Eleni Katrini | National Technical University of Athens (original) (raw)

Papers by Eleni Katrini

Radical Housing Journal, 2020

Within times of social, economic, and environmental crises, shelter and housing become intertwine... more Within times of social, economic, and environmental crises, shelter and housing become intertwined with issues of forced migration and nomadic living. Since 2015, hundreds of thousands of people from Africa and the Middle East, have risked their lives crossing the Mediterranean Sea in attempt to evade conflict and exploitation, while searching for safety and stability. This movement has been framed by European governments through the lens of ‘crisis’, and thus has received different approaches as a response. Among them, some have been paternalistic in nature, some hostile, while others solidary. This article investigates City Plaza, a solidary approach to refugees, which proposes radical housing solutions for migrant populations through the occupation of vacant urban spaces. City Plaza is a self-organized collective housing hosting both refugees and activists squatting in a vacant hotel in downtown Athens, Greece. It offers a housing solution in the urban center as a counterexample to the state and NGO’s approaches of remote camps. The goal of the article is not only to present this case study as a solidary story to current refugee narratives, but to investigate critical spatial characteristics influencing the initiative. The case presented is part of a series of ethnographic case studies that investigate spatial patterns of collective sharing culture practices as everyday alternatives to capitalism and uncover ways through which space can enable and support them. The case studies follow an interdisciplinary research framework for studying spatial patterns of sharing culture, drawing concepts and methods from social sciences and theories of practice, architecture, urban design, and planning. Data are collected through interviews, documents’ review, spatial documentation, and mapping. The qualitative data analysis offers insights to the initiative’s history, structure, challenges, context, and value, but most prominently offers findings on key spatial characteristics that have shaped it.

Commoning practices, as defined by Linebaugh, are everyday social practices through which citizen... more Commoning practices, as defined by Linebaugh, are everyday social practices through which citizens co-produce and co-manage the commons while satisfying their basic human needs and rights. The collaborative and actionable nature of commoning builds collective agency, thus allowing people to take control over their lives and achieve goals that they otherwise - individually or through institutional tutelage and support - wouldn’t be able to. During recent socio-economic crises, institutions have increasingly failed to serve the citizens’ needs, and in those cracks commoning practices have emerged and multiplied in order to build collective agency and solidarity. Reflecting on the plethora of commoning practices, we identify transition as the common ground. Rather than accepting the status quo or waiting for changes to trickle down from above, people are collectively transforming their everyday lives, building a sense of autonomy, and prefiguring alternative modes of being and doing. This paper explores three focus areas of transition as they relate to commoning; transient practices and the communities-in-the-making that shape them, transient identities in perpetual becoming, and transient spaces appropriated and transformed in the process. This exploration will be developed based on a format that aims to connect theory - and its radical, utopian imaginaries - with the concrete realities of lived experience, complete with its opportunities and constraints, triumphs and failures. This position - with our ‘heads in the clouds’, gazing towards an emancipatory horizon, and two feet firmly planted on the ground - pushes for a theory that is informed by practice and vice versa. The exploration through theory and experience of these three levels of transition embedded in commoning, will allow us to identify some of the deeply rooted challenges and opportunities and pave the way for an informed optimism, both in theory and practice.

The Sociological Review Journal Monograph: Unboxing the Sharing Economy, 2018

Sharing practices have increased over the last decade as a byproduct of the economic recession an... more Sharing practices have increased over the last decade as a byproduct of the economic recession and the wider use of online services, creating the hype of ‘Sharing Economy’. However, sharing economy as defined today includes contradictory cases of renting, sharing, commoning, collaboration, solidarity, and typical businesses. This article focuses on cases that outline sharing as an act that facilitates a transition of urban communities towards places that are socially interactive and resourceful. Those practices are defined as ‘Sharing Culture’. Sharing culture relates to social networks that grow informally within a region and have as their goal to co-produce, manage and share resources, time, services, knowledge, information, and support based on solidarity rather than economic profit. Ultimately, sharing culture creates an alternative pathway for citizens to serve daily needs in a more sustainable, resourceful, and socially engaging manner by investing in regional and local assets. Because sharing culture is tightly related to the everyday and the local, the social construct of a region as well as the physical design influence how and where it emerges. Through a theoretical review of sharing practices and empirical data from a short selection of sharing culture cases, this article explores what sharing culture is, how it emerges, and highlights the importance of physical space in the process of diffusion within an area. The goal of this article is twofold: first, to provide a new theoretical framework, that of the sharing culture, which enriches the current debate on sharing and collaborative practices and distances itself from economic transactions of sharing economy, while focusing on human needs and characteristics of solidarity. Second, the article intends to reveal the lack of systematic research on how these practices are influenced by physical space.

Vacancy and blight are affecting communities, previously thriving, but which are currently experi... more Vacancy and blight are affecting communities, previously thriving, but which are currently experiencing a decline in population, across the US. Typically, blight has been viewed as a disease, best addressed by designing policy that should, theoretically, catalyze a certain set of behaviors. Often, this perspective is not fruitful for the community itself. And the tools designed to address blight are not being fully utilized; either because of lack of access, of empowerment, of community engagement, and/or sheer lack of interest. The Vacant Home Tour (VHT) is a community-centric program, designed with the residents of Wilkinsburg, PA, a neighborhood with roughly 20% vacancy in its housing stock. The program uses design as a method of community empowerment by engaging residents as agents of change, by reframing the perception of blight as a problem to an opportunity, and by creating a space that engenders potential future design innovation to address blight. The VHT mitigates negative consequences of gentrification, such as displacement, by placing residents at the forefront of the solution, bringing together long-time residents, recent new residents, and potential future residents, and empowering them to redefine the future of their neighborhood.

Sharing practices have increased over the last decade as a byproduct of the economic recession an... more Sharing practices have increased over the last decade as a byproduct of the economic recession and the wider use of online services. This paper will focus on cases that outline sharing as an act that facilitates a transition of urban communities towards places that are socially interactive and resource sustainable. Those practices are defined as Sharing Culture. Sharing Culture relates to social networks that grow informally and spontaneously within a region between diverse stakeholders and have as their main goal to co-produce, manage and share resources, time, services, knowledge, information and support based on solidarity and reciprocity rather than economic profit. The goal of Sharing Culture is to create an alternative pathway for citizens to serve daily needs in a more sustainable, resourceful and socially engaging manner by investing into regional and local assets.
As Sharing Culture is tightly related to the locale, the social construct of a region as well as the physical design influence how and where it emerges. This paper showcases, through the first of a series of sharing culture case studies, insights on the influence of spatial attributes on the practice and its interaction with its context. Through this exploration, the intend is to find links between the practice and the role that physical space and community characteristics play in its emergence. This paper also provides a short description of the methodological and documentation path set through this first case study for the ones to follow.

Sharing practices have increased over the last decade as a byproduct of the economic recession an... more Sharing practices have increased over the last decade as a byproduct of the economic recession and the wider use of the internet and online services, creating what is called the hype of the “Sharing Economy”. People rent out empty spaces in their house, their couch for couch-surfing, their tools through tool libraries, their driving skills on Uber and Lyft, their bikes through Cycleswap. It seems like online sharing economies have found a fertile ground in urban centers, where both supply and demand for such practices are abundant, by just providing security to users through online platforms and a system of review on performance. With the rise of such trend, contradicting cases of renting, sharing, commoning, collaboration, solidarity, DIY practices and typical businesses all have been put under the same umbrella of the sharing economy and have resulted in certain share-washing.
However, there is significant difference based on who owns, manages and uses the shareables and what their intentions of sharing are. Sharing on a global scale unfortunately can become a tool of capitalization on decentralized, individual resources and labor by large corporations, as we have seen in the cases of Uber and AirBnB. Nevertheless, sharing on a local scale has the potential to become a great tool for residents to manage local resources and create social support networks; to co-create the everyday commons. The difference between the two is that the former constitute alternative forms of capitalism while the latter alternative forms to capitalism.
This paper intends to define the arena of the “Sharing Economy” by exploring different cases of so-called sharing practices based on several variables: the shareholders involved, their intentions, the relationships created, the type of shareable, the scale, if there is monetary exchange or not and the cost of ownership alternative. In that way, the paper will reveal if and how can practices of “Sharing Economy” assist in the citizens’ self-organization and co-management of the urban commons.
(Presented as part of the 1st IASC Thematic Conference on the Urban Commons at Bologna, Italy. More information about the conference here: http://www.labgov.it/urbancommons/)

Housing is considered affordable in the US when its expenses do not overcome 30% of the household... more Housing is considered affordable in the US when its expenses do not overcome 30% of the household’s income. Nonetheless, affordable housing seems far from reality in many US cities nowadays. Housing prices have risen to a point that they are not even affordable for the middle class, creating a crisis for the future living of an ever-growing urban population. The percentage of median household income spent on rent has risen up to 30% in many US cities and even up to 47% in some cases like Los Angeles. Governments’ centralized solutions to housing issues through reforms and acts for affordable or social housing have fallen through. In the meantime, while such approaches fail to deal with the problem in a top-down manner, there is a significant rise of social bottom-up movements and trends. Due to the significant increase in costs, the amount of doubled-up households (households shared by two or more working adults with no relationship between them) has escalated incrementally over the past years accounting today for 18.3% of all US households. The increasing cost of living and the stagnant wages, have led people find novel ways to deal with those issues by sharing a house, goods and resources.
Even though the initial reason might be financial, there are additional social and environmental benefits when people are sharing a house. This paper will explore the benefits and synergies that emerge when different people from diverse backgrounds, ages and income levels are living together. What are the positive externalities from sharing that create more social, environmentally-friendly and affordable housing, with benefits that cannot be capitalized upon? Can architects design such inclusive urban housing models aiming intentionally to create such beneficial synergies?

| www.elenikatrini.com\] [abstract]

Books by Eleni Katrini

Our cities are built dependent on centralized systems of water and waste management, food and ene... more Our cities are built dependent on centralized systems of water and waste management, food and energy production. This practice has proven efficient for a while; nonetheless as our cities expand with immense speed and population increases, severe issues of food access, waste accumulation, floods, water contamination and increased energy demand reveal the obsolescence of those systems. The solution does not lie anymore only in conservation and precautionary measures but in a diverse way of thinking and redesigning existing infrastructures. Through this research, several systems of urban agriculture, decentralized water management and treatment, as well as energy production from waste were identified and studied through literature and actual case studies. The ultimate goal was to create a toolkit for urban regenerative environments, which will be used to introduce those systems to designers. The key component of the toolkit is the quantitative link between the spatial demands of each system and its efficiency.

by Maria Portugal, Aya Musmar, Alison Thomson, Cagri Sanliturk, Søren Rosenbak, Amro AA Yaghi, Eleni Pashia, Akash Angral, chiara Remondino, Eleni Katrini, Karolina Szynalska McAleavey, Katharina Moebus, Nantia Koulidou, Paolo Franzo, Reem Sultan, Simon Beeson, and Lakshmi Srinivasan

This year, we are thrilled to collaborate with six doctoral students –Amro Yaghi, Aya Musmar, Cag... more This year, we are thrilled to collaborate with six doctoral students –Amro Yaghi, Aya Musmar, Cagri Sanliturk, Eleni Pashia, John Jeong and Maha Al-Ugaily – from the Sheffield School of Architecture, who through their engagement and energy transformed the conference experience and actively contributed to the PhD by Design platform.

Toolkits by Eleni Katrini

A. food production B. water management C. wastewater treatment and D. energy production from wast... more A. food production B. water management C. wastewater treatment and D. energy production from waste The purpose of the toolkit is for use during the preliminary design phase and to accommodate understanding of the above systems, their spatial demands and related benefits.

Teaching Documents by Eleni Katrini

Urban ecology is the study of the processes, systems and relations between living organisms that ... more Urban ecology is the study of the processes, systems and relations between living organisms that take place within an urban environment. As a recent field of study, urban ecology explores cities and studies them as ecosystems at an era of human overpopulation. In a time where 54% of the global population lives in urban settlements, it is important to understand how large urban areas work, how humans and societies interact with natural systems and among themselves. There is a need to shift from the traditional practice of ecology as a study of stability and certainty in natural ecosystems to exploring dynamic, complex urban ecosystems demanding adaptability and resilience. Urban ecosystems do not only consist of a set of natural processes and systems necessary for humans and other living organisms to coexist, but they are deeply influenced by a set of non-physical parameters related to cultural, political and economic trends. [Format] The course will be lecture and discussion based and will take place twice a week. There will be selected readings, case studies, guest lectures and student-led, instructor-facilitated discussions every week. You will be asked to formulate your own critical reviews on readings and case studies throughout the course and to present them in oral, written and graphic formats. The case studies will be deeply explored and then tested in a different context. The material produced by all of you will be posted on an online blog that will be an ongoing documentation of the class. At the end of the semester you will produce a short reflection paper on urban ecology and the role of designers that you will present and discuss in the classroom in a round table set up.

Radical Housing Journal, 2020

The Sociological Review Journal Monograph: Unboxing the Sharing Economy, 2018

Sharing practices have increased over the last decade as a byproduct of the economic recession an... more Sharing practices have increased over the last decade as a byproduct of the economic recession and the wider use of online services. This paper will focus on cases that outline sharing as an act that facilitates a transition of urban communities towards places that are socially interactive and resource sustainable. Those practices are defined as Sharing Culture. Sharing Culture relates to social networks that grow informally and spontaneously within a region between diverse stakeholders and have as their main goal to co-produce, manage and share resources, time, services, knowledge, information and support based on solidarity and reciprocity rather than economic profit. The goal of Sharing Culture is to create an alternative pathway for citizens to serve daily needs in a more sustainable, resourceful and socially engaging manner by investing into regional and local assets.
As Sharing Culture is tightly related to the locale, the social construct of a region as well as the physical design influence how and where it emerges. This paper showcases, through the first of a series of sharing culture case studies, insights on the influence of spatial attributes on the practice and its interaction with its context. Through this exploration, the intend is to find links between the practice and the role that physical space and community characteristics play in its emergence. This paper also provides a short description of the methodological and documentation path set through this first case study for the ones to follow.

Sharing practices have increased over the last decade as a byproduct of the economic recession an... more Sharing practices have increased over the last decade as a byproduct of the economic recession and the wider use of the internet and online services, creating what is called the hype of the “Sharing Economy”. People rent out empty spaces in their house, their couch for couch-surfing, their tools through tool libraries, their driving skills on Uber and Lyft, their bikes through Cycleswap. It seems like online sharing economies have found a fertile ground in urban centers, where both supply and demand for such practices are abundant, by just providing security to users through online platforms and a system of review on performance. With the rise of such trend, contradicting cases of renting, sharing, commoning, collaboration, solidarity, DIY practices and typical businesses all have been put under the same umbrella of the sharing economy and have resulted in certain share-washing.
However, there is significant difference based on who owns, manages and uses the shareables and what their intentions of sharing are. Sharing on a global scale unfortunately can become a tool of capitalization on decentralized, individual resources and labor by large corporations, as we have seen in the cases of Uber and AirBnB. Nevertheless, sharing on a local scale has the potential to become a great tool for residents to manage local resources and create social support networks; to co-create the everyday commons. The difference between the two is that the former constitute alternative forms of capitalism while the latter alternative forms to capitalism.
This paper intends to define the arena of the “Sharing Economy” by exploring different cases of so-called sharing practices based on several variables: the shareholders involved, their intentions, the relationships created, the type of shareable, the scale, if there is monetary exchange or not and the cost of ownership alternative. In that way, the paper will reveal if and how can practices of “Sharing Economy” assist in the citizens’ self-organization and co-management of the urban commons.
(Presented as part of the 1st IASC Thematic Conference on the Urban Commons at Bologna, Italy. More information about the conference here: http://www.labgov.it/urbancommons/)

| www.elenikatrini.com\] [abstract]