An additional point to consider concerns the financial support schemes that EU Member States have introduced to assist with home retrofitting, particularly under the national Recovery and Resilience Facility plans (RRP). While these programmes were initially designed to help households meet energy-efficiency targets and reduce renovation costs, several have since been scaled back as governments reintroduce austerity measures. For example, France’s MaPrimeRénov’ scheme was suspended and then reintroduced in 2025 with stricter rules; Italy’s Superbonus was progressively scaled back; Slovenia’s revised RRP, approved in 2025, reduced or removed several measures related to energy efficiency and sustainable renovation; and Poland modified its Clean Air subsidy scheme in 2025, adjusting support for renovations and heat-source replacements in single-family homes. With the European Commission again urging Member States to limit public expenditure in line with the EU Stability and Growth Pact, the continuity of such support has become uncertain. This volatility in financial assistance poses a significant challenge for individual home-owners and larger housing corporations, who may struggle to commit to costly renovations without stable and predictable aid. 

There are also challenges associated with efforts to increase housing stock. Eurostat data shows a steep drop in dwelling permits across the EU in the past three years, indicating that overall housing construction is falling. Cities increasingly employ urban densification processes to address housing shortages, reduce pressures on available land, and support decarbonisation, energy efficiency, and other green transition initiatives. These projects, which include the redevelopment of existing urban structures through subdivision, building extensions, or complete reconstruction, can increase housing supply. However, they can also drive-up land prices and rents, leading to reduced housing affordability and displacement (Götze et al., 2024).

Ultimately, addressing Europe’s housing crisis requires more than short-term fixes; it demands a structural reimagining of housing as a social right, with long-term strategies designed to work alongside other policy priorities. Agendas such as the green transition should also be reevaluated to make sure all sectors are considered and potential social impacts are minimised. In the meantime, we will continue to work towards a future where affordability, equity, and sustainability reinforce rather than undermine one another.

FROM CO-WORKING TO COMMONS: USE AND ACTIVITY

As more people became involved, the idea of a community space expanded. Renovation was carried out collectively and incrementally: walls were painted, furniture rearranged, minor construction projects, like an outdoor stage, were initiated. The simple act of adapting and refurbishing the place with the collaboration of volunteers became in itself a form of value creation for a social circular economy (Mazzarella et al., 2025).

Two months after its opening, the apartment was already familiar to neighbours, artists, university students and other Rotterdammers. In its rooms and garden, people explored concepts like self-organised administration, community development and grassroots business models to create and test open-source tools and practices for collaboration and digital innovation.

Throughout its active period, The Space hosted a wide range of activities: informal dinners, concerts, exhibitions, workshops, and weekly gatherings. The events were inviting and welcoming to the neighborhood and grew largely through word of mouth and social media.  

Participants crossed paths throughout the different events, while students and researchers joined out of curiosity. Amid gatherings of grassroots collectives, The Space also hosted international artists like Arka Kinari (USA, ID), Rico Patrick (MZ) or Mpho Molikeng (LS) as well as local acts such as Kretek Beats, Chris Blok or Lifeless Past, always on the basis of free donations. In a culmination of its practice, the neighbourhood’s wider community joined in for the naming of its garden’s trees.

Although governance remained informal, basic agreements were made to guide use of the place. These included internal rules about how activities were framed, how the place’s identity was used in relation to external groups, and its non-commercial stance. Decisions were discussed collectively, and roles were distributed among active members. To support coordination, the group developed a website and Instagram presence, along with a ticketing system for event planning. The evolving balance between openness, structure, and care was a defining characteristic of how the place functioned over time.

CLOSURE OR CONTINUITY?

The Space came to an end in the summer of 2024 as demolition plans for the IJzerblock moved forward. Over time, both internal tensions and external frictions began to surface, adding pressure to the situation. The housing association re-engaged and issued a general notice to vacate, giving the group three months to leave. While some artists staged a symbolic protest, and squatters briefly remained in the building, the place was eventually cleared. At the end of August 2024, the sidewalks around the IJzerblock filled up with chairs, furniture, sofas, and all sorts of objects that once furnished the interior spaces, as the occupants said goodbye to a place where, for at least three years, bonds and memories had been created. Demolition began shortly after. 

The closure marked the end of the physical space, but much of the energy, tools, and connections generated by the project continued beyond its occupation. Although The Space was dismantled, networks formed as the project continued to grow, and many of the practices developed in that period were taken up elsewhere. Rather than a single legacy, what remains is a set of evolving relationships, shared experiences, and practical knowledge that has continued to circulate.

COMMON VALUES AND OUTCOMES

Over the course of three years, The Space operated as an open laboratory of co-working and commons-based collaboration. Rooted in principles of sharing and circular economy, it served not just as a physical location but as an evolving ecosystem where people, projects, and practices converged. The Space offered co-working facilities but primarily functioned as a third place, i.e. a social environment distinct from home (the first place) and work (the second place), where individuals gather for informal interaction and community building (Oldenburg, 1999). This third place facilitated interactions, relationships, and shared responsibility that produced forms of social, economic, cultural, and symbolic value. 

The value created during The Space project was based in its constant practice of open activities. The social value emerged in trust and cooperation in the abovementioned activities, i.e. workshop, events and informal gatherings, building cultural commons based on mutual trust (Gielen, 2024). The co-working space was kept regularly open, designed not only productivity, but also to foster spontaneity and connection. Economically, while not focused on monetization, The Space incubated collaborative projects that leveraged non-monetary exchanges: skill-sharing, reuse, barter. This practice enabled economic activity outside traditional market logic, creating resilience through diversification of resources. Culturally, the workshops and events amplified local knowledge and artistic expression. As the programming was porous (allowing different events to be co-created with guests and the neighbourhood), symbolically, The Space became a reference point and a place of possibility that spontaneously realized innate spatial tactics of circular commons (Egger et al., 2024), i.e. a place where improvised ways of interacting activated commoners to share resources, and governance. Its visual identity from the street and the idea that it was there and open were part of a shared imagination of what an inclusive urban commons could look like.

The true legacy of The Space lies in what continued after the project’s formal end. Evolving relationships, practical knowledge, and shared experiences live on through peer_protocol – the founding collective behind The Space initiative, which has since become a foundation. It  continues to network and seek new opportunities for co-creating alternative practices of urban development. This work shifted some perceptions. The local council (Wijkraad) began to recognize the existence of a group of people looking for co-working and commons-based spaces, and awarded a small grant for residents to engage with urban development and the Rotterdam Academy of Architecture and Urban Design (Rooterdamse Academie van Bouwkunst). This allowed the group to have a space for an exhibition about the history of The Space and a room to start the new exploratory phase: the “Coolhaven Beating Heart Participatory Quest”.

WHAT IS AGRUPAR?

AGRUPAR (Participatory Urban Agriculture Project) is a city-led initiative that works with local communities, schools, and civil society to grow organic food sustainably within the urban and rural parishes of Quito. The project promotes participatory farming through thousands of urban gardens in the form of family gardens, school plots, institutional farms, and community orchards, as well as small-scale livestock initiatives.

The project supports 4,400 urban gardens producing around 1.35 million kilograms of food per year. Roughly 57% of this is consumed directly by the growers and their families, while the rest is sold by families through short supply chains and local markets to supplement household incomes.

Even after 20 years and several changes in political leadership, AGRUPAR remains a robust and highly regarded urban program. So, what’s the secret to its success? And how are time- and resource-strapped caregivers and children able to participate meaningfully?

Cities4Children spoke to Tannya Pico, who studied AGRUPAR as part of her dissertation, to better understand how the program engages low-income and migrant communities, especially children and caregivers.