“Giving everyone an active stake in a project makes a more sustainable funding model”

What was the need that brought Spacehive to existence and how did it situate itself to existing crowdfunding platforms?

Aaron O’Dowling-Keane: The organisation came about in 2012 because the founder and CEO Chris Gourley, a journalist at the time covering planning and architecture within London, saw a real need in the market for something that facilitated a bottom-up transformation, civic participation in urban planning. With this in mind, he set up Spacehive. The very first Spacehive project was the Glyncoch centre in Wales which raised £700,000 out of a £730,000 target. They had six weeks to hit the remainder of their target or they would have lost all the money they raised so far. They thought they had exhausted all their options and were incredibly stressed. At this point Spacehive intervened, offered them help in crowdfunding and introduced them to a couple of big grants to get the community participation going. Glyncoch had the highest unemployment in the UK. People could not afford to pay for this community centre themselves otherwise they would have done it already. Of course it is not about contributions of large amounts of money but about lot of people showing that they are interested by voting with their wallets. They set up the campaign, got everyone involved in the project team to go around door to door, explain the project, get a couple of pounds or whatever people could give and put it in the bucket. With that they were able to go to local businesses and say:”look, a couple of hundred people have all given to something they are really passionate about; if you, as a local business, can also show that you support this, and help fill the needs of the community, they would be very grateful and you will get an amazing return on this of investment.” Once they got the local businesses involved, the next step was to talk to the chains and corporates. They told them “there is a really active community, with businesses and citizens involved, show that you too are also part of this community!” Within six weeks they managed to raise the extra £30,000 mainly from individuals and a number of organisations that came together to make it happen. That was the very first Spacehive project: it showed how people coming together can positively change their space and the community is able control how their resources are being used.

How much did this experience condition the modalities of further work? How did it establish the way the organisation started working?

The most important part was the proof of concept: for a long time we did not know how to get these different fractions working together. A large part of what we do is working with councils as well as corporates as otherwise they tend to work in isolation. So they would put all their energy resources into making one project and then they would move on. Whereas if they were able to combine their resources, giving everyone an active stake in making the project happen, it would become a more sustainable funding model. This way people feel they have more ownership over what is happening in their communities. So in Glyncoch the most important thing was that all these fractions came together and actually made this project happen.

How did you define civic crowdfunding at the time? How did you establish the boundaries of where Spacehive would work?

The truth is we are constantly refining our definition of civic crowdfunding. It means different things to different people, most often the financing of community or shared spaces. There is a real need for it because crowdfunding had already started working in terms of a kick starter in the consumer space, technology and there was a need to use that technology to change the way people were using money and facilitating change within the public arena.

How do you select the projects that you support? What are the selection criteria?

We have eligibility guidelines. The most important thing is that the proposed project has to be available for the community to use, it has to be in a public space or have public access. It is any shared space, it can be managed privately or publicly but it has to be open to everybody.

Do you check if the applicants’ claims are true?

One of the unique features of Spacehive is that we have a verification process from a third party service called Locality. Anyone who uploads a project to our site and wants to pitch at the fundraising stage has to go through this process. It checks whether what the applicants say is true, if they have the appropriate permissions, whether the people or the contractors are already on board.

Many of the projects that go for funding on your site are about very expensive processes. How can you help initiatives with match funding or other kinds of support?

There are two things there. Buildings are just one part of the projects, we also support live events and any temporary or permanent structures that would transform space. What crowdfunding is often used for is not to pay for the entire renovation of a building but to show proof of interest. It works by building up the money for match funding and show grant makers that there is active interest in the community to make the project happen.

Whether it’s a playground or a small part of a greater project, they would crowdfund for that part. Where we come in the project is that we have a whole bunch of partners, grant makers of all shapes and sizes, who are actively looking for projects in their specific areas of interest and so we match them intelligently. So if you came along with a project about creating green spaces and you uploaded it to our website we would then encourage you to pitch that to all the different grant funders who are interested in funding green space.

Who are the grant makers and institutions you work with?

We work a number of corporate partners, councils and grant funders, for instance, the Esme Fairbarn Foundation, one of the UK’s biggest grant funding bodies but we also work with businesses such as Barclays and their Lifeskills programme. They specifically fund programmes with young creators, ages 16 to 25 and they actively promote the skills you build from actually crowdfunding a project.

We also work with the Hyde Group, a property developer looking to build up community cohesion. By using Spacehive they are able to give their residents a platform where they can share their ideas, engage their community and build up a cohesion and neighbourly spirit which is often lacking in big cities like London. All these different organisations use Spacehive in different ways but ultimately their power is that by building up these ecosystems of different partners the projects get funded much faster with a much wider group of stakeholders.

When it comes to municipalities, there are building regulations, planning codes, long term development strategies: how do you make sure that the project you support comply with these frameworks?

All projects have to upload their planning permissions in advance. The great thing about working with the different councils is that if there is a project that is interested in a certain space and they are looking to engage the council, this is a great way of building up their relationship by putting a project in the site as an idea, building up support and use that as an activist route to get the council involved at an early stage.

What are the rewards you offer to the people who donate to the campaigns?

With civic crowdfunding the reward is the project itself. You can say most of the funders are quite ‘selfish’ in that they put money in the projects because they want to enjoy it or they want others to enjoy it. The projects might also offer additional rewards, but generally it is not what motivates people to get involved. Community cafés might offer food or drinks, they might invite you to a party to celebrate successes, or in other projects they might write your name on a part of the pledging wall but ultimately people pledge because they want to be part of something. We do not promote equity-based crowdfunding. In terms of rewards it is on a project by project basis but generally the project itself is the reward.

There was a debate a few years ago around Brickstarter. Some people said “we are already paying tax, why should we also contribute our own money towards the public good?” How do you see your role in relation with the public sector?

I think it is a complimentary role.The joy of the crowdfunding model is that if people see something and they want to pay, they can, and if they don’t want to pay they don’t have to. What the crowdfunding aspect does is that it allows people to vote with their wallets for what they want to see in their area so it is not replacing what the council services and what the government taxes are paying for. Demand is increasing and budgets are decreasing in the government sector so this is a way to actively say how they want to prioritise government spending and get a whole bunch of other partners involved.

Where do you see the field of civic crowdfunding evolving in five or ten years? What are the limitations of civic crowdfunding in shaping the city?

The boundaries are unlimited, you can do anything with civic crowdfunding. It is growing in terms of the public’s recognition of how different people in different places engage. But crowdfunding is not going to replace planning. You will still need investors, but crowdfunding plays a part by getting people to have a say and creating that bottom-up democratisation of choosing what is important and how you want your city to grow. Actually we were listed with the GLA (Greater London Authority) as one of the top ten world innovations in government earlier this year and it is really interesting to see the other projects, to see what other countries are focusing on in terms of how government is engaging with a community. That is so powerful, getting citizens, getting councils and businesses into the same platform and talking about what they want to see happen.

How do you think the civic crowdfunding models can compete with very large speculative investment that is dominating cities especially London? Do you see this creating more spatial justice in terms of property development or at least the development of public spaces?

What people really like about the model is transparency: that they can see all the different partners. It means there is some kind of ownership and responsibility during the project delivery. On the other side, it puts the onus of responsibility on the project developer and project delivery manager to answer back to all the people who funded it. It is very empowering and that is what we are looking to do. To empower citizens to take control and play an active part in the areas where they live and civic crowdfunding allows them to do that.

Interview with Aaron O’Dowling-Keane on 26 July 2016

All images from Spacehive.com

The post Spacehive: Crowdfunding for local projects appeared first on P2P Foundation.

“Our ambition is to bring properties into collective ownership and use”

This interview is an excerpt from the book Funding the Cooperative City: Community Finance and the Economy of Civic Spaces

In what context did you begin to work on Stad in de Maak?

This is an initiative that started from – and currently thrives in – the afterlife of the current financial crisis. A crisis that started out with toxic debts and real-estate speculations, emblematically bringing down Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008. Amidst the unfolding of this crisis, the non-for profit housing developer Havensteder bought these two buildings where we are today with the idea of demolishing and redeveloping them. At that time, in 2009, this probably still looked like a viable plan but that did not last very long. When the mortgage crisis hit the market in the Netherlands a little bit later in 2010, for real-estate owners, the world in which they operated suddenly changed.

For instance, the value of real-estate started to drop. As a result, they had buildings that in their accounting books were still listed at the pre-crisis value, while their actual value in the real-estate market had diminished significantly, which brought them into financial trouble. At the same time, during the years leading up to this financial crisis, the group of non-for-profit developers, to which Havensteder belongs, would move away from their core mission of providing affordable housing towards other products with a higher return on investment. The government also encouraged them to experiment to yield more return, which could then be invested into housing. During the crisis however, these risky operations started turning against them, resulting in financial deficiencies of billions of Euros. For instance, one of these non-for-profit housing developers, Vestia in Rotterdam, embarked in derivatives for almost 10 billion Euros, something that went terribly wrong. All the non-for-profit housing developers had to come together to rescue the ones which were about to go bust, which made a huge dent in their financial reserves. To add insult to injury, they were subsequently forced to make contributions to the state budget, because the government also found itself in trouble due to the financial crisis. As a result, the investment budget of these developers withered away.

How did housing developers react to this situation?

Building renovated by Stad in de Maak. Photo (cc) Eutropian

At that moment Havensteder found itself in a situation in which it could not any longer sustain part of its real-estate portfolio, so it had to focus on keeping the healthy parts. This means that there was suddenly no budget anymore for troublesome locations such as this one. In 2010, Havensteder made a quick-scan of the two buildings, with the help of two collectives from Rotterdam, Superuse Studio and Observatorium, to see what to do with these locations. It must be understood that within Havensteder this is seen as a controversial idea: why would they start investing in derelict places in times of crisis? There are other priorities. But there were also people within the organisation, who challenged this idea and wanted to protect the quality of the street and maintain the value of the assets, as they owned the majority of the buildings on the street. The commissioned quick-scan revealed that if Havensteder wanted to keep the buildings up and running, they would have to accept a loss of 60,000 Euros in the coming 8-10 years. That is actually not so much, even though it is in a period of crisis.

Following this, things slowed down, and it looked as if the study to revive the buildings would end up in a drawer. One of the people involved in the study, the artist Erik Jutten, took the initiative to push things further. He came up with an unconventional proposal: if Havensteder is willing to take the loss of 60.000 euros anyway over the period to come, why not take that loss entirely in day one instead? In this way, it can be handed over as an investment budget to a group of people that would take care of the two buildings and any remaining risks. In a certain way, this would allow us to ‘common’ the buildings with this group of people for a period of ten years, after which the properties would go back to the owner, if it was still there.

What role did you take in this process?

Meeting in front of the Growery. Photo (cc) Eutropian

Ana Džokić, Piet Vollaard and myself joined Erik and put this proposition together. Our common motivation in the beginning was mainly curiosity: to see if we could do things differently. We spent a lot of time going through the details, like the economic model we had to get in place. The big challenge was of course finding a way to manage the buildings for ten years without us defaulting on it. We figured that, if Havensteder was ready to put in 60,000 Euros, around 75% of it would have gone into contractor costs, therefore we proposed to execute half of that work ourselves instead of outsourcing it. By doing so, we could free up a substantial part of the budget – because we could do things ourselves cheaper than a contractor, but it would also allow us to schedule and prioritise works differently, as we needed to urgently divert money to make some of the spaces inhabitable and create a cash-flow through renting them out. This is because we have to pay the bills, we have to pay the insurances, we have to pay the taxes… And we basically had no money ourselves, so to prioritise works to create an economically sustainable cash-flow was very urgent for us.

How did the housing developer like these ideas?

New workspaces and housing. Photo (c) Stad in de Maak

For Havensteder it was a deal with an untested partner: we had never worked with them before. But it was interesting for them because they hardly had any financial risks, no contingencies, and no management costs any longer. We would take all of this upon us for the next 10 years. After that, we just give back the property with no further economic loss than the 60.000 they had already booked. And while we negotiated over a period of many months, some level of trust began to develop amongst all the parties involved.

In October of 2013, we signed the agreement. A month later, work on site began: the buildings were in ruin and we had to quickly make them inhabitable. We had gone through a huge excel sheet for months and months, but we did not have much experience with doing these sorts of things, so we took on things quite intuitively. Meanwhile, we have grown a handful of buildings, and a few principles have emerged.

How do the buildings function economically?

The principles of Stad in de Maak

First of all, we try to make each building a self-sustaining node (in economic, social and environmental terms) within a network. This is done to foster a more robust network, in which difficulties (or even the ‘collapse’ of one node) do not pose a threat to the viability of the overall network of buildings. In economic terms, this means that each building should generate enough resources to cover its own costs. In social terms, each building should take care of its own governance and use. In environmental terms, it should aim to become resource flow neutral (energy, water, etc.). We aim to create a common finance pool for the maintenance and expansion of this platform. All the inhabitants and users of the buildings, through payment for the right of usage, generate a (modest) flow of finance that contributes to this common finance pool. From this, the activities to sustain the platform (a baseline income for those responsible) are being financed. Given enough nodes in the network (scale), a revolving investment fund to expand the network could be created.

From the very beginning on, we have maintained a minimalist (or no-nonsense) approach to investments. If affordability is at the core, invest what is minimally necessary. For instance, by putting functional, rather than aesthetic concerns at the core. By re-using, upcycling, or working with donated materials. By improvising if the use span of a building is limited, as long as safety is not compromised. And by being prepared to lower the comfort threshold in exchange for lower existential pressures (usage fee).
While working on the first buildings, we discovered that it would be important to replace monetary flows with non-monetary alternatives, where possible. As both the inhabitants and users of buildings and the platform itself face a lack of mainstream money, part of the financial pressure can be diverted by conducting transactions in other ‘currencies’: worktime or materials, for instance.

How do the activities taking place in the buildings impact the neighbourhood?

Stad in de Maak process diagram. Image (c) Stad in de Maak

We try to bring community activity, but also production back into the buildings, into the streets, and into the neighbourhood. Some things are being tested right now, like a workshop. There is a community brewery starting up, a micro-cinema, a launderette, even some production of detergent … In the coming months there we will have a number of trials to see how we can create a neighbourhood economy. It is crucial to keep space open for such uses and experiments. Each building therefore, has a commons (“meent” in Dutch), accessible for social or productive undertakings. We decided to keep financial pressures away from these common spaces, and cover the costs to keep them open through a contribution from all the users.

We said straight from the beginning that City in the Making – with its current temporary use of buildings – is a sort of training condition for what is yet to come. For us, the next step is to go beyond this temporary exploitation of vacant properties. Now we can do this because there has been an economic crisis but this is not sustainable in the future. Our ambition is to take the properties out of the market, to make them available for affordable housing and work, and to bring them into collective ownership and use.

Interview with Marc Neelen on 26 May 2016

The post Stad in de Maak – from crisis to a shared ownership model appeared first on P2P Foundation.