560. Ebook: mapping-change.labor-k.org/overview/

[2]  The research project was titled “Mapping for Change? Critical Cartography Approaches to Drive Socio-Environmental Urban Transformation.” It was implemented by K LAB between fall 2018 and early 2022 and was funded by the Volkswagen Stiftung through its program: “Original – isn’t it? New Options for the Humanities and Cultural Studies” (now OpenUp).

[3]  kollektiv orangotango+ (ed.). 2019. This Is Not An Atlas. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. notanatlas.org

[4]  Dávila, Patricio (ed.). 2019. Diagrams of Power: Visualizing, Mapping, and Performing Resistance. Eindhoven: Onomatopee.

[5]  Anti-Eviction Mapping Project. 2021. Counterpoints: A San Francisco Bay Area Atlas of Displacement & Resistance. Oakland: PM Press.

Besides the governmental structures, this section briefly outlines the legislative frameworks granting the rights for community participation in decision-making processes on spatial issues and describes the scene of civil society initiatives and alternative political platforms that are actively working toward changing discourses and developing solutions to the prevailing housing unaffordability and inaccessibility in the three cities. Additionally, the Barcelona team added what they see as the major large-scale private real-estate companies that currently dominate the market. Complementary to this section, an index of actors in the three cities can be found on the posters in Section 13.

Other factors causing injustices in the housing sector are more site-specific and have to do, for instance, with pressures resulting from policies such as the Golden Visa (in Barcelona), lacking or dwindling protections for tenants (in Belgrade and Barcelona), or the lack of institutional capacities and resources (political will) to tackle housing injustices (in Belgrade). While homeownership in Barcelona has been systemically promoted since the Francoist regime and has contributed to recurring real-estate crises, in Belgrade the end of socialist Yugoslavia brought about the end of the former societal models and the balance rapidly shifted toward private ownership in the 1990s. In contrast, more than 85% of Berlin’s residents remain tenants,[2] yet the governmental policy of promoting homeownership and facilitating the conversion of units into condominiums is rapidly changing the equation. 

As illustrated in the timeline (Section 5), the factors visited in this section are not all encompassing but rather a selection of what our team views as the major factors in each of the cities. Touristification was also viewed as a major cause, yet we do not delve into it because of the abundance of good work on the subject[3] and because it proved too large to be properly captured within the scope and size of our project. Other factors that were discussed and we wish to acknowledge—although they are not included here—are the demographic changes and migration into the cities (whether by documented or undocumented immigrants), gentrification, corruption, and the role of large-scale developments, and particularly for Berlin, a major issue is money-laundering through real estate by organized crime.[4]

[1]  Farha, Leilani. Report of the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing as a Component of the Right to an Adequate Standard of Living, and on the Right to Non-Discrimination in This Context (A/HRC/34/51). Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, 2017. Accessed on May 5, 2023.

[2]  Investitionsbank Berlin. 2021. IBB Wohnungsmarktbericht 2021: Tabellenband [Housing Market Report 2021: Spreadsheet]. Berlin: Investitionsbank Berlin, p. 5.

[3]  We recommend exploring this recently published article: Colomb, Claire, and Tatiana Moreira de Souza. 2023. “Illegal short-term rentals, regulatory enforcement and informal practices in the age of digital platforms.” European Urban and Regional Studies 0(0).

[4]  Grantner, Robert. dir. Geldwäsche-Paradies Deutschland [Money Laundering Paradise Germany]. Mainz: ZDF, ZDFzoom. 2021. youtube.com/watch?v=Zg-HXAb7MCo