1 Introduction

 

The conversion of redundant military land into an urban commons is currently a relatively unexplored theme in central and eastern Europe (CEE), but it has arisen as a response to the tendency of CEE to emulate western profit-seeking in contemporary urban spaces (Taubenböck et al., 2019) related to contested negotiations for the future use of abandoned spaces (O’Callaghan & Di Feliciantonio, 2021). An example of such dynamics is how to deal with former military land. Military withdrawal did not occur simply due to geopolitics related to the Cold War, but also because military land became an opportunity for potential speculation at the intersection of capital accumulation and environmental exploitation (Krcho, 2013; Hercik et al., 2014; Glintić, 2015; Jevremović et al., 2021; Peric & Miljus, 2021; Bársony, 2022). This goes along with counterapproaches to this kind of orientation in the built environment, such as informal placemaking practices that have occurred since the pivotal case of Christiania (Thörn et al., 2011) and affecting dozens of disused barracks in Italy (Camerin, 2024). Not only have community-driven actions taken place, but top-down planning decisions have also changed regarding the potential creation of commons in very specific cases (Camerin, 2021). However, contemporary scholarship is scant on these specific dynamics and has mostly focused on western countries, with analysis in CEE countries still insufficient. Nevertheless, the cases of Ljubljana’s Metelkova Mesto (MM), Pula’s Rojc Community Centre (RCC), and Prague’s Kasárna Karlín (KK) have increasingly attracted the interest of scholars in the last decade (see Ntounis & Kanellopoulou, 2017; Tomašević, 2018; Rodríguez-Barcón & Sousa, 2021). These cases are considered and analysed as culture-led revitalization initiatives (Ivanc & Petrovic, 2025) capable of generating new economic income. Despite growing interest in such cases, they have been poorly approached in terms of commons, and previous studies need re-examination to account for current dynamics. This article builds on attempts to apply the theory of the commons (Saunders, 2014) to a specific kind of public land, former military assets, by applying Ostrom’s definition of the commons. Here, abandoned military land as a commons comprises abandoned space whose reuse is triggered by alternative models of social organization developed by nongovernmental and civic actors (i.e., commoner, mostly in the form of NGOs developing activities related to art and culture, business, children and youth, the environment, psychosocial work, mental health, sports, and recreation, as well as special subgroups such as refugees and war veterans). In particular, such actors try to self-govern these assets through the institutions they create in an attempt to go beyond the market–state dichotomy (Brando et al., 2019). The study thus empirically focuses on nongovernmental and civic activities to reuse these three abandoned barracks based on Ostrom’s eight design principles for sustainable community-based commons management. The relationship and interactions between commoners and public authorities is examined from this point of view to determine whether these activities generate wealth for local citizens, as opposed to being controlled by private interests, and to establish the extent to which each case study can be regarded as a commons (Wily, 2011).

 

2 Ostrom’s design principles and abandoned military land as a successful commons

 

As Moroni (2025) recently pointed out, academics from various disciplines, ranging from economics to sociology, widely recognize the ambivalence of the concept of the commons. Ostrom’s seminal work on an institutional model of analysis is the basic reference point for this study, with specific attention to the eight design principles for the sustainability of commons governance (Ostrom, 1990: 90, 1993). These principles are essential for successful common-pool resource (CPR) institutions because they would prevent overuse and be transferred from one generation of resource appropriators to the next. CPRs are resources with characteristics of subtractability and difficult excludability, such as pastures and the internet, that may be owned by national or local governments, by communal groups, or by private individuals or corporations, or that may be used as open-access resources by whoever can gain access (Dolšak & Ostrom, 2003: 4). The definition of a CPR’s boundaries and the identification of people authorized to use it “can be thought of as a first step in organizing for collective action. So long as the boundaries of the resources and/or the specification of individuals who can use the resource remain uncertain, no one knows what is being managed or for whom” (Ostrom, 1990: 91).

 

These principles can be used to examine the management of former military barracks intended as a commons, although it is widely recognised that Ostrom’s research has various limitations. First, Choe and Yun (2017: 117) argued that, by approaching excludability and subtractability as physical or technical attributes, Ostrom’s CPR notion “has a number of limitations. Excludability and subtractability are attributes constructed by society, not a physical or technical attribute. Ostrom overlooked this aspect.” Second, according to Block and Jankovic (2016: 290–291), Ostrom’s research has been largely misunderstood because she “did not discover any new form of governance beyond private property and government control. Rather, she discussed some interesting variations in contractual regulation and enforcement of private property rights.” Third, more than thirty years after her 1990 book Governing the Commons, the current approach to commons has shifted from the basic argumentation on this concept. According to Ostrom (1990), commons are resources jointly appropriated by a group of partners that have an exclusive right to them and can exclude all other individuals and groups from access to and use of them. In contrast, Moroni (2025: 178–180) recently stated that the contemporary conceptualization of commons indicates that they are resources that everyone should have access to and they thus belong to the people as a matter of life necessity, positing that no individual or group should possess an exclusive right to these items. This character implies the opposite of ownership: consequently, commons fall outside any market logic (Rodotà, 2012; Mattei & Mancall, 2019).

 

Bearing in mind these aspects, previous scholarship on military land has mainly come from the domain of urban studies. However, this has insufficiently addressed military assets in terms of the commons. In fact, growing explorations of people-centred approaches to abandoned military land underscore that successful reuse can be achieved when the activities in these places and their socioeconomic influence in urban environments result in a brand or a mix of functions producing certain benefits that allows them to be tolerated by local governments (Rodríguez-Barcón & Sousa, 2021). Such a statement alone is not enough to fill the research gap, and so applying Ostrom’s approach is useful because she recognized that not all commons were successful and that many CPRs collapsed. The eight design principles can thus help identify universal patterns to explain the necessary rules for successful commons, and for examining the institutions that developed the commons in the case studies and how they work. Ostrom (1990: 52) explained that there are three levels of rules: “operational” (principles 1 to 5), “collective-choice” (principle 6), and “constitutional-choice” (principles 7 and 8). Operational rules directly impact the daily decisions made by appropriators or commoners regarding the withdrawal of resource units, monitoring actions, the information required, and assigning rewards and sanctions for different outcomes. Collective-choice rules exert an indirect influence on operational rules and are employed by appropriators, officials, or external authorities when formulating operational rules for resource management. Constitutional-choice rules determine who is eligible and define the parameters for the design of these rules. These three rules are useful for this research because they deal with the ways communities of users manage share resources together (e.g., in terms of access, alienation, exclusion, and withdrawal). Consequently, taken together, these rules show whether and how communities of users can sustainably and fairly self-govern resources such as former military barracks, which can have major policy implications (e.g., democratization of an abandoned public area conceived as a public resource, thus potentially avoiding privatization, commercialization, and restricted public access).

 

3 Methods and case studies

 

3.1 Methodology

 

The case study choices derived from two-step research (Figure 1).

 

Figure 1: Research methodology (source: authors).

 

The first phase (September 2024 to August 2025) consisted of a systematic screening of peer-reviewed publications (Annex 1). The aim was to map the ways in which military land reuse occurred in CEE once the Cold War ended, the reuse typologies effectively carried out, and the possible lessons that can be learned from these to understand whether there has been a commons-centred approach. This step was performed by searching for relevant publications in various engines in English (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar) with various strings of keywords (i.e., ‘commons’ OR ‘urban commons’ AND ‘military barracks’ OR ‘military land’ and ‘Central Eastern Europe’ OR ‘name of the country’) in the title, abstract, and keywords fields. The search resulted in forty-five publications from a large variety of disciplines (mostly architecture and planning intertwined with aspects such as heritage and landscape) dealing with abandoned defence sites. Only four publications written in English were connected in some way to military land and commons in CEE, especially barracks (Ntounis & Kanellopoulou, 2017; Tomašević, 2018; Rodríguez-Barcón & Sousa, 2021; Ivanc & Petrovic, 2025). A search of literature translated into English in national and local newspapers was also performed in Google based on the aforementioned criteria. This step helped reveal that three barracks located in three major cities were addressed in line with a possible definition of the commons.

 

The second phase (September 2025 to March 2026) focused on two main tasks. First, qualitative information was collected on the case studies by reviewing planning documents, projects, and media related to each site. Second, fieldwork was carried out at RCC, MM, and KK in September, October, and November 2025, respectively, with a prior visit to each of them between October 2018 and January 2019. The fieldwork included visiting the case studies and performing twenty semi-structured interviews for each site to reach “meaning saturation” (i.e., the point at which the depth and themes are fully explored; Hennink et al., 2017). This led to understanding the perceptions about the management and use of each site by four different groups of actors (five interviewees for each category, all over eighteen years old, and English speakers), who were selected according to the following criteria:

• Commoners: by writing emails to the organizations in the former military barracks today, with initial contact established in the 2018–2019 fieldwork;
• Users of and visitors to the barracks: by directly interviewing them during the 2025 fieldwork;
• Local residents: by walking in the barracks’ surroundings and asking if people were available for an interview;
• Local public authorities’ spokespersons: by writing emails or making telephone calls to local spatial planning bodies and/or city council planning departments because they are the most appropriate administrative level for managing former military sites. Previous contacts were made during the 2018–2019 fieldwork.

 

The aim was to understand the opinions of various local actors and thus obtain a broader perspective on the perception of the reuse management process from those that most understand the logic of the commons (commoners) and others to complement the categorized information with more insights based on their various roles and positions in the local arena (public authorities, users of the activities performed at each site, and people living in the city).

 

The interviews consisted of ten questions on the perceptions following Ostrom’s eight design principles (see Annex 2):

• Principle 1. Clearly defined boundaries of the commons.
• Principle 2. The governance rules are to be adopted in accordance with the prevailing local context. Clearly, a single universally applicable approach to governing commons is not achievable.
• Principle 3. Participatory decision-making should be established so that the people that draft the rules fully follow them.
• Principle 4. Monitoring. Once a set of regulations has been established, it is the responsibility of communities to devise effective enforcement mechanisms.
• Principle 5. Graduated sanctions should be imposed for those that abuse the commons.
• Principle 6. Smooth conflict resolution.
• Principle 7. Granting legal status to commons should facilitate the establishment of organizational frameworks.
• Principle 8. The optimal functioning of commons should be facilitated by integrating them within more extensive networks.

 

Each interview was conducted in indoor spaces, recorded by the interviewer, and accompanied by a short informal interaction with the respondent with the aim of clarifying the answers, with a total interview time generally lasting fifteen to twenty-five minutes. Ethical considerations in handling the interviewees were addressed in compliance with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation.

 

3.2 Presentation of the case studies

Table 1 and Figure 2 present the main features of the case studies: area, number of buildings, when built, abandonment, reuse, listed heritage, and governance issues (i.e., ownership and top-down / bottom-up approaches).

 

Table 1: Case study main data.

Case study data	Rojc Community Centre	Kasárna Karlín	Metelkova Mesto
Area (m²)	16,739 (+29,000 open space)	8,400	12,500
Number of buildings	1	2	6
When built	1882–1911	1840s	1870s
Year abandoned	1991	2008	1991
Period of reuse	From 1999	From 2017	From 1993
Listed heritage	All buildings	All buildings	—
Ownership (year)	City council (2007)	Ministry of Justice (2016) City council (2024)	City council (2008)
Top-down / bottom-up	Bottom-up	Top-down	Bottom-up

Source: Authors.

 

Figure 2: Surroundings of the three case studies (source: authors, based on Google Maps).

 

The sites analysed here have clearly differentiated characteristics, development trajectories, and lifespans although they are contested spaces. On the one hand, the Pula and Ljubljana cases show the implementation of informal urban uses that challenge hegemonic control over urban development and disrupt established growth-driven agendas. On the other hand, the Prague case shows a typical culture-led regeneration driven by the non-profit sector that generated real-estate market interest for its privatization. Whereas RCC and MM started with squatting, KK began as a top-down decision by the state to promote temporary cultural reuses entrusted to private business. All three cases operate as informal (Ljubljana and Pula) and formal (Prague) cultural centres, hosting events and gatherings for local associations devoted to various activities (e.g., arts, dance, music, and theatre). These initiatives have survived in part because of unusual manoeuvres by the actors involved, whether at the state (Ministry of Defence) or local level (city council and district authority). They have also survived attempts to be reconverted into new, more profitable uses (a large shopping centre in the case of MM and a multi-functional space for KK), which were halted due to squatting (RCC and MM) and by recent support from citizens (KK).

 

3.2.1 Karlo Rojc barracks, currently Rojc Community Centre (Pula, Croatia)

 

After the military withdrew from the Karlo Rojc barracks in 1991, the building hosted around six hundred war refugees and several humanitarian organizations until 1997. Successively, local NGOs (especially cultural, youth, and environmental organizations) started an informal occupation of the site, prompting the city of Pula to allocate spaces to over thirty NGOs in 1998. These organizations self-financed renovations and developed a rudimentary governance structure known as the Council of Rojc. By 2007, over one hundred NGOs were housed there, although tensions arose over the municipal company Castrum’s opaque financial management. A 2008 protest resulted in the establishment of the RCC coordination body , with the aim of co-managing the relationship between users and the municipality. To further institutionalize the commoners’ representation, the Rojc Associations Alliance (RAA) was launched in 2012 and elected nineteen user representatives to participate in shared governance. Since then, user organizations have pushed for greater financial transparency and improved management. Their advocacy has secured significant outcomes, such as requiring telecommunications companies to pay fair rent for antennas on the building, generating €35,000 annually for reinvestment. Today, RCC is an example of a hybrid governance model, combining municipal ownership with user-led co-management (Figure 3).

 

Figure 3: Rojc Community Centre (source: authors).

 

3.2.2 Kasárna Karlín (Prague, Czech Republic)

 

After the military withdrew in 2008, the KK site was largely underused until 2017, when the new owner, the Ministry of Justice, granted a temporary lease to the local cultural association Pražské Centrum (Prague Centre). The association transformed KK into a cultural centre, hosting a wide range of events and facilities – including a cinema, gallery, concert hall, and café – while maintaining the barracks in near-original condition (Figure 4). Operating as a nonprofit entity, the organization reinvested revenues in salaries, renovations, and equipment. The ministry’s initial plan to transform the site into a courthouse was superseded by alternative proposals by 2020. These proposals included the development of student housing, administrative offices, and an innovation hub. In 2024, ownership was transferred to the city of Prague, which launched strategic planning for regeneration and potential rezoning (mixed-use redevelopment combining cultural, educational, and commercial functions) at the same time as tensions between the city authorities, local residents, and Pražské Centrum. In June 2024, the Prague 8 district authority shut down the cultural association’s activities based on apparent building regulation violations and noise complaints by local residents. Critics contested the decision, pointing to the timing of the closure after years of tolerated operation. Although its courtyard provisionally reopened in 2025, KK’s long-term future remains uncertain. Contemporary local discourse underscores this within the overarching discord between grassroots cultural initiatives, urban redevelopment strategies, and governance structures privileging public–private partnerships in Prague’s brownfield regeneration since the early 2000s (Pixová, 2013).

 

Figure 4: Kasárna Karlín (source: authors).

 

3.2.3 Fourth of July barracks, today Metelkova Mesto (Ljubljana, Slovenia)

 

Following Slovenian independence in 1991, the southern area of the Fourth of July barracks was assigned to the Ministry of Culture to become a prominent museum, and the northern section transitioned into a focal point for alternative (sub)cultural production. NGOs (especially from the realm of culture, research, and civil society) initially sought to convert the site into a creative laboratory. However, the government-led demolition ordered in 1993 resulted in two hundred artists squatting in the area. Despite eviction attempts, the site was consolidated in 1995 as the Autonomous Cultural Centre Metelkova Mesto (AKC), which was mainly self-financed through cultural events, clubs, studios, and accommodation (i.e., Celica Hostel). The 2008 property transfer to the city council involved pledging protection for the occupants. Nonetheless, the relationship with AKC has remained fraught with complexities, marked by disputes over ownership, zoning, and autonomy. Although the local administration has boosted the Metelkova neighbourhood’s cultural and tourism value, AKC has firmly resisted such trends to maintain its independence. Conflicts have escalated in relation to frictions such as attempts to sell Celica Hostel in 2017 and the 2021 spatial plan guidelines to reduce the space devoted to AKC. Political shifts in 2022 temporarily alleviated eviction threats, but recurrent police interventions, drug-related incidents, and urban development pressures have sustained tensions. In 2025, new risks emerged with a proposal to build a medical facility encroaching on the Gala Hala club, a concert venue that can accommodate 350 people. Notwithstanding the persistent external pressures and the fragile relationship with public bodies, AKC continues to assert its cultural and political significance and autonomy across Ljubljana (Figure 5).

 

Figure 5: Metelkova Mesto (source: authors).

 

4 Results

 

This section relates the research findings by highlighting the most relevant aspects connected to Ostrom’s eight design principles for each case study based on the outcome of the interviews along with the literature review.

 

4.1 Clearly defined boundaries

 

RCC boundaries are controlled to prevent access by unauthorized individuals or outside opening hours apart from the 108 different renting organizations. Building access (from 7 am to midnight) and control are well established, with a 24-hour doorman on watch at openings devoted to art gallery visits or organized activities such as talks, conferences, and workshops.

 

KK’s physical boundaries are also clearly defined, and access is possible through the main gate at Křižík Street (Křižíkova ulice) no. 12, with opening hours (10 am to 11 pm) for visitors. However, there are no restrictions on users beyond opening hours. After the 2024 property transfer to the city council, KK has been leased rent-free to Pražské Centrum (2025), which independently manages the programming in the open spaces. The interior spaces currently remain inaccessible, although open-air activities (e.g., cinema screenings and concerts) with controlled access upon payment of an entrance fee are permitted. Apart from opening hours, access is restricted to Pražské Centrum and staff hired for maintenance work.

 

MM also sets boundaries for its entrance, but there are no fixed hours for accessing the premises. Access is possible either through an entrance on Metelko Street (Metelkova ulica), regulated by a manually operated parking barrier controlled by an MM activist group member, or from the Celica Hostel, located in the former prison building of the barracks close to the entrance.

 

4.2 Rules fitting local circumstances

 

RCC adopts constitutional and operational rules (Tomašević, 2018: 87–88). The Decision on the Use of Office Space in the RCC defines roles because it is devoted to regulating administrative matters of renting the space, such as the duration of the contract and obligations to invest in and renovate the rented spaces, and services such as electricity and water consumption. The document House Rules contains the operational rules, which are proposed by the RCC coordination body to the city council, and it defines what is permitted in the daily use of the complex, including for visitors. For instance, the city council must give special permission for an event to be open to the general public past midnight.

 

In the case of MM, the community managing the site is occupying it on the fringes of legality. The renters are in ongoing dialogue with the current owner (i.e., the city council), which even finances various activities (Culture.Si, 2025). The management rules are informal and unspoken, and there is no report of an official document regarding unacceptable behaviours or attitudes. Despite this, the lively nightlife at MM is often claimed to result in noise and vandalism, as well as drug and alcohol consumption.

 

KK has a large variety of rules, especially in terms of management and waste recycling. In addition, there are quasi-mandatory recommendations, such as the requirement that food and drink be consumed at the bars (except for children and people with medical conditions whose needs are not met by the menus); this is aimed at boosting revenues, which, in turn, contribute to funding activities (Pražské Centrum, 2025). Additional regulations safeguard peace and quiet for local residents to prevent potential conflicts that may arise from activities taking place within the outdoor courtyard. (Kasárna Karlín, 2024).

 

4.3 Participatory decision-making

 

The three sites have low prominence in participatory decision-making, which is typical of other self-managed centres across Europe; this is similar (but on a smaller scale) to the Free Town of Christiania. The strong ideological activities and values promoted by the occupants invite visitors, whether or not they share these ethics, to respect the associations’ members in all cases.

 

In 2011, a participatory process involving consultations with all user organizations preliminarily approved the RCC rules. Afterward, the three members of the RAA belonging to the coordination body proposed the RCC rules to the local administration for their final approval (Jakovčić et al., 2013). However, because the city council’s expenditure funds the site maintenance, at approximately €200,000 annually, the participatory process outcome may not be fully respected if considered necessary by the local authority.

 

In the case of MM, only informal talks take place between the commoners and the city council, but there is no participatory process for drafting documents or making decisions.

 

Pražské Centrum establishes the rules for KK, and there is no participatory process involving local residents or collaborating organizations. Some of these rules follow environmental sustainability concerns, and others respond to complaints from residents about noise. Currently, the KK rules are part of the temporary operational plan launched after the partial reopening in 2025, and Pražské Centrum (2025) continues to insist on taking back the use of the indoor spaces that are still closed.

 

4.4 Monitoring

 

RCC implements various monitoring mechanisms. First, Pula’s city council, advised by the RCC coordination body, ensures that all the organizations are up to date with their obligations under the lease agreement. Second, the security team and the doorman monitor daily use of the site and ensure the rules are followed. Third, the RCC coordination body controls the financial situation and proper use of funding, and three members of the RCC association alliance that belong to the coordination body monitor any changes to the rules (Tomašević, 2018: 90).

 

MM has rejected authority and formal instructions, and its cooperation with public bodies is minimal, without any external monitoring of its activities and decisions. The occupants have implemented a horizontal approach to governing their internal affairs, promoting democratic values and the participation of all its members. In addition, they eschew involvement in larger-scale decision-making with other stakeholders, a strategy employed to preserve their autonomy. This derives from the fact that MM is driven by a political struggle that is intricately linked to urban social movements that draw inspiration from right-to-the-city movements to confront neoliberalism, emerging right-wing authoritarianism, gentrification, and repressive government measures.

 

After the reopening in May 2025, as part of intricate negotiations with the local authorities, KK increased security, especially by hiring an outside company to enforce compliance with the rules on daily operations and mainly affecting visitors (Pražské Centrum, 2025). The goal is to prevent conflicts or undesirable behaviour that may cause discomfort for local residents, with potential threats for Pražské Centrum to develop its activities.

 

4.5 Graduated sanctions

 

RCC punishes inappropriate use of the site’s facilities in line with the lease requirements. If an organization is two months in arrears for utility costs (e.g., for electricity), the service is suspended, although it can be restored immediately after payment. If there is a four-month delay, the rental contract is immediately terminated by a unilateral decision, and the organization is banned from future rental. Other sanctions regard the daily use of the spaces. The penalties consist of formal warnings issued by Pula’s city council. When three warnings are issued, the contract is revoked and the organization is forbidden from future rental.

 

In contrast, KK and MM have no gradual penalties in their internal regulations, nor is there any record of sanctions. At MM, the police do not intervene except in cases of illegal activity. In such cases, Slovenian criminal law applies. At KK, visitors to or collaborators with the association that fail to comply with the regulations are asked to immediately cease any activity that violates the regulations. In the event of repeated violations, the police are notified to intervene, applying the penalties specified under Czech criminal law. KK also bans entrance to those causing conflict.

 

4.6 Conflict resolution

 

At RCC, the doorkeeper is responsible for reporting conflicts or disagreements and for referring them to the RCC coordination body, which is responsible for mediating conflict resolution. However, Tomašević (2018: 90–91) states that there have been cases in which this procedure was not followed. Certain violations have been directly reported to the coordination body’s members appointed by the RAA, although this body is not responsible for resolving conflicts.

 

In the case of MM, no formal conflict resolution mechanisms exist, nor is there any entity responsible for mediating conflicts, and so they may be resolved through informal means, thereby avoiding the necessity of calling the police. Complaints involving visitors, squatters, and local residents have been filed with the city council and the police since 2018, and the site is experiencing an increase in drug-related activities despite AKC’s involvement in anti-drug campaigns. The local authorities have blamed AKC, and AKC has called on the local authorities and the police to deal with criminal activities and maintain order.

 

At KK, Pražské Centrum’s staff, volunteers, and the security company are involved in resolving conflicts between visitors or stopping problematic behaviour, but no entity is responsible for mediation and conflict resolution. Similar to RCC, if a person causing a problem is willing to remedy it, informal resolution can occur without involving the police.

 

4.7 Right to organize

 

At AKC, what is at stake is the struggle of AKC with the city council–led cultural events in an attempt to sustain urban artistic spaces to achieve a non-institutionalized and informal right to self-organization, resulting in strong empowerment and almost total independence. Multiple factors can explain this situation. First, AKC is resistant to formalizing its legitimacy while halting eviction attempts, paralyzing demolition proposals, and rejecting rehousing offers. Second, there is the possibility of self-financing through ticket sales for cultural events and through bars. Third, MM’s international reputation has led it to acquire strong organizational rights. Consequently, disrupting its authority would damage the local authorities’ reputation if they forcible shut down MM, and so they prefer to find a way to market and promote it as a cultural and tourist venue (Culture.Si, 2025). Nevertheless, this right is strictly connected to the influence of local urban and cultural policies, as well as the city council’s interests, and so the local authorities usually do not intervene in cases of irregularities and legal discrepancies, nor do they attempt to develop more lucrative uses.

 

The RCC coordination body is composed of three members each from the RCC association alliance and Pula’s city council, which clearly shows limited recognition of its organizational rights by the local authorities. Specifically, these members of the coordination body are volunteers that, without any benefit, assume great responsibility in terms of co-governance (Tomašević, 2018: 94), whereby the city council holds decision-making power, and so it is the approving body. This is because the organizations located at RCC do not have sufficient funding to achieve greater independence.

 

In the case of KK, the management of the space is completely controlled by the local authorities. This was demonstrated by its closure in June 2024, ordered by the Prague 8 district government, under the pretext of illegal use of internal space that was neither approved for Pražské Centrum to use nor structurally approved for its purposes. In fact, only the outdoor courtyard is currently operational; it reopened in May 2025 following negotiations between the cultural association, the city council, and the Prague 8 district government, which called into question the management offered by the public actors (ČTK, 2024).

 

4.8 Nested enterprise

 

MM is a typical example of how a network of local cultural NGOs located at the site, along with an established relationship with international NGOs, have worked together to support a large variety of activities evolving over time (Popa et al., 2025). Originally, the Network for Metelkova consisted of more than two hundred NGOs led by the Movement for Culture of Peace and Non-Violence and the ŠKUC Association (Culture.Si, 2025). The ŠKUC Association was created to promote nonprofit artistic activities and is one of the most important cultural organizations in Ljubljana (Culture.Si, 2026).

 

In contrast, at RCC no other institutions from other Croatian cities or abroad are involved in managing and promoting events in the former barracks, which is a task performed by Pula’s city council and the RAA. RCC is not part of a wider network of organizations, although there was an opportunity to be included within international networks of other former military sites located around Pula, especially following EU-funded projects such as the 2024–2026 FORTIC project led by Pula’s city council (Urošević & Afrić Rakitovac, 2025). The same is true for KK. Here, no entities or organizations are involved other than Pražské Centrum and the local authorities (i.e., the Prague 8 district government and Prague’s city council).

 

5 Discussion

 

The application of Ostrom’s approach to the case studies is a special attempt to comprehend squatting (in the cases of RCC and MM) and cultural enterprises (for KK) with regard to management capacity and the relationship with public authorities to ensure their continued presence in these former military barracks. Moreover, this analysis highlights the challenges related to this relationship for sustaining the occupants’ activities and the current threats to their existence. Applying Ostrom’s design principles indicate to what degree the three former military barracks can be characterized as commons.

 

At RCC, although collective-choice rules (principle 6) and operational rules (principles 1 to 5) are currently operative, constitutional-choice rules (principles 7 and 8) are poorly implemented. The site’s management has still not evolved into a commons. To achieve this, the involvement of other institutions in site management and/or entering into a wider network dealing with disused military land are two possibilities because the city of Pula seems to be active in this sense (Mrđen, 2017). In terms of participatory decision-making (principle 3), decisions are made by the site owner, the city council, which does not respect the outcomes of the current participatory process mechanism at RCC. This aspect is reflected in terms of an insufficient right to organize (principle 7) among the occupants because all the funds come from the city council. It is evident that RCC does not show the conventional characteristics of a commons, primarily due to its distinctive governance structure, which is characterized by a collaborative management approach involving both the local government and the community of users. This unique governance framework can best be characterized as a public–civic partnership (Hopman et al., 2021).

 

MM shows less implementation of the three rules than RCC. The site still has a strong squatting character as a self-organized autonomous centre but with insufficient collective-choice rules. MM continues to refrain from involvement in city council–led cultural activities, notwithstanding the evident challenges concerning safety, the absence of licences for bars and alcohol sales, and tax evasion (Rodríguez-Barcón & Sousa, 2021: 634). These irregularities are still being tolerated, primarily due to the indirect benefits that MM produces as a tourist attraction. This suggests that the cultural brand of this self-managed community has an indirect influence on the local revalorization process through culture-led initiatives.

 

KK seems to be the case that least corresponds to a commons. The findings indicate that the cultural activities performed at KK scarcely match the commons approach because this experience principally derives from a top-down approach to the governance of this area. The commoners show less power in relation to the other two case studies because the lease of the spaces depended on the Ministry of Justice from 2017 to 2024 and has depended on the city council since 2025. The establishment of Pražské Centrum has encountered delays, despite the initial offer of a three-year lease without charge. This was followed by the property transfer to the city council, which effectively halted the association-led activities. Consequently, Pražské Centrum was unable to exercise influence over the planning schemes and realign the city council’s priorities to transform the area into a new multi-functional centre.

 

Four aspects deserve attention in the attempt to compare the case studies. First, these sites demonstrate the struggles of the social actors at the intersection of intricate power mechanisms and relations of public actors (van der Leer, 2026). These former barracks highlight how temporary use agreements and governance negotiations reflect broader tensions between local government development priorities and community-led cultural initiatives. Rather than simply documenting events, this study shows the fragility of collaborative governance when economic interests begin to dominate decision-making about cultural spaces. Second, the three sites face institutional constraints and uncertainties despite their status, reputation, and identity. Although their reuse is working autonomously without authorization, they have cultural heritage status, and they are former brownfields converted for new civil uses with great potential for public and green spaces, this is not a guarantee that will protect them from potential future development or profit-oriented investment. The attempt to build alternative and heterotopic places as social assets out of abandoned spaces or places in a state of transition can be a guiding axis for their existence, but it is still a process at risk. Third, and related to the previous point, the continuation of the current reuses is subject to potential future challenges and even changes resulting from the city council’s decision-making on carrying out more profitable functions. The case most at risk appears to be KK. Its reliance on negotiated legitimacy through formal agreements indicates a more fragile form of occupancy, which is dependent on institutional decisions rather than strategic leverage. Notwithstanding its involvement in collaborative governance structures, Pražské Centrum found itself in a position where it was unable to influence zoning decisions after the city’s realignment of its future development planning priorities. In contrast to the bottom-up initiatives of RCC and MM, KK was legitimized through legal codification and not by the occupants’ actions to maintain their presence, although their cultural activities are widely recognized as relevant within the city. Eventually, whether it involves squatting or temporary cultural use, the three cases show that their cities lacked adequate spaces for alternative culture, especially for young people and subgroups. In all three cases, a place for workshops and performances, and a home for musicians, activists, and artists was found, although the illegal takeover of derelict military sites created a stir in Ljubljana and Pula. The Prague case is different due to the initial willingness to create an agreement with Pražské Centrum that eventually legitimized its presence. Despite this, the difference between the cases in Ljubljana and Pula versus Prague is that in the first two the site users hold the power and willingness to promote bottom-up initiatives in which they position themselves in a superior level of the governance structure (Niranjan, 2015).

 

Applying Ostrom’s design principles also presents limitations. As pointed out by her critics, reliance on the agency of individuals in a micro-level context and incapacity to recognize the broader political and economic context in which commons are embedded are two factors that undermine the application of her principles. Hence, subsequent research should use an extended geographical scope to reach at least the neighbourhood level. This approach should facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of broader trends and the manner in which historical activities have been influenced and channelled by local urban and cultural policies over time. Further research can also adopt different sampling strategy, including how to select the interviewees and the selection criteria, with coding to numerically assess actors’ perception about site management and reuse. Eventually, the cases analysed can be approached as pilot projects, testbeds, or living labs to foster innovative institutional capacity in other cases, including abroad (Mazzucato, 2016). This can occur by following ambitious guidelines from international organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union with their different paths forward to achieve a more equal, sustainable, and resilient society (e.g., through their Sustainable Development Goals, Urban and Common Agendas, and Green Deal).

 

6 Conclusion

 

The theme analysed in this article is topical due to intense urban transformation of (sub)cultural spaces in contemporary cities, a phenomenon attributable to multiple effects of the cultural and socioeconomic restructuring of societies. The partial application of Ostrom’s design principles is informative about the three cases for the following reasons. The findings suggest that these sites cannot be fully interpreted as proper commons. The nongovernmental and civic actors involved provide alternative models of social organization to various degrees, thus moving beyond reliance on public–private cooperation, but they do not self-govern the sites through ad-hoc institutions (when created). Moreover, the case study analysis demonstrates the insufficient role of clearly defined local communities in managing resources due to a variety of reasons (e.g., in terms of collectively agreed rules and punitive sanctions for those that break them; Albareda & Sison, 2020).

 

Federico Camerin (corresponding author), University of Valladolid, Department of Urban Planning and Architectural Representation, University Institute of Urban Planning, Valladolid, Spain

E-mail: federico.camerin@uva.es

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8659-3761

 

Arturo Vicente Ruiz, University of Valladolid, Department of Urban Planning and Architectural Representation, University Institute of Urban Planning, Valladolid, Spain

E-mail: arturo.vicente@uva.es

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3806-3476

 

Acknowledgements

 

Federico Camerin conducted this research as part of the research project Military Properties in Europe: Regeneration Strategies and Their Effects on Socio-Spatial Production Processes (Ramón y Cajal Grant RYC2022-037235-I) funded by the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities, the 2021–2023 National Research Agency through the National Plan for Scientific, Technical, and Innovation Research, and co-funded by the ESF+.

 

Arturo Vicente Ruiz conducted this research as part of the research project Urban Regeneration Practices and Their Impact on Socio-Spatial Production Processes in Medium-Sized Spanish Cities funded by the UVa 2024 predoctoral contract program, co-financed by Banco Santander.

 

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Roles played by authors to research outputs: Federico Camerin (FC) 50% and Arturo Vicente Ruiz (AVR) 50%. Conceptualization: FC; Data curation: AVR; Formal analysis: FC; Funding acquisition: FC; Investigation: FC and AVR (equal); Methodology: FC and AVR (equal); Project administration: FC; Resources: AVR; Software: AVR; Supervision: FC; Validation: AVR; Visualisation: AVR; Writing – original draft: FC and AVR (equal); Writing – review and editing: FC and AVR (equal).

 

 

Data availability statement

 

The dataset supporting the findings of this study is publicly available in the University of Valladolid’s institutional repository UVaDOC: Annex 1 for the systematic literature review: https://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/84037; Annex 2 for the interview content: https://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/84039.

 

1 Uvod

 

Preobrazba odvečnih vojaških zemljišč v urbano skupno dobro je trenutno razmeroma neraziskana tema v Srednji in Vzhodni Evropi (regija CEE), vendar se je pojavila kot odziv na težnjo regije CEE, da v sodobnih urbanih prostorih posnema iskanje dobička na Zahodu (Taubenböck idr., 2019), povezano s spornimi pogajanji o prihodnji rabi opuščenih prostorov (O’Callaghan in Di Feliciantonio, 2021). Primer take dinamike je vprašanje ravnanja z nekdanjimi vojaškimi zemljišči. Vojaški umik se ni zgodil zgolj zaradi geopolitike, povezane s hladno vojno, temveč tudi zato, ker so vojaška zemljišča postala priložnost za potencialne špekulacije na presečišču akumulacije kapitala in okoljskega izkoriščanja (Krcho, 2013; Hercik idr., 2014; Glintić, 2015; Jevremović idr., 2021; Peric in Miljus, 2021; Bársony, 2022). To spremljajo nasprotni pristopi k taki usmeritvi v grajenem okolju, na primer neformalne prakse ustvarjanja prostora, ki so se pojavile od prelomnega primera Christianie (Thörn idr., 2011) in zadevajo desetine opuščenih vojašnic v Italiji (Camerin, 2024). Ne le da so potekali skupnostno vodeni ukrepi, temveč so se v nekaterih primerih spremenile tudi odločitve načrtovanja od zgoraj navzdol glede potencialnega ustvarjanja skupnih virov (Camerin, 2021). Vendar je sodobna znanstvena literatura o teh dinamikah skopa in se je večinoma osredinjala na zahodne države, pri čemer analiza držav CEE še vedno ni zadostna. Kljub temu so primeri ljubljanskega Metelkova mesta (MM), puljskega Družbenega centra Rojc (DCR) in praške Kasárne Karlín (KK) v zadnjem desetletju vse bolj pritegnili zanimanje raziskovalcev (glej Ntounis in Kanellopoulou, 2017; Tomašević, 2018; Rodríguez-Barcón in Sousa, 2021). Ti primeri se obravnavajo in analizirajo kot pobude za revitalizacijo, vodeno s kulturo (Ivanc in Petrovic, 2025), zmožne ustvarjati nove finančne prihodke. Kljub naraščajočemu zanimanju za take primere so bili ti z vidika skupnih virov slabo obravnavani, prejšnje študije pa je treba ponovno proučiti, da bi se upoštevale sedanje dinamike. Članek nadgrajuje poskuse uporabe teorije skupnih virov (Saunders, 2014) na posebni vrsti javnega zemljišča (nekdanja vojaška sredstva) z uporabo opredelitve skupnih virov po Elinor Ostrom. Tu opuščeno vojaško zemljišče kot skupni vir obsega opuščeni prostor, ponovna uporaba katerega je sprožena z alternativnimi modeli družbene organizacije, ki jih razvijajo nevladni in civilni akterji (tj. uporabniki skupnih virov, večinoma v obliki nevladnih organizacij, ki razvijajo dejavnosti, povezane z umetnostjo in kulturo, poslovanjem, otroki in mladino, okoljem, psihosocialnim delom, duševnim zdravjem, športom in rekreacijo ter tudi s posebnimi podskupinami, kot so begunci in vojni veterani). Ti akterji si zlasti prizadevajo samoupravljati te vire prek institucij, ki jih ustvarjajo, v poskusu preseganja dihotomije med trgom in državo (Brando idr., 2019). Študija se tako empirično osredinja na nevladne in civilne dejavnosti ponovne uporabe treh opuščenih vojašnic na podlagi osmih načel za oblikovanje po Elinor Ostrom za trajnostno skupnostno upravljanje skupnih virov. S tega vidika se proučujejo razmerje in interakcije med uporabniki skupnega vira in javnimi oblastmi, da bi ugotovili, ali te dejavnosti ustvarjajo bogastvo za lokalne prebivalce, namesto da bi jih nadzorovali zasebni interesi, in določili, koliko je mogoče posamezno študijo primera obravnavati kot skupni vir (Wily, 2011).

 

2 Načela za oblikovanje po Elinor Ostrom in opuščeno vojaško zemljišče kot uspešen skupni vir

 

Kot je pred kratkim poudaril Moroni (2025), akademiki iz različnih disciplin, od ekonomije do sociologije, široko prepoznavajo ambivalentnost koncepta skupnega vira. Temeljno delo Elinor Ostrom o institucionalnem modelu analize je osnovno izhodišče te študije, posebna pozornost pa je namenjena osmim načelom za oblikovanje za trajnost upravljanja skupnih virov (Ostrom, 1990: 90, 1993). Ta načela so bistvena za uspešne institucije, ki upravljajo skupne vire, ker naj bi preprečevala čezmerno rabo in se prenašala z ene generacije prilaščevalcev virov na naslednjo. Skupni viri so viri z značilnostmi odštevnosti in težavne izključljivosti, kot so pašniki in splet, ki so lahko v lasti nacionalnih ali lokalnih vlad, skupnostnih skupin ali zasebnikov oziroma korporacij ali jih kot vire odprtega dostopa uporablja kdor koli, ki si lahko pridobi dostop (Dolšak in Ostrom, 2003: 4). Opredelitev meja skupnih virov in določitev oseb, pooblaščenih za njihovo uporabo, »se lahko razume[ta] kot prvi korak pri organiziranju kolektivnega delovanja. Dokler meje virov in/ali določanje posameznikov, ki lahko uporabljajo vir, ostajajo negotove, nihče ne ve, kaj se upravlja ali za koga« (Ostrom, 1990: 91).

 

Ta načela je mogoče uporabiti pri proučevanju upravljanja nekdanjega kompleksa vojašnic, zasnovanega kot skupno dobro, čeprav je splošno znano, da imajo raziskave Elinor Ostrom različne omejitve. Prvič, Choe in Yun (2017: 117) sta trdila, da ima pojmovanje skupnih virov po Elinor Ostrom »številne omejitve«, ker izključljivost in odvzemljivost obravnava kot fizična ali tehnična atributa. »Izključljivost in odvzemljivost sta družbeno konstruirana atributa, ne fizična ali tehnična. Elinor Ostrom je ta vidik spregledala.« Drugič, po mnenju Blocka in Jankovica (2016: 290–291) so bile raziskave Elinor Ostrom večinoma napačno razumljene, ker »ni odkrila nobene nove oblike upravljanja onkraj zasebne lastnine in državnega nadzora. Namesto tega je obravnavala nekatere zanimive variacije v pogodbeni regulaciji in uveljavljanju pravic zasebne lastnine«. Tretjič, več kot trideset let po izidu njene knjige Governing the Commons iz leta 1990 se je sedanji pristop k skupnim virom odmaknil od temeljne argumentacije o tem konceptu. Po Elinor Ostrom (1990) tvorijo skupne vire viri, ki si jih skupno prisvaja skupina partnerjev, ki imajo do njih izključno pravico ter lahko vsem drugim posameznikom in skupinam preprečijo dostop do njih in njihovo uporabo. Nasprotno pa je Moroni (2025: 178–180) pred kratkim navedel, da sodobna konceptualizacija skupnih virov kaže, da gre za vire, do katerih bi moral imeti dostop vsakdo, zato bi morali pripadati ljudem kot življenjska nujnost, pri čemer temelji na predpostavki, da do teh dobrin nihče, ne posameznik ne skupina, ne bi smel imeti izključne pravice. Ta značilnost je nasprotje lastništva: posledično so skupni viri izvzeti iz vsakršne tržne logike (Rodotà, 2012; Mattei in Mancall, 2019).

 

Ob upoštevanju teh vidikov je prejšnja znanstvena literatura o vojaških zemljiščih izhajala predvsem s področja urbanih študij. Vendar je vojaška sredstva z vidika skupnih virov obravnavala nezadostno. Pravzaprav se v vse številnejših raziskavah pristopov k opuščenim vojaškim zemljiščem, ki se osredinjajo na ljudi, poudarja, da je uspešno ponovno uporabo mogoče doseči, kadar dejavnosti v teh krajih in njihov družbenogospodarski vpliv v urbanih okoljih privedejo do blagovne znamke ali spleta funkcij, ki ustvarja določene koristi, zaradi katerih jih lokalne vlade dopuščajo (Rodríguez-Barcón in Sousa, 2021). Taka trditev ne zadostuje za zapolnitev raziskovalne vrzeli, zato je uporaba pristopa Elinor Ostrom koristna, ker je prepoznala, da niso bili vsi skupni viri uspešni in da so se številni skupni viri sesuli. Osem načel za oblikovanje lahko tako pomaga prepoznati univerzalne vzorce za razlago potrebnih pravil za uspešne skupne vire ter proučevanje institucij, ki so v študijah primerov razvile skupne vire, in njihovega delovanja. Elinor Ostrom (1990: 52) deli pravila na tri ravni: na »operativna« (načela od 1 do 5), »pravila kolektivne izbire« (načelo 6) in »pravila ustavne izbire« (načeli 7 in 8). Operativna pravila neposredno vplivajo na vsakodnevne odločitve, ki jih prilaščevalci ali uporabniki skupnih virov sprejemajo glede odvzema enot vira, nadzornih dejanj, zahtevanih informacij ter dodeljevanja nagrad in sankcij za različne izide. Pravila kolektivne izbire posredno vplivajo na operativna pravila in jih prilaščevalci, uradniki ali zunanje oblasti uporabljajo pri oblikovanju operativnih pravil za upravljanje virov. Pravila ustavne izbire določajo, kdo je upravičen, in opredeljujejo merila za oblikovanje teh pravil. Ta tri pravila so koristna za to raziskavo, ker obravnavajo načine, na katere skupnosti uporabnikov skupaj upravljajo skupne vire (npr. z vidika dostopa, odtujitve, izključitve in odvzema). Posledično ta pravila skupaj pokažejo, ali lahko skupnosti uporabnikov trajnostno in pravično samoupravljajo vire, kot so nekdanje vojašnice, ter na kakšen način, kar ima lahko pomembne posledice za politike (npr. demokratizacija opuščenega javnega območja, zasnovanega kot javni vir, s čimer se potencialno preprečijo privatizacija, komercializacija in omejen javni dostop).

 

3 Metode in študije primerov

 

3.1 Metodologija

 

Izbor študij primerov je izhajal iz dvostopenjske raziskave (slika 1).

 

Slika 1: Raziskovalna metodologija (vir: avtorja).

 

Prva faza (od septembra 2024 do avgusta 2025) je obsegala sistematični pregled recenziranih publikacij (priloga 1). Namen je bil kartirati načine ponovne uporabe, na katere so se po koncu hladne vojne uporabljala vojaška zemljišča v regiji CEE, tipologije ponovne uporabe, ki so bile dejansko izvedene, in morebitna spoznanja, ki jih je mogoče iz njih izpeljati, da bi razumeli, ali je obstajal pristop, osredinjen na skupne vire. Ta korak je bil izveden z iskanjem relevantnih publikacij v različnih iskalnikih v angleščini (Web of Science, Scopus in Google Scholar) z različnimi nizi ključnih besed (tj. »commons« ALI »urban commons« IN »military barracks« ALI »military land« in »Central Eastern Europe« ALI »ime države«) v naslovih, povzetkih in ključnih besedah. Iskanje je prineslo petinštirideset publikacij z zelo različnih področij (večinoma arhitekture in načrtovanja, prepletenih z vidiki, kot sta dediščina in krajina), ki obravnavajo opuščene obrambne lokacije. Samo štiri publikacije, napisane v angleščini, so bile kakor koli povezane z vojaškimi zemljišči in skupnimi viri v regiji CEE, zlasti z vojašnicami (Ntounis in Kanellopoulou, 2017; Tomašević, 2018; Rodríguez-Barcón in Sousa, 2021; Ivanc in Petrovic, 2025). Na podlagi navedenih meril je bilo v Googlu izvedeno tudi iskanje literature, prevedene v angleščino, v nacionalnih in lokalnih časopisih. Ta korak je pomagal razkriti, da so bile tri vojašnice v treh večjih mestih obravnavane v skladu z mogočo opredelitvijo skupnih virov.

 

Druga faza (od septembra 2025 do marca 2026) se je osredinjala na dve glavni nalogi. Prvič, zbrane so bile kvalitativne informacije o študijah primerov s pregledom prostorskih dokumentov, projektov in medijev, povezanih s posamezno lokacijo. Drugič, terensko delo je bilo izvedeno v DCR, MM in KK septembra, oktobra oziroma novembra 2025, pred tem pa je bil vsaka od lokacij obiskana med oktobrom 2018 in januarjem 2019. Terensko delo je vključevalo obisk študij primerov in izvedbo dvajsetih polstrukturiranih intervjujev za vsako lokacijo, da bi dosegli »pomensko zasičenost« (tj. točko, na kateri so globina in teme popolnoma raziskani; Hennink idr., 2017). To je omogočilo razumevanje zaznav o upravljanju in uporabi posamezne lokacije pri štirih različnih skupinah akterjev (po pet intervjuvancev za vsako kategorijo, vsi starejši od osemnajst let in angleško govoreči), ki so bili izbrani po teh merilih:

• uporabniki skupnih virov: s pošiljanjem e-sporočil organizacijam, ki so danes v nekdanjih vojašnicah, pri čemer je bil začetni stik vzpostavljen med terenskim delom med letoma 2018 in 2019;
• uporabniki in obiskovalci vojašnic: z neposrednim intervjuvanjem med terenskim delom leta 2025;
• lokalni prebivalci: s hojo po okolici vojašnic in spraševanjem ljudi, ali so na voljo za intervju;
• predstavniki lokalnih javnih oblasti: s pošiljanjem e-sporočil ali telefonskimi klici lokalnim organom za prostorsko načrtovanje in/ali oddelkom mestnega sveta za načrtovanje, ker so najprimernejša upravna raven za upravljanje nekdanjih vojaških območij. Predhodni stiki so bili vzpostavljeni med terenskim delom med letoma 2018 in 2019.

 

Namen je bil razumeti mnenja različnih lokalnih akterjev in tako pridobiti širši vidik o zaznavi procesa upravljanja ponovne uporabe od tistih, ki najbolje razumejo logiko skupnih virov (uporabniki skupnih virov), ter drugih, da bi kategorizirane informacije dopolnili z dodatnimi uvidi na podlagi njihovih različnih vlog in položajev v lokalni areni (javne oblasti, uporabniki dejavnosti, ki se izvajajo na posamezni lokaciji, in ljudje, ki živijo v mestu).

 

Intervjuji so obsegali deset vprašanj o zaznavah po osmih načelih za oblikovanje po Elinor Ostrom (glej prilogo 2):

• Načelo 1: Jasno opredeljene meje skupnih virov.
• Načelo 2: Pravila upravljanja je treba sprejeti v skladu s prevladujočim lokalnim kontekstom. Jasno je, da samo en univerzalno uporaben pristop k upravljanju skupnih virov ni dosegljiv.
• Načelo 3: Vzpostaviti je treba participativno odločanje, da bodo ljudje, ki oblikujejo pravila, ta v celoti upoštevali.
• Načelo 4: Nadzor. Ko je vzpostavljen sklop predpisov, so skupnosti odgovorne za oblikovanje učinkovitih mehanizmov izvrševanja.
• Načelo 5: Za tiste, ki zlorabljajo skupne vire, je treba uvesti stopnjevane sankcije.
• Načelo 6: Nemoteno reševanje konfliktov.
• Načelo 7: Podelitev pravnega statusa skupnim virom bi morala olajšati vzpostavitev organizacijskih okvirov.
• Načelo 8: Optimalno delovanje skupnih virov bi bilo treba olajšati z njihovim vključevanjem v obsežnejša omrežja.

 

Vsak intervju je bil izveden v notranjih prostorih, posnel ga je izvajalec intervjuja, spremljala pa ga je kratka neformalna interakcija s sogovornikom za pojasnitev odgovorov. Skupni čas intervjuja je običajno trajal od petnajst do petindvajset minut. Etična vprašanja pri obravnavi intervjuvancev so bila rešena v skladu s Splošno uredbo o varstvu podatkov Evropske unije.

 

3.2 Predstavitev študij primerov

 

Preglednica 1 in slika 2 predstavljata glavne značilnosti študij primerov: površino, število stavb, čas gradnje, opustitev, ponovno uporabo, status spomeniške zaščite in vprašanja upravljanja (tj. lastništvo in pristopi od zgoraj navzdol/od spodaj navzgor).

 

 

 

Preglednica 1: Glavni podatki o študijah primerov

Podatki študije primera	Družbeni center Rojc	Kasárna Karlín	Metelkova mesto
Površina (m²)	16.739 (+ 29.000 odprtega prostora)	8.400	12.500
Število stavb	1	2	6
Čas gradnje	1882–1911	1840	1870
Leto opustitve	1991	2008	1991
Obdobje ponovne uporabe	1999–	2017–	1993–
Spomeniško zaščitena dediščina	Vse stavbe	Vse stavbe	—
Lastništvo (leto)	Mestni svet (2007)	Ministrstvo za pravosodje (2016) Mestni svet (2024)	Mestni svet (2008)
Od zgoraj navzdol/od spodaj navzgor	Od spodaj navzgor	Od zgoraj navzdol	Od spodaj navzgor

Vir: avtorja.

 

Slika 2: Okolica treh študij primerov (vir: avtorja na podlagi Google Maps).

 

Tukaj analizirane lokacije imajo jasno diferencirane značilnosti, razvojne poti in življenjske dobe, čeprav gre za sporne prostore. Po eni strani primera Pulja in Ljubljane kažeta izvajanje neformalnih urbanih rab, ki izzivajo hegemoni nadzor nad urbanim razvojem in prekinjajo uveljavljene agende, ki jih usmerja rast. Praški primer po drugi strani kaže tipično regeneracijo, ki jo usmerja kultura, poganja neprofitni sektor in ki je vzbudila zanimanje nepremičninskega trga za privatizacijo. Medtem ko sta se DCR in MM začela z zasedbo, se je KK začela kot odločitev države od zgoraj navzdol, da spodbuja začasne kulturne ponovne uporabe, zaupane zasebnemu podjetju. Vsi trije primeri delujejo kot neformalni (Ljubljana in Pulj) in formalni (Praga) kulturni centri, ki gostijo dogodke in srečanja lokalnih združenj, posvečene različnim dejavnostim (npr. umetnosti, plesu, glasbi in gledališču). Te pobude so delno preživele zaradi nenavadnih manevrov vpletenih akterjev na državni ravni (ministrstvo za obrambo) ali lokalni (mestni svet in okrožna oblast). Preživele so tudi poskuse preoblikovanja v nove, donosnejše rabe (velik nakupovalni center v primeru MM in večnamenski prostor za KK), ki so bili ustavljeni zaradi zasedbe (DCR in MM) in nedavne podpore prebivalcev (KK).

 

3.2.1 Vojašnica Karlo Rojc, danes Družbeni center Rojc (Pulj, Hrvaška)

 

Po umiku vojske iz vojašnice Karlo Rojc leta 1991 je stavba do leta 1997 gostila približno šeststo vojnih beguncev in več humanitarnih organizacij. Nato so lokalne nevladne organizacije (zlasti kulturne, mladinske in okoljske) začele neformalno zasedati lokacijo, kar je mesto Pulj spodbudilo, da je leta 1998 dodelilo prostore več kot tridesetim nevladnim organizacijam. Te organizacije so same financirale prenove in razvile rudimentarno strukturo upravljanja, znano kot Svet Rojca. Do leta 2007 je tam delovalo več kot sto nevladnih organizacij, čeprav so se pojavile napetosti zaradi nepreglednega finančnega upravljanja občinskega podjetja Castrum. Protest leta 2008 je privedel do ustanovitve koordinacijskega telesa DCR zaradi soupravljanja razmerja med uporabniki in občino. Da bi se predstavništvo uporabnikov skupnih virov dodatno institucionaliziralo, je bila leta 2012 ustanovljena Zveza društev Rojc (Savez udruga Rojca ali SUR), ki je izvolila devetnajst predstavnikov uporabnikov za sodelovanje v deljenem upravljanju. Od takrat si uporabniške organizacije prizadevajo za večjo finančno preglednost in izboljšano upravljanje. Njihovo zagovorništvo je prineslo pomembne rezultate, na primer zahtevo, da telekomunikacijska podjetja plačujejo pošteno najemnino za antene na stavbi, kar letno ustvari 35.000 EUR za ponovno vlaganje. Danes je DCR primer hibridnega modela upravljanja, ki združuje občinsko lastništvo s soupravljanjem, ki ga vodijo uporabniki (slika 3).

 

Slika 3: Družbeni center Rojc (vir: avtorja).

 

3.2.2 Kasárna Karlín (Praga, Češka republika)

 

Po umiku vojske leta 2008 se je območje KK večinoma premalo uporabljalo do leta 2017, ko je ministrstvo za pravosodje kot novi lastnik lokalnemu kulturnemu združenju Pražské Centrum (Praški center) odobril začasni najem. Združenje je KK preoblikovalo v kulturno središče, ki gosti širok nabor dogodkov in objektov, vključno s kinom, galerijo, koncertno dvorano in kavarno, pri čemer je vojašnico ohranilo v skoraj izvirnem stanju (slika 4). Organizacija je delovala kot neprofitni subjekt ter prihodke ponovno vlagala v plače, prenove in opremo. Prvotni načrt ministrstva, da lokacijo preoblikuje v sodišče, so do leta 2020 nadomestili alternativni predlogi. Ti so vključevali razvoj študentskih stanovanj, upravnih pisarn in inovacijskega vozlišča. Leta 2024 je bilo lastništvo preneseno na mesto Praga, ki je začelo strateško načrtovanje regeneracije in potencialne spremembe namenske rabe (prenova z mešano rabo, ki združuje kulturne, izobraževalne in komercialne funkcije), hkrati pa so se pojavile napetosti med mestnimi oblastmi, lokalnimi prebivalci in združenjem Pražské Centrum. Junija 2024 je okrožna oblast Praga 8 zaprla dejavnosti kulturnega združenja na podlagi domnevnih kršitev gradbenih predpisov in pritožb lokalnih prebivalcev zaradi hrupa. Kritiki so odločitev izpodbijali in opozorili na čas zaprtja po letih dopustnega delovanja. Čeprav je bilo dvorišče vojašnice leta 2025 začasno ponovno odprto, ostaja dolgoročna prihodnost KK negotova. Sodobni lokalni diskurz to poudarja v okviru splošnega neskladja med kulturnimi pobudami od spodaj, strategijami urbane prenove in strukturami upravljanja, ki od začetka 21. stoletja dajejo prednost javno-zasebnim partnerstvom pri regeneraciji praških degradiranih območij (Pixová, 2013).

 

Slika 4: Kasárna Karlín (vir: avtorja).

 

3.2.3 Vojašnica 4. julija, danes Metelkova mesto (Ljubljana, Slovenija)

 

Po osamosvojitvi Slovenije leta 1991 je bilo južno območje vojašnice 4. julija dodeljeno ministrstvu za kulturo, da bi postalo pomemben muzej, severni del pa se je preoblikoval v žarišče alternativne (sub)kulturne produkcije. Nevladne organizacije (zlasti s področja kulture, raziskovanja in civilne družbe) so si sprva prizadevale lokacijo spremeniti v ustvarjalni laboratorij. Vendar je rušenje, ki ga je leta 1993 odredila in vodila vlada, privedlo do zasedbe območja s strani dvesto umetnikov. Kljub poskusom izselitve se je lokacija leta 1995 utrdila kot Avtonomni kulturni center Metelkova mesto (AKC), ki se je večinoma samofinanciral prek kulturnih dogodkov, klubov, ateljejev in nastanitev (tj. Hostel Celica). Prenos lastništva na mestni svet leta 2008 je vključeval zavezo za zaščito uporabnikov. Kljub temu je odnos z AKC ostal prežet s kompleksnostmi, zaznamovanimi s spori glede lastništva, namenske rabe in avtonomije. Čeprav je lokalna uprava okrepila kulturno in turistično vrednost soseske Metelkova, se je AKC takim trendom odločno upiral, da bi ohranil svojo neodvisnost. Konflikti so se stopnjevali v povezavi s trenji, kot so poskusi prodaje Hostla Celica leta 2017 in smernice prostorskega načrta iz leta 2021 za zmanjšanje prostora, namenjenega AKC. Politični premiki leta 2022 so začasno ublažili grožnje po izselitvi, vendar so ponavljajoče se policijske intervencije, incidenti, povezani z drogami, in pritiski urbanega razvoja ohranjali napetosti. Leta 2025 so se pojavila nova tveganja s predlogom za gradnjo zdravstvene ustanove, ki bi posegla v klub Gala Hala, koncertno prizorišče, ki lahko sprejme 350 ljudi. Ne glede na vztrajne zunanje pritiske in krhek odnos z javnimi organi AKC še naprej uveljavlja svoj kulturni in politični pomen ter avtonomijo v Ljubljani (slika 5).

 

Slika 5: Metelkova mesto (vir: avtorja).

 

4 Rezultati

 

To poglavje predstavlja raziskovalne ugotovitve. Poudarjeni so najpomembnejši vidiki, povezani z osmimi načeli za oblikovanje po Elinor Ostrom za vsako študijo primera, ter ugotovitve, pridobljene z intervjuji in pregledom literature.

 

4.1 Jasno opredeljene meje

 

Meje DCR so nadzorovane za preprečitev dostopa nepooblaščenim posameznikom ali zunaj odpiralnega časa, razen za 108 različnih organizacij najemnic. Dostop do stavbe (od 7. ure do polnoči) in nadzor sta dobro vzpostavljena s 24-urnim vratarjem na straži ob odprtjih, namenjenih obiskom umetniške galerije ali organiziranim dejavnostim, kot so pogovori, konference in delavnice.

 

Fizične meje KK so prav tako jasno opredeljene, dostop pa je mogoč skozi glavna vrata na ulici Křižíkova (Křižíkova ulice) 12 med odpiralnim časom za obiskovalce (od 10. do 23. ure). Vendar za uporabnike zunaj odpiralnega časa ni omejitev. Po prenosu lastništva na mestni svet leta 2024 je bila vojašnica KK brezplačno oddana v najem združenju Pražské Centrum (2025), ki samostojno upravlja oblikovanje programov na prostem. Notranji prostori trenutno še vedno niso dostopni, čeprav so dejavnosti na prostem (npr. filmske projekcije in koncerti) dovoljene z nadzorovanim dostopom ob plačilu vstopnine. Zunaj odpiralnega časa je dostop omejen na Pražské Centrum in osebje, najeto za vzdrževalna dela.

 

MM prav tako določa meje za svoj vhod, vendar ni natančno določenega časa za dostop do območja. Dostop je mogoč skozi vhod na Metelkovi ulici, ki ga ureja ročno upravljana parkirna zapornica pod nadzorom člana aktivistične skupine MM, ali iz Hostla Celica, ki je v nekdanji zaporniški stavbi vojašnice v bližini vhoda.

 

4.2 Pravila, prilagojena lokalnim okoliščinam

 

DCR sprejema ustavna in operativna pravila (Tomašević, 2018: 87–88). Sklep o uporabi pisarniških prostorov v DCR opredeljuje vloge, ker je namenjen urejanju administrativnih zadev najema prostora, kot so trajanje pogodbe, obveznosti vlaganja v najete prostore in njihove prenove ter storitve, kot sta poraba elektrike in vode. Dokument Hišni red vsebuje operativna pravila, ki jih koordinacijsko telo DCR predlaga mestnemu svetu, in določa, kaj je dovoljeno pri vsakodnevni uporabi kompleksa, tudi obiskovalcem. Mestni svet mora na primer dati posebno dovoljenje, da je dogodek po polnoči odprt širši javnosti.

 

V primeru MM skupnost, ki upravlja lokacijo, to zaseda na robu zakonitosti. Najemniki so v stalnem dialogu s sedanjim lastnikom (tj. mestnim svetom), ki celo financira različne dejavnosti (Culture.Si, 2025). Pravila upravljanja so neformalna in neizrečena, poročil o uradnem dokumentu glede nesprejemljivega vedenja ali stališč pa ni. Kljub temu se pogosto trdi, da živahno nočno življenje v MM povzroča hrup in vandalizem ter uživanje drog in alkohola.

 

KK ima veliko različnih pravil, zlasti glede upravljanja in recikliranja odpadkov. Poleg tega obstajajo skoraj obvezna priporočila, kot je zahteva, da se hrana in pijača uživata v lokalih (razen za otroke in osebe z zdravstvenimi stanji, potreb katerih meniji ne izpolnjujejo). Namen tega je povečati prihodke, ki nato prispevajo k financiranju dejavnosti (Pražské Centrum, 2025). Dodatni predpisi varujejo mir in tišino za lokalne prebivalce, da bi preprečili potencialne konflikte, ki lahko nastanejo zaradi dejavnosti na zunanjem dvorišču (Kasárna Karlín, 2024).

 

4.3 Participativno odločanje

 

Na treh lokacijah je pomen participativnega odločanja majhen, kar je značilno za druga samoupravljana središča po Evropi; to je podobno (vendar v manjšem merilu) Svobodnemu mestu Christiania. Močne ideološke dejavnosti in vrednote, ki jih spodbujajo zasedniki, obiskovalce v vseh primerih, ne glede na to, ali delijo to etiko ali ne, vabijo k spoštovanju članov združenj.

 

Leta 2011 je participativni proces, ki je vključeval posvetovanja z vsemi uporabniškimi organizacijami, predhodno odobril pravila DCR. Nato so trije člani SUR, ki so del koordinacijskega telesa, pravila DCR predlagali lokalni upravi v končno odobritev (Jakovčić idr., 2013). Ker pa izdatki mestnega sveta financirajo vzdrževanje lokacije v višini približno 200.000 EUR letno, izid participativnega procesa morda ni v celoti upoštevan, če lokalna oblast meni, da je to potrebno.

 

V primeru MM med uporabniki skupnih virov in mestnim svetom potekajo le neformalni pogovori, vendar ni participativnega procesa za pripravo dokumentov ali sprejemanje odločitev.

 

Pražské Centrum določa pravila za KK, pri čemer ni participativnega procesa, ki bi vključeval lokalne prebivalce ali sodelujoče organizacije. Nekatera od teh pravil sledijo skrbi za okoljsko trajnost, druga pa odgovarjajo na pritožbe prebivalcev zaradi hrupa. Trenutno so pravila KK del začasnega operativnega načrta, uvedenega po delnem ponovnem odprtju leta 2025, Pražské Centrum (2025) pa še naprej vztraja pri ponovni pridobitvi uporabe notranjih prostorov, ki so še vedno zaprti.

 

4.4 Nadzor

 

DCR izvaja različne mehanizme nadzora. Prvič, mestni svet Pulja, ki mu svetuje koordinacijsko telo DCR, zagotavlja, da so vse organizacije na tekočem s svojimi obveznostmi po najemni pogodbi. Drugič, varnostna ekipa in vratar nadzorujeta vsakodnevno uporabo lokacije in zagotavljata spoštovanje pravil. Tretjič, koordinacijsko telo DCR nadzoruje finančno stanje in pravilno uporabo sredstev, trije člani zveze društev DCR, ki so del koordinacijskega telesa, pa nadzorujejo vse spremembe pravil (Tomašević, 2018: 90).

 

MM je zavrnilo avtoriteto in formalna navodila, njegovo sodelovanje z javnimi organi pa je minimalno, brez kakršnega koli zunanjega nadzora nad njegovimi dejavnostmi in odločitvami. Zasedniki so uvedli horizontalni pristop k upravljanju svojih notranjih zadev, pri čemer spodbujajo demokratične vrednote in sodelovanje vseh svojih članov. Poleg tega se izogibajo vključevanju v odločanje večjega obsega z drugimi deležniki, kar je strategija za ohranjanje njihove avtonomije. To izhaja iz dejstva, da MM poganja politični boj, ki je tesno povezan z urbanimi družbenimi gibanji, ki črpajo navdih iz gibanj za pravico do mesta, da bi se zoperstavila neoliberalizmu, nastajajočemu desničarskemu avtoritarizmu, gentrifikaciji in represivnim vladnim ukrepom.

 

Po ponovnem odprtju maja 2025 je vojašnica KK v okviru zapletenih pogajanj z lokalnimi oblastmi okrepila varnost, zlasti z najemom zunanjega podjetja za uveljavljanje skladnosti s pravili vsakodnevnega delovanja, ki predvsem zadevajo obiskovalce (Pražské Centrum, 2025). Cilj je preprečiti konflikte ali neželeno vedenje, ki bi lahko povzročilo nelagodje lokalnim prebivalcem, s potencialnimi grožnjami za Pražské Centrum pri razvijanju njegovih dejavnosti.

 

4.5 Stopnjevane sankcije

 

DCR kaznuje neustrezno uporabo objektov lokacije v skladu z zahtevami najema. Če organizacija dva meseca zamuja s plačilom stroškov komunalnih storitev (npr. elektrike), se storitev prekine, vendar jo je mogoče takoj po plačilu ponovno vzpostaviti. Če zamuda traja štiri mesece, se najemna pogodba nemudoma enostransko prekine, organizaciji pa se prepove prihodnji najem. Druge sankcije zadevajo vsakodnevno uporabo prostorov. Kazni obsegajo formalna opozorila, ki jih izda mestni svet Pulja. Ko so izdana tri opozorila, se pogodba razveljavi, organizaciji pa se prepove prihodnji najem.

 

Nasprotno KK in MM v svojih notranjih predpisih nimata stopnjevanih kazni, prav tako ni nobenega zapisa o sankcijah. V MM policija ne posreduje, razen v primerih nezakonite dejavnosti. V takih primerih se uporablja slovensko kazensko pravo. V KK se obiskovalce ali sodelavce združenja, ki ne spoštujejo predpisov, pozove, naj nemudoma prenehajo vsako dejavnost, ki krši predpise. V primeru ponavljajočih se kršitev se o tem obvesti policijo, da posreduje, pri čemer se uporabijo kazni, določene po češkem kazenskem pravu. KK tudi prepoveduje vstop tistim, ki povzročajo konflikte.

 

4.6 Reševanje konfliktov

 

V DCR je vratar odgovoren za poročanje o konfliktih ali nesoglasjih in njihovo napotitev na koordinacijsko telo DCR, ki je odgovorno za posredovanje pri reševanju konfliktov. Vendar Tomašević (2018: 90–91) navaja, da so imeli primere, v katerih ta postopek ni bil upoštevan. Določene kršitve so bile neposredno prijavljene članom koordinacijskega telesa, ki jih imenuje SUR, čeprav to telo ni odgovorno za reševanje konfliktov.

 

V primeru MM ni formalnih mehanizmov za reševanje konfliktov, prav tako ni nobenega subjekta, odgovornega za posredovanje pri konfliktih, zato se ti lahko rešujejo z neformalnimi sredstvi, s čimer se izogne nujnosti klica policije. Pritožbe, ki vključujejo obiskovalce, zasednike in lokalne prebivalce, so bile od leta 2018 vložene pri mestnem svetu in policiji, lokacija pa doživlja porast dejavnosti, povezanih z drogami, kljub vključenosti AKC v kampanje proti drogam. Lokalne oblasti so krivdo pripisale AKC, ta pa je lokalne oblasti in policijo pozval, naj se ukvarjajo s kriminalnimi dejavnostmi in vzdržujejo red.

 

V KK so osebje združenja Pražské Centrum, prostovoljci in varnostno podjetje vključeni v reševanje konfliktov med obiskovalci ali ustavljanje problematičnega vedenja, vendar noben subjekt ni odgovoren za mediacijo in reševanje konfliktov. Podobno kot v DCR lahko, če je oseba, ki povzroča težavo, pripravljena to odpraviti, pride do neformalne rešitve brez vključitve policije.

 

4.7 Pravica do organiziranja

 

Pri AKC je v ospredju boj s kulturnimi dogodki, ki jih vodi mestni svet v poskusu ohranjanja urbanih umetniških prostorov za dosego neinstitucionalizirane in neformalne pravice do samoorganiziranja, kar vodi v močno opolnomočenje in skoraj popolno neodvisnost. Te okoliščine lahko pojasni več dejavnikov. Prvič, AKC se upira formalizaciji svoje legitimnosti, hkrati pa ustavlja poskuse izselitve, paralizira predloge rušenja in zavrača ponudbe za preselitev. Drugič, obstaja možnost samofinanciranja s prodajo vstopnic za kulturne dogodke in prek barov. Tretjič, mednarodni ugled MM je privedel do pridobitve močnih organizacijskih pravic. Posledično bi poseganje v njegovo avtoriteto škodovalo ugledu lokalnih oblasti, če bi MM prisilno zaprle, zato raje iščejo način, kako ga tržiti in promovirati kot kulturno in turistično prizorišče (Culture.Si, 2025). Kljub temu je ta pravica strogo povezana z vplivom lokalnih urbanih in kulturnih politik ter interesi mestnega sveta, zato lokalne oblasti običajno ne posredujejo v primerih nepravilnosti in pravnih neskladij niti ne poskušajo razvijati donosnejših rab.

 

Koordinacijsko telo DCR sestavljajo po trije člani iz zveze društev DCR in mestnega sveta Pulja, kar jasno kaže omejeno priznavanje njegovih organizacijskih pravic s strani lokalnih oblasti. Natančneje, ti člani koordinacijskega telesa so prostovoljci, ki brez kakršne koli koristi prevzemajo veliko odgovornost v smislu soupravljanja (Tomašević, 2018: 94), pri čemer ima mestni svet moč odločanja in je zato odobritveni organ. Tako je zato, ker organizacije, ki delujejo v DCR, nimajo zadostnega financiranja za dosego večje neodvisnosti.

 

V primeru KK upravljanje prostora v celoti nadzorujejo lokalne oblasti. To se je pokazalo ob njegovem zaprtju junija 2024, ki ga je odredila uprava mestnega okrožja Praga 8 pod pretvezo nezakonite uporabe notranjega prostora, ki ni bil potrjen za uporabo združenja Pražské Centrum niti ni bil po sestavi odobren za njegove namene. Dejansko je trenutno operativno le zunanje dvorišče, ki se je ponovno odprlo maja 2025 po pogajanjih med kulturnim združenjem, mestnim svetom in upravo mestnega okrožja Praga 8, kar je postavilo pod vprašaj upravljanje, ki ga ponujajo javni akterji (ČTK, 2024).

 

4.8 Vgnezdene organizacijske enote

 

MM je tipičen primer, kako je mreža lokalnih kulturnih nevladnih organizacij, ki delujejo na lokaciji, skupaj z vzpostavljenim odnosom z mednarodnimi nevladnimi organizacijami sodelovala pri podpori širokemu naboru dejavnosti, ki so se sčasoma razvijale (Popa idr., 2025). Prvotno je Mrežo za Metelkovo sestavljalo več kot dvesto nevladnih organizacij pod vodstvom Gibanja za kulturo miru in nenasilja in Društva ŠKUC (Culture.Si, 2026). Zadnje je bilo ustanovljeno za spodbujanje neprofitnih umetniških dejavnosti in je ena najpomembnejših kulturnih organizacij v Ljubljani (Ministrstvo za kulturo Republike Slovenije, 2023).

 

Nasprotno pa v DCR pri upravljanju in promoviranju dogodkov v nekdanji vojašnici ne sodelujejo nobene druge institucije iz drugih hrvaških mest ali tujine. To nalogo izvajata mestni svet Pulja in SUR. DCR ni del širše mreže organizacij, čeprav je obstajala priložnost za vključitev v mednarodne mreže drugih nekdanjih vojaških območij v okolici Pulja, zlasti pri projektih, financiranih s sredstvi EU, kot je FORTIC 2024–2026 pod vodstvom mestnega sveta Pulja (Urošević in Afrić Rakitovac, 2025). Enako velja za KK. Tu razen združenja Pražské Centrum in lokalnih oblasti (tj. uprave mestnega okrožja Praga 8 in mestnega sveta Prage) niso vključeni nobeni drugi subjekti ali organizacije.

 

5 Razprava

 

Uporaba pristopa Elinor Ostrom na študijah primerov je poseben poskus razumevanja zasedbe (v primerih DCR in MM) in kulturnih podjetij (pri KK) glede na upravljavsko zmogljivost in odnos z javnimi oblastmi, da bi zagotovili njihovo nadaljnje delovanje v nekdanjih vojašnicah. Poleg tega ta analiza poudarja izzive, povezane z odnosom za ohranjanje dejavnosti uporabnikov, in trenutne grožnje njihovemu obstoju. Uporaba načel za oblikovanje po Elinor Ostrom kaže, koliko je mogoče tri nekdanje vojašnice označiti kot skupne vire.

 

V DCR se trenutno udejanjajo pravila kolektivne izbire (načelo 6) in operativna pravila (načela od 1 do 5), pravila ustavne izbire (načeli 7 in 8) pa so slabo izvedena. Upravljanje lokacije se še ni razvilo v skupni vir. Za dosego tega je ena od možnosti vključitev drugih institucij v upravljanje lokacije, druga pa vstop v širšo mrežo, ki se ukvarja z opuščenimi vojaškimi zemljišči, saj se zdi, da je mesto Pulj dejavno v tem smislu (Mrđen, 2017). Z vidika participativnega odločanja (načelo 3) odločitve sprejema lastnik lokacije, tj. mestni svet, ki ne spoštuje izidov trenutnega mehanizma participativnega procesa v DCR. Ta vidik se izraža v nezadostni pravici do organiziranja (načelo 7) med uporabniki, ker vsa sredstva prihajajo od mestnega sveta. Očitno je, da DCR ne kaže konvencionalnih značilnosti skupnih virov, predvsem zaradi svoje posebne strukture upravljanja, za katero je značilen sodelovalni pristop k upravljanju, ki vključuje lokalno oblast in tudi skupnost uporabnikov. Ta edinstveni upravljavski okvir je mogoče najbolje označiti kot javno-civilno partnerstvo (Hopman idr., 2021).

 

MM kaže manjšo implementacijo treh pravil kot DCR. Lokacija še vedno ohranja močen značaj zasedbe (skvotanja) kot samoorganizirani avtonomni center, vendar z nezadostnimi pravili kolektivne izbire. MM se še naprej ne vključuje v kulturne dejavnosti, ki jih vodi mestni svet, ne glede na očitne izzive glede varnosti, neobstoja dovoljenj za bare in prodajo alkohola in davčnih utaj (Rodríguez-Barcón in Sousa, 2021: 634). Te nepravilnosti se še vedno dopuščajo, predvsem zaradi posrednih koristi, ki jih MM ustvarja kot turistična znamenitost. To nakazuje, da ima kulturna znamka te samoupravljane skupnosti posreden vpliv na lokalni proces revalorizacije prek pobud, vodenih s kulturo.

 

Zdi se, da je KK primer, ki najmanj ustreza skupnim virom. Ugotovitve kažejo, da kulturne dejavnosti, ki se izvajajo v KK, le stežka ustrezajo pristopu skupnih virov, ker ta izkušnja v glavnem izhaja iz pristopa upravljanja tega območja od zgoraj navzdol. Uporabniki skupnih virov izkazujejo manj moči v primerjavi z drugima študijama primerov, ker je bil najem prostorov med letoma 2017 in 2024 odvisen od češkega ministrstva za pravosodje, od leta 2025 pa je odvisen od mestnega sveta. Ustanavljanje združenja Pražské Centrum je kljub prvotni ponudbi triletnega brezplačnega najema naletelo na zamude. Tem je sledil prenos lastništva na mestni svet, ki je dejansko ustavil dejavnosti, ki jih je vodilo združenje. Posledično to ni moglo vplivati na načrtovalske sheme in preusmeriti prioritet mestnega sveta za preoblikovanje območja v novo večnamensko središče.

 

Pri poskusu primerjave študij primerov si pozornost zaslužijo štirje vidiki. Prvič, te lokacije kažejo boje družbenih akterjev na presečišču zapletenih mehanizmov moči in odnosov javnih akterjev (van der Leer, 2026). Te nekdanje vojašnice poudarjajo, kako dogovori o začasni uporabi in pogajanja o upravljanju izražajo širše napetosti med razvojnimi prioritetami lokalne vlade in skupnostno vodenimi kulturnimi pobudami. Namesto da bi zgolj dokumentirala dogodke, ta študija kaže krhkost sodelovalnega upravljanja, ko začnejo gospodarski interesi prevladovati pri odločanju o kulturnih prostorih. Drugič, tri lokacije se kljub svojemu statusu, ugledu in identiteti soočajo z institucionalnimi omejitvami in negotovostmi. Čeprav njihova ponovna uporaba deluje avtonomno brez dovoljenja, imajo status kulturne dediščine in so nekdanja degradirana območja, preoblikovana za nove civilne rabe z velikim potencialom za javne in zelene prostore, to ni jamstvo, ki bi jih zaščitilo pred potencialnim prihodnjim razvojem ali dobičkonosno usmerjenimi naložbami. Poskus gradnje alternativnih in heterotopičnih krajev kot družbenih sredstev iz opuščenih prostorov ali krajev v stanju prehoda je lahko vodilna os njihovega obstoja, vendar je še vedno tvegan proces. Tretjič in v povezavi s prejšnjo točko je nadaljevanje sedanjih ponovnih uporab podvrženo potencialnim prihodnjim izzivom in celo spremembam, ki izhajajo iz odločanja mestnega sveta o izvajanju donosnejših funkcij. Zdi se, da je najbolj ogrožen primer KK. Njegovo zanašanje na izpogajano legitimnost prek formalnih dogovorov kaže na krhkejšo obliko zasedenosti, ki je odvisna od institucionalnih odločitev in ne od strateškega vzvoda. Kljub svoji vključenosti v sodelovalne upravljavske strukture se je združenje Pražské Centrum znašlo v položaju, v katerem ni moglo vplivati na odločitve o namembnosti po tem, ko je mesto preusmerilo svoje prihodnje razvojnonačrtovalske prioritete. V nasprotju s pobudami DCR in MM od spodaj navzgor je bil KK legitimiran s pravno kodifikacijo in ne z dejanji uporabnikov za ohranitev njihove prisotnosti, čeprav so njihove kulturne dejavnosti v mestu široko prepoznane kot relevantne. Nazadnje, ne glede na to, ali gre za zasedbo ali začasno kulturno uporabo, trije primeri kažejo, da so njihovim mestom primanjkovali ustrezni prostori za alternativno kulturo, zlasti za mlade in podskupine. V vseh treh primerih je bil najden prostor za delavnice in predstave ter dom za glasbenike, aktiviste in umetnike, čeprav je nezakonit prevzem propadajočih vojaških območij v Ljubljani in Pulju povzročil razburjenje. Praški primer je drugačen zaradi začetne pripravljenosti za sklenitev dogovora z združenjem Pražské Centrum, ki je sčasoma legitimiral njegov obstoj. Kljub temu je razlika med primeroma v Ljubljani in Pulju v primerjavi s Prago v tem, da imajo uporabniki lokacije v prvih dveh moč in voljo za spodbujanje pobud od spodaj navzgor, v katerih se umeščajo na višjo raven upravljavske strukture (Niranjan, 2015).

 

Uporaba načel za oblikovanje po Elinor Ostrom ima tudi omejitve. Kot so poudarili njeni kritiki, sta zanašanje na delovanje posameznikov v mikroravenskem kontekstu ter nezmožnost prepoznavanja širšega političnega in gospodarskega konteksta, v katerega so vpeti skupni viri, dejavnika, ki spodkopavata uporabo njenih načel. Zato bi morale nadaljnje raziskave uporabiti razširjen geografski obseg, ki bi dosegel vsaj raven soseske. Ta pristop bi moral omogočiti celovitejše razumevanje širših trendov ter načina, kako so lokalne urbane in kulturne politike skozi čas vplivale na zgodovinske dejavnosti in jih usmerjale. Prihodnje raziskave lahko sprejmejo tudi drugačno strategijo vzorčenja, vključno s tem, kako izbrati intervjuvance in merila za izbiro, s kodiranjem za numerično oceno zaznav akterjev o upravljanju in ponovni uporabi lokacije. Nazadnje je mogoče analizirane primere obravnavati kot pilotne projekte, preizkusna okolja ali žive laboratorije za spodbujanje inovativne institucionalne zmogljivosti v drugih primerih, tudi v tujini (Mazzucato, 2016). To se lahko zgodi z upoštevanjem ambicioznih smernic mednarodnih organizacij, kot so Združeni narodi in Evropska unija, z njihovimi različnimi potmi naprej za doseganje bolj enakopravne, trajnostne in odporne družbe (npr. prek njihovih ciljev trajnostnega razvoja, urbanih in skupnostnih agend ter Evropskega zelenega dogovora).

 

6 Sklep

 

Tema, obravnavana v tem članku, je aktualna zaradi intenzivne urbane preobrazbe (sub)kulturnih prostorov v sodobnih mestih, pojava, ki ga je mogoče pripisati več učinkom kulturnega in družbenogospodarskega prestrukturiranja družb. Delna uporaba načel za oblikovanje po Elinor Ostrom je za tri primere informativna iz naslednjih razlogov. Ugotovitve kažejo, da teh lokacij ni mogoče v celoti razlagati kot prave skupne vire. Vključeni nevladni in civilni akterji različno zagotavljajo alternativne modele družbene organizacije in se tako odmikajo od zanašanja na javno-zasebno sodelovanje, vendar lokacij ne samoupravljajo prek ad hoc institucij (kadar so ustvarjene). Poleg tega analiza študij primerov kaže nezadostno vlogo jasno opredeljenih lokalnih skupnosti pri upravljanju virov zaradi različnih razlogov (npr. z vidika kolektivno dogovorjenih pravil in kaznovalnih sankcij za tiste, ki jih kršijo) (Albareda in Sison, 2020).

 

Federico Camerin (korespondenčni avtor), Univerza v Valladolidu, Oddelek za urbanizem in arhitekturno predstavitev, Univerzitetni inštitut za urbanizem, Valladolid, Španija
E-pošta: federico.camerin@uva.es
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8659-3761

 

Arturo Vicente Ruiz, Univerza v Valladolidu, Oddelek za urbanizem in arhitekturno predstavitev, Univerzitetni inštitut za urbanizem, Valladolid, Španija
E-pošta: arturo.vicente@uva.es
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3806-3476

 

Zahvale

 

Federico Camerin je to raziskavo izvedel v okviru raziskovalnega projekta Vojaške nepremičnine v Evropi: strategije regeneracije in njihovi učinki na procese družbeno-prostorske produkcije (Military Properties in Europe: Regeneration Strategies and Their Effects on Socio-Spatial Production Processes) (štipendija Ramón y Cajal RYC2022-037235-I), ki ga financira špansko ministrstvo za znanost, inovacije in univerze prek nacionalne agencije za raziskave 2021–2023 (2021–2023 National Research Agency) v okviru nacionalnega načrta za znanstvene in tehnične raziskave ter inovacije (National Plan for Scientific, Technical, and Innovation Research), sofinancira pa ga ESS+.

 

Arturo Vicente Ruiz je to raziskavo izvedel v okviru raziskovalnega projekta Prakse urbane regeneracije in njihov vpliv na procese družbeno-prostorske produkcije v srednje velikih španskih mestih (Urban Regeneration Practices and Their Impact on Socio-Spatial Production Processes in Medium-Sized Spanish Cities), financiranega iz preddoktorskega pogodbenega programa UVa 2024 (UVa 2024 Predoctoral Contractual Programme), ki ga sofinancira Banco Santander.

 

Izjava o prispevku avtorstva CrediT

 

Vloge avtorjev pri raziskovalnih rezultatih: Federico Camerin (FC) 50 % in Arturo Vicente Ruiz (AVR) 50 %. Konceptualizacija: FC; kuriranje podatkov: AVR; formalna analiza: FC; pridobivanje financiranja: FC; raziskava: FC in AVR (enako); metodologija: FC in AVR (enako); administracija projekta: FC; sredstvo: AVR; programska oprema: AVR; nadzor: FC; validacija: AVR; vizualizacija: AVR; pisanje – izvirni osnutek: FC in AVR (enako); pisanje – pregled in urejanje: FC in AVR (enako).

 

 

Izjava o dostopnosti podatkov

 

Podatkovni niz, ki podpira ugotovitve te študije, je javno dostopen v institucionalnem repozitoriju Univerze v Valladolidu UVaDOC: priloga 1 za sistematični pregled literature: https://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/84037; priloga 2 za vsebino intervjujev: https://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/84039.

Albareda, L. & Sison, A. K. G. (2020) Commons organizing: Embedding common good and institutions in collective action. Insights from ethics and economics. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(4), 727–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04580-8

 

Annex 1 = Camerin, F. & Vicente Ruiz, A. (2026) Results of the systematic literature review for the article “Reuse trends in abandoned military land in Ljubljana, Prague, and Pula: An overview through the lens of the common.” Available at: https://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/84037 (accessed 23 Feb. 2026).

 

Annex 2 = Camerin, F. & Vicente Ruiz, A. (2026) Transcripts of sixty semi-structured interviews performed as part of the research for the article “Reuse trends in abandoned military land in Ljubljana, Prague, and Pula: an overview through the lens of the common.” Available at: https://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/84039 (accessed 23 Feb. 2026).

 

Bársony, R. (2022) Condition of decommissioned military barracks in Hungary. Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, 10(4), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.2478/environ-2022-0025

 

Block, W. & Jankovic, I. (2016) Tragedy of the partnership: A critique of Elinor Ostrom. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 75(2), 289–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12141

 

Brando, N., Boonen, C., Cogolati, S., Hagen, R., Vanstappen, N. & Wouters, J. (2019) Governing as commons or as global public goods: Two tales of power. International Journal of the Commons, 13(1), 553–577. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.907

 

Camerin, F. (2021) Regenerating former military sites in Italy. The dichotomy between “profit-driven spaces” and “urban commons”. Global Jurist, 21(3), 497–523. https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2021-0075

 

Camerin, F. (2024) Former military barracks as places for informal placemaking in Italy. An inventory for new insights. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 17(2), 190–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2024.2327588

 

Choe, H. & Yun, S. J. (2017) Revisiting the concept of common pool resources: Beyond Ostrom. Development and Society, 46(1), 113–129. https://doi.org/10.21588/dns/2017.46.1.005

 

ČTK (2024) The council of Prague today approved a change to the zoning plan for the Karlin barracks. Available at: https://www.archiweb.cz/en/n/home/radni-prahy-dnes-schvalili-zmenu-uzemniho-planu-pro-karlinske-kasarny (accessed 23 Feb. 2026).

 

Culture.Si (2025) Metelkova mesto Autonomous Cultural Zone. Available at: https://www.culture.si/en/Metelkova_mesto_Autonomous_Cultural_Zone (accessed 23 Feb. 2026).

 

Culture.Si (2026) ŠKUC Association – Culture of Slovenia. https://www.culture.si/en/%C5%A0KUC_Association (accessed 23 Feb. 2026).

 

Dolšak, N. & Ostrom, E. (2003) The challenges of the commons. In: Dolšak, N. & Ostrom, E. (eds.) The commons in the new millennium: Challenges and adaptations, 3–34. London, MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1945.003.0008

 

Glintić, M. (2015). Revitalisation of military brownfields in eastern and central Europe. Strani pravni život, 1, 123–136.

 

Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N. & Marconi, V. C. (2017) Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research, 27(4), 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344

 

Hercik, J., Šimáček P., Szczyrba, Z. & Smolová, I. (2014). Military brownfields in the Czech Republic and the potential for their revitalisation, focused on their residential function. Quaestiones geographicae, 33(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2014-0021

 

Hopman, L., Kishimoto, S., Russell, B. & Valentin, L. (2021). Democratic and collective ownership of public goods and services. Exploring public–community collaborations. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute. Available at: https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/public_community_collaborations_report_web_19_aug_2021.pdf (accessed 23 Feb. 2026).

 

Ivanc, T. & Petrovic, A. (2025) Cultured sites of contestation: Choosing between resistance and submission to culture-led regeneration of former military barracks. Urban Affairs Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874251393664

 

Jakovčić, M. Kajinić, J. & Gašparović, S. (2013) Prenamjena vojnih brownfield lokaliteta: primjer prenamjene vojarne Karlo Rojc u Puli. Annales, 23(2), 487–500.

 

Jevremović, L., Stanojević, A., Đorđević, I. & Turnšek, B. (2021) The redevelopment of military barracks between discourses of urban development and heritage protection: The case study of Nis, Serbia. Spatium, 46, 22–35. https://doi.org/10.2298/SPAT2146022J

 

Kasárna Karlín (2024). Co jsme v Kasárnách dělali proti hluku po 22:00? Available at: https://kasarnakarlin.cz/sites/default/public_files/media/document/2024/06/19/15/21/23/opatreni-proti-hluku-v-kasarnach-karlin.pdf (accessed 23 Feb. 2026).

 

Krcho, J. (2013) From military bakery to Kulturpark: The problematics of the regeneration of the former military warehouse complex in Košice. Architektúra & urbanizmus, 47(3), 254–265.

 

Mattei, U. & Mancall, M. (2019) Communology: The emergence of a social theory of the commons. South Atlantic Quarterly, 118(4), 725–746. https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-7825576

 

Mazzucato, M. (2016) From market fixing to market-creating: A new framework for innovation policy. Industry and Innovation, 23(2), 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1146124

 

Moroni, S. (2025) Untangling the commons: Three different forms of commonality. The Review of Austrian Economics, 38, 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-024-00639-1

 

Mrđen, N. (2017) Pula’s fortifications – a strategy of sustainable reuse. In: Urošević, N. & Afrić Rakitovac, K. (eds.) Models of valorisation of cultural heritage in sustainable tourism, 158–174. Pula, Juraj Dobrila University of Pula.

 

Niranjan, A. (2015) How an abandoned barracks in Ljubljana became Europe’s most successful urban squat. The Guardian, 24 July 2015. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jul/24/metelkova-ljubljana-abandoned-barracks-europe-squat (accessed 23 Feb. 2026).

 

Ntounis, N. & Kanellopoulou. E. (2017) Normalising jurisdictional heterotopias through place branding: The cases of Christiania and Metelkova. Environment and Planning A 49(10), 2223–2240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17725753

 

O’Callaghan, C. & Di Feliciantonio, C. (eds.) (2021) The new urban ruins: Vacancy, urban politics and international experiments in the post-crisis city. Bristol, Policy Press.

 

Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763

 

Ostrom, E. (1993) Design principles in long-enduring irrigation institutions. Water Resources Research, 29(7), 1907–1912. https://doi.org/10.1029/92WR02991

 

Peric, A. & Miljus, M. (2020) The regeneration of military brownfields in Serbia: Moving towards deliberative planning practice? Land Use Policy, 102, 105222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105222

 

Pixová, M. (2013) Spaces of alternative culture in Prague in a time of political-economic changes of the city. Geografie, 118(3), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2013118030221

 

Popa, N., Pop, A.-M. & Marian-Potra, A.-C. (2025) Culture-led urban regeneration in post-socialist cities: From decadent spaces towards creative initiatives. Cities, 158, 105707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2025.105707

 

Pražské Centrum (2025). Kasárna Karlín. Available at: https://kasarnakarlin.cz/en/about-kasarna-karlin (accessed 23 Feb. 2026).

 

Rodotà, S. (2012) The interrelationship between human rights, common goods and democracy, and its role in the sharing of social responsibilities. In: Council of Europe (ed.) Shared social responsibilities: Putting theory into practice, 67–82. Luxembourg, Council of Europe Publishing.

 

Rodríguez-Barcón, A. & Sousa, S. (2021) Culture-led place-making and heterotopic brand building: A comparative approach between Ljubljana and Porto. Space and Culture, 26(4), 630646. https://doi.org/10.1177/12063312211014031

 

Saunders, F. P. (2014) The promise of common pool resource theory and the reality of commons projects. International Journal of the Commons, 8(2), 636. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.477

 

Taubenböck, H., Gerten, C., Rusche, K., Siedentop, S. & Wurm, M. (2019) Patterns of eastern European urbanisation in the mirror of western trends – Convergent, unique or hybrid? Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(7), 1206–1225. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808319846902

 

Thörn, H., Wasshede, C. & Nilson, T. (eds.) (2011) Space for urban alternatives? Christiania 1971–2011. Örlinge, Gidlunds Förlag.

 

Tomašević, T. (2018). Rojc Community Centre, Croatia. In: Tomašević, T., Horvat, V., Midžić, A., Dragšić I. & Dakić, M. (eds.) Commons in south east Europe. Case of Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Macedonia, 85–94. Zagreb, Institute for Political Ecology.

 

Urošević, N. & Afrić Rakitovac, K. (2025). Sustainable valorisation of Adriatic fortified heritage through transnational networks, the case of Pula, Croatia. In: Zerlenga, C. (ed.) Defensive architecture of the Mediterranean. Vol. XXI, 1439–1446. Valencia, Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Fortmed2025.2025.20412

 

van der Leer, J. (2026) Building institutional capacity through experimentation in sustainable urban development projects in Sweden. European Planning Studies, 34(5), 957–979. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2025.2609901

 

Wily, L. (2011) The tragedy of public lands: The fate of the commons under global commercial pressure. Paris, CIRAD, International Land Coalition.