Squatting Europe Kollective

Legend

Squats

Madrid

We started the database first by relying on previous works done until the mid 1990s (http://www.ucm.es/info/america2/okcrono.htm) and an activist map (www.okupatutambien.net) that identified many of the experiences since then. The main problem was that they were not complete and many data were wrong. By checking websites produced by squatters and online news we could verify much of the information and add new cases. First hand knowledge here was crucial too in order to search for some missing cases and to locate them with a high accuracy. A more recent but unstable project (http://www.agitamadrid.org/guia-de-espacios) also helped to distinguish squatted and non-squatted social centres. In general, whenever possible, our data were contrasted with two or more sources which make them more reliable compared to other valuable attempts that went online in the last years (for example, https://15mpedia.org/wiki/Lista_de_centros_sociales_de_la_Comunidad_de_Madrid). Even more, since different people contributed to type the cases from the database into the map, in the course of this operation some new cases were also included due to their own information which, in turn, added to enhance the database. Another process that was significant to this process and involved many people in it, was the development of a regular meeting on the history of squatting that we conduct from 2008 to 2010. Many people we invited to talk and debate to that "seminar" raised many issues that allowed us to make decisions in order to include cases and understand the subtlelities of their development (for example, cases that were occupied repeatedly, their contested belonging to a "squatters' movement", etc.). A book was published with the main contents of those debates so that it served a source for the database and the map as well.

The database was limited to squatted social centres (SSC) because in these cases the information was more easily accessible and public. All are located in the metropolitan area of Madrid (municipality and region) and only one case from a next province (Guadalajara) is also included due to its active role in the joint campaign with all the social centres in the Madrid region in 2008 (http://info.nodo50.org/Arranca-la-campana-Okupa-Madrid.html). The period of data collection is from 1977 to the end of 2015. In total, 156 cases were registered although it must be noted that 8 cases took place between 1977 and 1980 in a period where there was no squatters’ movement known or identified as such. When a SSC is legalised, only the period of illegal occupation is registered. There were no more than 4 cases of explicit legalisation after negotiations with the local or regional authorities (La prospe, Seco, Karakola and Montamarta), and at least 3 in which squatters achieved an agreement with private owners.

In addition to these records, 14 cases of urban landplots subject to illegal occupation are also presented in the map (this figure stems from both direct observation and the review of the community gardens network https://redhuertosurbanosmadrid.wordpress.com/). In most cases, squatters of buildings were involved. In spite of their main dedication to community gardens, many of thes espaces worked as a sort of outdoor social centres where to screen movies, hold talks, organise art exhibitions, etc.

Furthermore, the data about squatted houses fall under a more slippery territory. Not less than 30 squatted social centres hosted residents. In some cases the main purpose of the occupation was to provide a house for the squatters but later on they decided to open up some parts of the building as a cultural and political venue. However, the residential function is not usually recognised by the squatters because it entails more legal risks. If they admit to dwell permanently in the occupied building, a judge might interpret it as an intention to pursue an unlawful appropriation which is subject to incrimination. As for social centres, activists tend to argue that they do not reside in the property but just make use of it and let others to use it as well. Thus, researchers are not allowed to mention the residential function of squats unless a prudential time has passed after the eviction and the judicial trial if it were the case. This applies specifically to the current active squatted houses or the recent ones in the last 5 years.

For getting a wider approach to grassroot initiatives in Madrid, by including some self-managed and autonomous social centres supportive or closely connected to squatting (La Piluka, La Villana, CABA, Fe 10 or Casa del Barrio, for example) there is another collaborative mapping project here: http://www.viveroiniciativasciudadanas.net/civics/iniciativas/

Squats

A

B

C

D

E

F

H

J

K

L

O

P

R

S

Madrid