affordable spaces

“Affordable spaces” relates to the demand of the operators and users to have access to a space that fits to their needs in physical perspective, but also corresponds to their economic power. Within the OpenHeritage context many of the analysed sites are within difficult context, e.g. marginalized or areas or areas with several problematic properties[A1] . Affordable spaces are relevant for the usage, due to the additional effort caused by the heritage aspects[A2] .[A3] 

 [A1]Please rephrase this part, maybe by giving more details.

 [A2]What is missing here is how actually heritage sites or spaces could be or even should be affordable and what this actually means – affordable to buy (well probably not), to use and be inclusive. Try to link affordability with the concept of open heritage, which is inclusive.

 [A3]Please explain “usage” and rephrase “due to the additional effort caused by the heritage aspects”. 

Relevance: where and how is the term relevant in the OpenHeritage

The revitalisation and operation of heritage sites [A1] in most cases comes along with additional effort, compared to new or younger existing buildings and sites. Reasons could be the character as special-purpose properties, possible restrictions made by the monument protection authority or the need to preserve and to present the history of the project or site. Due to its special character the ideas and usage concepts have to reflect on this situation, which leads to the question of the affordability for operators and users. [A2] The question of affordability is especially relevant in order to analyze existing projects (WP 2, Observatory cases) and the ideas for establishing long-term successful usage concepts for the CHLs in WP4 (Cooperative Heritage Labs) and the development in WP5 (Toolbox development, e.g. D 5.4, D 5.6).[A3] 

 [A1]What do you mean by operation of heritage sites and why only revitalisation and operations, what about adaptive re-use, mondernisation etc.?

 [A2]Rephrase this sentence and make it connected with the previous one.

 [A3]It this definition is developed for a wider audience or will be used internally by the OH members? It this is planned to be open definition then this part is not necessary

Key discussions

Affordability in (urban) planning relates in most publications to “ (…) relationships between housing, non-housing expenditures and income poverty”. The debate has become broadened [A1] after the Global Financial Crisis 2009 as “ (…) revival of discussions about housing affordability as a consequence of house price and rent increases and urban restructuring”(Haffner and Hulse 2019).

In result the growing influence of the financial sector on the economy and especially the real estate sector, summarized as F[A2] inancialization (Mertens 2014, 55; Plan Limited 2017) and (with smaller impact) migration and urbanization tendencies (Heeg 2013) have led to growing capital investments in housing[A3] . Combined with financial deregulation [A4] and addressing individual responsibility, more investments in this sector of real estate market have occurred, which result in rising expenditures for housing between 2000 and 2011 from 20,3% to 23% of total household expenditures in the EU (Heeg 2013, 10)[A5] . The debates and therefore the definition [A6] of affordability is almost comparable for all spaces, regardless of housing and non-housing purposes. Therefore the question for affordability is crucial also for the projects related with OpenHeritage, because the preservation and presentation of the heritage aspects is an additional financial expenditure.[A7] 

Affordable often relates to vulnerable users and groups with less economic opportunities, compared to the overall standard, which is pointed out for example for artists [A8] (University of California 1993, 46) or for people in social transfer systems [A9] (University of Texas 2014, 274), elderly people (Housing Solutions Platform 2019, 28), minorities or refugees. Examples for affordables spaces for these groups are studios for arts and culture, social housing apartments or spaces for certain businesses, like workshops and also parking lots for a food truck for people who are not able to finance a restaurant [A10] (University of Texas 2014, 233).

The relation between financialisation and ownership has been summarised by Maryel Battin: [A11] “The importance of loal[A12]  owners can not be overstated. Each has a stake in the community and ownership is not just an investment for them” (Delvac et al. 1995,36) In conclusion, the term “affordable spaces” is linked to three conditions: [A13] a space must be available, it must meet the needs of the intended use, and the financial cost of access must correspond to the economic possibilities of the users. Second, the question of ownership needs to be addressed, in order to secure affordability and responsibility. The ownership among people of the local community seems to offer a good perspective to combine affordability and responsibility[A14] . [A15]  [A1]Ok, so in the next sentence explain to which areas, types of properties it was broadened?

 [A2]Why capital letter?

 [A3]It depends in which part of the world. Sometimes it was pure investment or speculations, sometimes it was a demand to be a homeowner instead of renter.

 [A4]Which deregulation do you refer to?

 [A5]Regarding mortgage payments?

 [A6]Not sure what you are trying to say here?

Regarding these two paragraphs, one would have to refer somehow - that affordability usually refers to flats, whereas other types of buildings often have heritage value and we also deal with them; that this issue is perhaps not recognized enough in terms of the availability of premises for small and medium enterprises.

 [A8]Elaborate on this bit more because this is actually one of the pillars

 [A9]By social transfer systems you mean?

Please elaborate on this further

 [A11]Was Battin quoted by Delvac?? legal? Local? Loan?

 [A13]Repetition or did you try to

 [A14]And third one?

 [A15]I think this is actually a part which should be expanded and probably upfront  

Key references

• William F. Delvac, Susan M. Escherich, Bridget Hartman. 1995. “Affordable Housing Through Historic Preservation: A Case Study Guide to Combining the Tax Credits”. Diane Pub Co.

• Marietta E. A. Haffner &[A1] amp; Kath Hulse. 2019. “A fresh look at contemporary perspectives on urban housing affordability” International Journal of Urban Sciences. DOI: 10.1080/12265934.2019.1687320

• Heeg 2013 Susanne Heeg. 2013. Wohnen als Anlageform: Vom Gebrauchsgut zur Ware. Emanzipation 3, no. 2: 5-20.

• Housing Solutions Platform. 2019. “Collectief Goed: Affordable Housing, Participation and Empowerment” in 50 Out-of-the-Box Housing Solutions. Brussels: Housing Solutions Plattform.

• Daniel Mertens. 2014. “Varianten der Finanzialisierung: Was treibt und was bremst die private Verschuldung in Deutschland?” MPIfG Jahrbuch 2015-2016. Köln: Max-Planck- Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung, 2015, 55-60. https://www.mpifg.de/aktuelles/forschung/themen/mertens_finanzialisierung.asp

• Plan Limited. 2017. “Financialization of housing and the right to adequate housing”. Accessed May 12, 2020. https://www.girlsrightsplatform.org/node/1110 University of California. 1993. Cooperative housing compendium: resources for collaborative living. Edited by Lottie Cohen, Lois Arkin. Davis CA: Center for Cooperatives, University of California. Tosics 2020

• Ivan Tosics. 2020. “The housing paradox: more financing - less affordability?” Last modified March 03, 2020. https://urbact.eu/housing-more-financing-less-affordability University of Texas. 2014. Homeownership and America's Financial Underclass: Flawed Premises, Broken Promises, New Prescriptions. Edited by Mechele Dickerson. Austin TX: School of Law, University of Texas.

 [A1]Is the letter missing here