As an architect, director of the practice &bogdan, and former Romanian Secretary of State for Cultural Heritage, Oana Bogdan has long questioned and pushed the frontiers of architecture’s traditional role. In this address, she puts forth a strong polemic against the neoliberalisation of land as property, and in favour of collective stewardship.
This essay is part of KoozArch's fourth Issue Terra Infirma.
I grew up under dictatorship in so-called communist Romania, where private property had been abolished. After seeing some images of the 1893 Land Run in the US on television, meant to illustrate "the wickedness of the western world", I started crying and asked my parents never to buy a carriage with horses. I did not know at the time that the problem was not the horses that helped people own land, but the fundamentally wrong way that land is made available and accessible as private property.
The relationship between man and land was further explored — perhaps subconsciously — in my graduation thesis, titled, 'Borderline: Dwelling in the periphery in the 20th century, from Dispersion to Massing', and then in my activity since 2007 within Bogdan & Van Broeck, continued under &bogdan. My mandate as State Secretary for Cultural Heritage in Romania (2016-2017) was marked by Roşia Montană, a Roman gold mine that had been threatened in the past by a toxic exploitation project and is today an international symbol for the defence of the commons. Working with UNESCO on this case reinforced my conviction that it is high time we completely redefined the idea of land ownership. Later, during the formation of a new political party in Romania, my ideas on land use provoked a national scandal, causing the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung to describe me as "one of the heroes of a new property policy and a new social contract". Exaggerated, of course, but here I would like to emphasise how my existence — both under dictatorship in Romania and under neoliberalism in Belgium, but also as an architect and politician — is intertwined with land use.
I would like to emphasise how my existence — both under dictatorship in Romania and under neoliberalism in Belgium, but also as an architect and politician — is intertwined with land use.
We live in a time of political crisis, health crisis, housing crisis, inequality crisis, ecological crisis and climate crisis, all linked to the depletion of natural resources. The answer is to change the system that produced these overlapping crises. I would argue that the starting point is the way we handle natural resources, especially land. Land (open space) is an essential natural resource for maintaining ecological balance, as vital to life as air and water. But private ownership of land gets in the way, as the social function of property and the responsibility of owners towards the common good have been lost in the current system. This has led to a gap between the needs of citizens and the planet, and the interests of owners.
The question "Who owns the land?" is crucial for all societies and their coexistence. The ownership principle by which space is organised has influenced urban planning. All urban regulations, including land use planning, are based on the notion of individual versus collective ownership. Developers make a profit not by building good, quality housing, but by selling the land share of housing. Land ownership thus determines who has access to which areas and how the city has had to grow. Social justice is actually a spatial issue.
The question "Who owns the land?" is crucial for all societies and their coexistence.
The idea of land as a commodity to be exploited rather than being part of the commons is still relatively recent. "The fruits of the earth belong to us all and the earth itself to no one," said Jean-Jacques Rousseau in Discours sur l'inégalité, in 1754. And in fact, the commons were already written into Roman law, which stated unequivocally that certain resources belong to all and are never owned by a few. Today, the commons is defined as a shared resource that is co-managed by users according to their rules and norms. It is a combination of a 'thing', an activity (commoning as the maintenance and co-production of that resource), and a form of governance. It is distinct from private and public or state-governed forms of resource management. The commons are necessary for human life and serve the interests of all. They are essentially antithetical to both capitalism and unlimited private profit and therefore despised for almost two centuries.
If we truly believe in a future for humanity, the public can no longer be denied the right to unpolluted waters, a breathable atmosphere and a livable planet.
Enforced by a belief in expanding private property rights, the pursuit of economic growth has endangered ecosystems. Property rights are at the heart of environmental issues. If we truly believe in a future for humanity, the public can no longer be denied the right to unpolluted waters, a breathable atmosphere and a livable planet. The belief that the commons will be corrupted unless left to individuals motivated by self-interest is contradicted by today's reality: it is often the insatiable private interest that destroys the commons needed for our collective survival.
The insatiable private interest manifested by ownership, as a source of returns on the capital invested, has severed the main links between the individual and the land. We are now talking about the takeover of urban space by investment funds and shareholders. Real estate today is an investment vehicle rather than a domicile. The majority of these spaces are empty and of no use. This is fine for investors; they exist as assets and there is no need for them to be used by people. This global competition to attract investment destroys any possibility for local people to live affordably in the city. There is a considerable contradiction between two ideas: on the one hand, that the needs of residents and citizens should be the main driver of urban planning, versus the completely different view that real estate is only valuable in economic terms, on the other. The latter is at the root of the housing crisis we are now facing. That crisis shows itself in both a shortage of affordable housing and a shortage of social housing. What is often missing from this assessment is the origin of this crisis, which coincides with the long and controversial process of land privatisation. There is too little public land to pursue regenerative and inclusive development.
The acute housing crisis we face globally today is not only the result of speculative investors, but also a systemic condition that has linked the valuation of real estate assets to the foundation of our economies. The United Nations Human Rights Council's 2017 Report on financial investments in housing states the following: "Housing is at the centre of a historic structural transformation in global investments and the economies of the industrialised world with profound implications for those in need of adequate housing."
The acute housing crisis we face globally today is not only the result of speculative investors, but also a systemic condition that has linked the valuation of real estate assets to the foundation of our economies.
After decades of neoliberal housing policies that replaced social housing with profit-making, ownership and the transfer of public property to the private sector, the act of taking property out of the speculative market by placing it in the commons is an obvious solution. By ceasing to see housing as a market product, both affordable and social housing can be more easily realised, and we move towards the idea of housing as a universal human right.
For we live in an era where human rights ideals are central, both politically and ethically. Much attention is being paid to promoting their significance in building a better world, but as yet they do not sufficiently challenge the dominant neoliberal market logic. The rights of private property and the rate of profit have transcended all other notions of rights.
Addressing a problem that threatens human civilisation as we know it means fundamentally questioning how that civilisation functions and what fundamental assumptions, including freedom, underpin it. It is the paradox of freedom, the basis of (neo)liberalism with which it shares the Latin root 'liber' (meaning "free"): freedom must evolve through the many layers of control that arise from coexistence, from our interaction with each other, from interdependence, from the relationship between personal freedom and responsibility for the whole commons. Without a strong public sector, there is no private sector. My health depends on public health. My freedom depends on social freedom. A fundamental issue for society is therefore, in my view, the reinvention of freedom as a commons.
My health depends on public health. My freedom depends on social freedom. A fundamental issue for society is therefore, in my view, the reinvention of freedom as a commons.
We need major land reform to achieve a socially just society. Transfer of development rights as a tool to aggregate land and move housing to well-connected cities, towns and villages should be possible. In the city space, innovative legal and financial strategies for reclaiming and decommodifying land can come to life. Such alternative ownership schemes can support deep and systemic reform in a way that enables social exchange, cultural expression, regenerative economies and ecological vitality. They also require an entirely different spatial manifestation of ownership.
Financial gain through land ownership should thus be excluded. Land would no longer be part of the private capital market, but owned by foundations. No speculation, no resale. For the use of land, collective structures such as housing cooperatives1 would pay annual rent to foundations that would refinance the purchase of the land, allowing them to take on new projects of similar nature. Housing cooperatives could be supported by interest-free state loans. They would be given priority in acquiring building rights. In this way, public investments lead to quality projects. Cooperative citizens are involved in the implementation of urban policies. This model meets the objective of the European Union's social pillar and the intended rapprochement between public authorities and citizens.2
There is no other option than politicising the land.
There is no other option than politicising the land. Going from exploitation to stewardship of land requires streamlining and coordinating all political domains, as well as the full cooperation between society, communities, politics, economics and technical expertise. Architects and spatial planners are key players (and sometimes accomplices) in this. They should not fall back on the traditional definition of the profession alone. Through more design thinking3, activism and civic engagement, the sector could have a greater impact in the pursuit of a regenerative and more inclusive society. Great land reform starts with a change of mindset, namely strengthening our understanding that land is always a cultural, social and therefore political product.
The building shift is primarily a culture shift.
The original article was published in 'Ruimte'.
Bio
Oana Bogdan is the founder of &bogdan, a Brussels-based cooperative architectural practice. Her work focuses on creating spatial conditions for collective life and expanding the role of architects in addressing complex societal challenges. She has held influential positions, including Secretary of State for Cultural Heritage in Romania and Chairwoman of the Expert Committee for Brussels Region Building Code Reform. Currently, she serves as Chairwoman of the Netherlands Creative Industries Fund Committee for Architecture, promoting innovative and inclusive design thinking.
Notes
1 A housing cooperative is an autonomous organisation of people who voluntarily unite to create and manage a housing project together. The cooperators are co-owners by purchasing a certain number of shares and thus acquire housing rights. The rent they pay is calculated at cost. If they get out, their shares are repaid without speculative capital gains on the land. So people live cheaper, but have no capital gain at the end.
2 Oana Bogdan, 'Stop selling land, it must be leased', 20 ideas for 2020, De Standaard, 4 January 2020
3 Design thinking refers to the set of cognitive, strategic and practical procedures that designers use in the design process, which is iterative and non-linear, alternating divergent and convergent thinking. Designing usually deals with ill-defined problems that are difficult: 'wicked problems' that have no definitive formulation and no true/false solution. Design thinking therefore solves challenges characterised by a high degree of uncertainty, such as climate change.
