An analysis of guerrilla gardens using ... - Urban...

Gardens of Transgression, Spaces of Representation !

1

Gardens of Transgression, Spaces of Representation:

An analysis of guerrilla gardens using the works of

Lefebvre as a theoretical framework

GILLIAN WALES

“Now the gardener is the one who has seen everything ruined so many times that

(even as his pain increases with each loss) he comprehends, truly knows – that

where there was a garden once, it can be again, or where there never was, there

yet can be a garden.”

Henry Mitchell, Garden Digest, 2012

Dissertation submitted in part fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts, Faculty of Humanities and Social Science, University of Strathclyde March 2013 Word count: 10,997


2

Abstract

Public space in Glasgow is under increasing pressure to produce monetary value.

This research analyses the role of guerrilla gardens within the politics of urban

space. Using Lefebvre as an analytical tool, I examine gardens as sites of

spontaneity and utopian praxis, alternative spaces where citizens have democratic

involvement in shaping the landscape. Content analysis of interview data finds

that whilst participant motivations vary; individuals are bound by a sense of

legitimacy for involvement. I argue that these diverse and somewhat disordered

spaces enable unhurried reconnection of Lefebvre’s trilectic spaces; the physical,

mental and social. Gardens are found to be sites of skills exchange and of

knowledge production.

Understanding how these autonomous spaces interact with state apparatus forms

a substantial component of this qualitative research. The effort deployed by

urban governance to regulate gardens is found to be variable, and often

contradictory. Close examination of a local site of contestation, North Kelvin

Meadow, makes visible a clash between the societal benefit derived from this

non-profit garden, and an entrepreneurial ethos that dominates state-funded local

authorities. Gardens are often at the mercy of the whims of private enterprise and

public sector partners. However, the gardens refuse to yield, their roots ground

them to place and they continue to demonstrate how powerful agency can be

created merely by living.


3

Acknowledgements

Two people have inspired me throughout this process. Adam Purple (Appendix i)

recognised the value in altruistic pursuits; the urban landscape could be shaped to

carry meaning and societal value. The second is my father, who created his own

guerrilla garden whilst at Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley during December

2011. Producing something for others to consume out with the realm of monetary

exchange is truly unquantifiable.

Additionally, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Allyson Noble, who has

provided extensive support and encouragement throughout this process.


4

Contents Page Number

Abstract 2

Acknowledgements 3

Introduction 5

Research Aims 8

Methodology 9

Data Analysis and Discussion 13

An opportune moment presents itself 13

Play in the everyday 16

Spaces of representation 18

From city to urban society 19

The creation of abstract space 21

Encroachment of the system 23

Internal contestation 25

Whose city? A time to act 28

North Kelvin Meadow, a local site of contestation 28

Spontaneity and self-expression, a reimagining of social space 35

Politics of dereliction and the dereliction of duty 36

The state muscles in 38

Sourcing the mode of production 40

Self-regulation and autonomous freedom 41

Beware the cybernanthrope 43

Attack of the cybernanthrope 46

A garden for cybernanthropes 51

Leaving the playground behind 55

Conclusion 56

References 60

Appendix I 67


5

“The right to the city is like a cry and a demand…a transformed and renewed

right to urban life.”

(Lefebvre, 1996, 158)

Introduction

After decades of the city being identified with crime, dislocation and withdrawal

(Davis, 1990; Pain, 1997; Smith 1996) the twenty first century city is being ‘re-

imagined as a site of connection’ (Valentine, 2008: 324), ‘micro-publics’ (Amin,

2002: 959) and ‘throwntogetherness’ (Massey, 2005: 149). This research

analyses guerrilla gardening’s role in the practice of spatial (re)connection.

Guerrilla gardening is undertaken by urban dwellers on untended land without

permission from other potential stakeholders. Even though the activity occurs on

neglected sites termed ‘derelict’ or ‘vacant’, it raises questions about the legality

of this form of land use (Reynolds, 2009; Tracey, 2007). This study analyses the

motives and aspirations of various actors surrounding the activity of guerrilla

gardening. Therefore, of particular relevance is how legitimacy is produced, who

produces it and why.

Initial interest in guerrilla gardening was fuelled by its use by the Occupy

movement (Occupywallst.org, 8 Nov 2011) in New York.1 This led to analysis of

various academic publications, to better understand the subject. Whilst the

origins of this movement lie in 1970s New York City, guerrilla gardening first

made an impact in Britain during anti-capitalism protests on May Day 2000 (Pile

1 Guerrilla gardening was used to demonstrate ‘a sustainable movement free from dependence on corporate systems.’


6

in Lees, 2004: 212). Far from confrontational, this movement was attempting to

highlight how public space was increasingly appropriated for capitalist exchange.

The urban landscape offers plenty of scope for speculation and investment,

placing pressure on urban land (Harvey, 2007). Indeed, intense land

apportionment has led to a marketization of public space.2 In the context of

Glasgow, we can witness some of these more widespread processes. Corporate

events and the creation of spectacle are visible in George Square and various

public parks (Debord, 1968; Sorkin, 1992; Miles and Paddison, 2005).3 Urban

government, once managerial in its approach to service and welfare provision,

now exhibits a corporate mind-set (Boyle, 2008; Mooney, 2004). This drive for

profit affects land use, as entrepreneurial attitudes pervade urban governance

(Harvey, 1989). Public space is now expected to earn its keep, and is the victim

of intense commodification practices. Once this is understood, it is far easier to

position guerrilla gardening as pivotal in the politics of urban space.

Lower East Side artist, Liz Christy, set up the Green Guerrillas in 1973; a group

who transformed derelict lots into community gardens in deprived

neighbourhoods. For Richard Reynolds, arguably the most prolific UK guerrilla

gardener, the year 1973 was temporally influential (The Herald, 2009). The oil

crisis and subsequent recession led to landlords fleeing the city, which

contributed to an increase in derelict properties. Past patterns suggest that during

economic recessions, ideological alternatives to capitalism experience a renewed

2 This is apparent within Glasgow as neoliberalism rolls out even further (Peck and Tickell, 2002). 3 The Cadbury’s Spots vs. Stripes event and the filming of World War Z in summer 2011 demonstrate George Square being used for commercial gain.


7

surge of interest. These New York community gardens became contested sites;

conflict arose over proposals to develop the land for low-income housing

(Schmelzkopf, 1995). Mayor Giuliani sold many community gardens, for profit,

removing community-based decision making. When citizens are disempowered

and disenfranchised, reclaiming urban space is then often the only pathway

available for instigating change (Harvey, 2012). Guerrilla gardening may well

offer such a pathway.

A number of Henri Lefebvre’s ideas influenced this research. For Lefebvre,

spaces of everyday life are worthy of critical thinking (2006: 10). How such

spaces are experienced shapes their very character and their ability to affect

change. Guerrilla gardens are everyday, lived spaces and therefore, ideal for

analysis. Lefebvre (2004: 43) warns against the separation of people from their

activity (Goonewardena, 2008: 137) believing that when labour is continually

quantified, agency shifts to the capitalists and individuals become decoupled

from what they can produce. Guerrilla gardens reconnect humans with their

qualitative abilities, generating agency through physical, mental and social

interaction.

Those acting within the everyday environment can influence how the city is

shaped, by living. Lefebvre believes in the power of the moment (Lefebvre,

1961/2002: 340), of its potential to create something worthy, to provoke a

response. He has not sacrificed revolutionary beliefs for complacency within the

realm of the local. Contrarily, the everyday offers opportunity for spontaneity


8

and contestation, urban society as an incubator for utopian praxis, locked in

perpetual tension with the economic imperative.4

Human experiences, ideals and oeuvre shape the city; a transforming effect

which can be playful and spontaneous. Lefebvre’s humanist Marxist approach

acknowledges everyday life as a site of social exchange, as “a starting point for

the realization of the possible” (Lefebvre in Merrifield, 2006: 10) but also as a

place that capitalism would attempt to colonise, to appropriate.

Research Aims

Drawing upon the works of Lefebvre, this research aims to understand how

guerrilla gardening affects the everyday urban environment and what it creates.

Justifications for the activity itself and the perceived benefits it brings are key

areas for study. It was understood early in the research process that legitimacy

existed out with the realm of formal permission as a more complex, ambiguous

and political aspect for analysis. Whereas permission was more conclusive and

oppositional5, legitimacy had layers of meaning, giving rise to conflict both

amongst parties and ideological perspectives. Therefore, legitimacy forms the

key aspect for research; who produces it, how and why.

Lefebvre differentiated between lived, perceived and conceived spaces and these

shall be explored. The extent to which guerrilla gardening is playful shall be

examined as will the role of spontaneity. Guerrilla gardens will be critically

4 When we understand that guerrilla gardens offer such a contrasting alternative to the hegemonic system we can start to realise just how much of a threat they are. 5 Gardeners either had permission or did not have permission, whereas legitimacy was multi-faceted.


9

assessed as spaces of autonomy and action but also as spaces of contestation.

Lefebvre highlights three types of space; the physical, mental and social spaces

and believes that interaction amongst these spaces benefits urban society, that

separating people from their productive activity is detrimental. This project

attempts to demonstrate how guerrilla gardens reconcile these three spaces. This

research shall be grounded within the wider context of the hegemonic system and

the strategy of local governance within Glasgow.

Methodology and Data Collection

This research used a qualitative approach to data gathering and analysis.

Preliminary methodological research included gaining access to guerrilla

gardening forums and becoming familiarised with related website material.

Email communication was initiated with key actors, such as local guerrilla

gardening groups, the Executive Director of Glasgow City Council Land and

Environmental Services and the author Richard Reynolds.6 Community

gardening websites listed primary contacts who, occasionally, acted as

gatekeepers, assessing the validity of requests for access to themselves and

casual workers. Gaining an understanding of effective qualitative research was

vital (Bryman, A., 2008; Cook and Crang, 1995; DeLyser, 2010; Denzin, 1998)

and formed an essential component of the initial methodological process.

Whilst participation in guerrilla gardening would have been desirable to gain the

maximum understanding of the topic, there were ethical issues associated with

such activity. Instead, overt, non-participant observations were conducted. In

6 Richard wrote ‘On Guerrilla Gardening’ (2009) and has been guerrilla gardening for many years, primarily in London.


10

addition, data gathering methods included; ethnographic research via semi-

structured interviews (Fielding, 2002; Fontana and Frey, 2005), informal

conversations, social media and email communication with relevant individuals.7

The perceptions, beliefs and experiences of individuals involved made significant

contribution to this study, enabling wider understanding on how legitimacy is

produced.

When interviews are too prescriptive they become akin to questionnaires, their

qualitative value diluted. Therefore, semi structured, thematic interviews were

the optimum methodological preference to enable flow, occasionally generating

unforeseen avenues of research. Open and closed questioning techniques were

used throughout. Questions were pre-planned; however, these were not rigid,

enabling natural fluidity, merely acting as a reminder to the interviewer of overall

aims. For Hondagneu-Sotolo (2010) there is a ‘methodological axiom’:

researchers who plan thoroughly can be challenged when things turn out

differently. Over planning can even restrict potential avenues for discussion. This

was a key concern for this researcher, who tends to plan well or over plan.

Additionally, an awareness and understanding of key ideological perspectives,

such as environmentalism, was significant for planning the interview schedules.

Five interviews were conducted. Interviewees were selected with great thought,

to represent a varied flavour of roles and viewpoints pertaining to this subject.

Participants in guerrilla gardening were interviewed, as was the owner of an

7 Diaries were also used for data gathering. However, the diaries were not used in the discussion and results section as they tended to deviate from the research questions and focus more upon issues of health and wellbeing. It was decided that, whilst useful, this material was better suited to another project.


11

organisation manufacturing seed bombs, enabling a discussion on green

capitalism. The formal stance of the local authority was gleaned via an interview

with an employee representing Land Services Department (LES), Glasgow City

Council (GCC). This interview was more formal and the interviewee far more

guarded, hesitating frequently before answering. Cook and Crang (1995: 9)

highlight how tangents and inconsistencies are usual for ethnographic research.

Whilst interviewing, I received different accounts of the same situation. From an

ethical perspective, it is not the place of the researcher to give priority to one

view over another or undermine an individual’s understanding of events.

Interviews are sites of production and rapport between the interviewee and

interviewer maximise productivity.8 Place was highly relevant when arranging

interviews and balance between putting participants at ease and limiting

distractions was essential (Longhurst, 2010: 109). Where possible, meetings were

arranged within guerrilla gardens or local coffee shops. The local authority

interview took place on GCC premises, albeit in an informal, open plan area.

Rose (1997) states that reflexivity is required, an understanding of the

researchers position. To whatever extent researchers adhere to rules of objective,

unbiased research, even the topic selection has been influenced by beliefs, ideas

and level of interest. We are ‘co-authors in the making of our own realities’

(Mohammad, 20129). The mere presence of the fieldworker becomes

interconnected with the research material (Bondi and Domosh, 1992; Cook and

8 Casual dress was adopted by the researcher to create harmony with each subject. 9 This was a quote from my former lecturer Dr. Mohammad when discussing ‘positionality’ and the impossibility of complete neutrality. Whilst it is not a published work, I felt that it should be cited as not my words.


12

Crang, 1995; Katz, 1994; Rose, 1997). Attempts at creating an environment of

absolute, neutral detachment would be futile. This was not viewed as

problematic, merely acknowledged as unavoidable. An informal approach to

researching was used, co-existing with a dispassionate manner towards the

presentation of findings and the objectivity necessary to legitimise results.

Data analysis methodologies included content analysis of all relevant material.

An interpretation of basic semiotics, as a method to analyse visual material

recorded via observation, further enhanced the study. Reference was made to

informal conversations as a valid form of communication. Lesser import was not

placed upon this form of data, however, it was recognised that statements may be

less guarded than in formal interviews, where more contextual parameters exist

(Van Dijk, 1997: 4). Semiotic analysis included interpretation of activity

witnessed, body language encountered and other physical signs recorded by the

researcher. Deciphering meaning from patterns of behaviour demonstrates ethno-

methodological understanding.

Data is presented as discursive and key academic literature has been woven

through the analysis section to ensure maximum flow and thematic relevance.

Photography provided visual evidence to help orientate the reader. However,

over-reliance on photography may cloud the descriptive power of the narrative in

shaping a multi-dimensional critique. Footnotes have been used to highlight

aspects that could be further explored.


13

The researcher was mindful of all aspects previously documented during the

ethics process and I offered to desensitise the names of interviewees, if

preferable. One interviewee asked for a pseudonym, however, this person then

retracted this request stating that they had:

“nothing to hide, I’ve not done anything wrong.”

Data Analysis and Discussion

The motivations behind participation in guerrilla gardening are far from

prescriptive. For some, participation offers an opportunity for community

involvement, to augment social cohesion, locally. Others wish to create and

produce, to influence the urban tapestry visually and practically, via gardening

activity. For some, ecological aspects are paramount. A few individuals feel that

an ideological point has to be made about their urban rights. Despite the varied

respondent motivations, what they all had in common was that their narratives

produced legitimacy for involvement. Therefore, I have chosen to focus on this

production of legitimacy and analysis shall weave through the remainder of this

document.

An opportune moment presents itself

The Oxford Dictionary definition of legitimate is ‘compliance with the legal

apparatus of the state’. However, legitimacy can also relate to accepted standards

within a society, the ‘ability to be defended with logic or justification’. Within

guerrilla gardens, legitimacy is produced through local, situated practices and for

actors, easily justified within the local context. For Abi Mordin, Project Co-


14

Ordinator at Urban Roots,10 legitimacy is generated from within the community

as well as from wider ideological justifications. Abi is heavily involved with the

Battlefield Community Garden (BCG), based at the corner of Arundel Drive and

Ledard Road (Map.1), near her home. Borne from a social occasion, the Big

Lunch,11 in 2010, this site has no official permission and therefore constitutes a

guerrilla garden.

Map 1: Relevant gardens

Source: Google Maps

10 Urban Roots has full permission and is therefore a legitimate community gardening project. 11 The Big Lunch was an idea borne of the Eden Project, Cornwall in 2009 to get people across the UK to share lunch with their neighbours to aid cohesion and build friendships in the community.

Key A = North Kelvin Meadow B = Battlefield Community Garden C = South Seeds D = Greyfriars Garden E = Old Castle Road


15

During this event, numerous residents voiced a desire to see a community garden

in an area of derelict ground (Pic.1).12 Lefebvre spoke of the power of the

moment, its strength within the present as lived content derived from expression

and signification and leading to some form of human activity (2002: 341). One

such moment led to the establishment of the BCG. Abi states:

“I’d walked by daily thinking that would make a great community garden

but without having that kind of mandate from other local people it was

quite hard to just say, “right, let’s do that.” But now we kind of had that

mandate…So we just got on with it…we door knocked locally…did you

want to get involved, would you object or do you have any skills to offer?

There were no objections.”13

Pic 1: The Arundel Drive/Ledard Road site ‘before’

Source: www.battlefieldcommunityproject.org

12 A former tenement building had been knocked down on the site due to subsidence, several years previously. 13 This conflicts with the subsequent interview given by David Bradford who stated clearly there were a few objections relating to the site attracting those who would exhibit anti-social behaviour. Abi possibly felt that mentioning objections may undermine the validity of the local mandate given.


16

Legitimacy was produced via the mandate given by local residents, co-produced

through a consultative process.

Abi states that she has:

“…always been quite anarchic, so I haven’t really given it any thought,

just do it. Just do it.”…and they did.

Play in the Everyday

The image (Pic.2) depicts the space being used for a communal event. People are

surrounded by the fruits of their labour, literally, with their productivity on show

for all to enjoy. There is a relaxed playfulness within the space.

Pic 2: The Arundel Drive/Ledard Road site ‘after’, 2012 14

Source: www.battlefieldcommunityproject.org

14 One local resident uses a wheelchair. Her position outside the garden demonstrates mobility restrictions. A path was discussed for the garden (Bradford interview) however this did not go ahead due to underlying concrete and a lack of resource.


17

The garden offers a place for human expression, interaction and meaningful

contact (Valentine, 2008: 25). The contrast between the two photographs is stark;

the latter providing material proof of the garden as dynamic and lived. Such focal

spaces in the community break down delineations between work, home and

leisure, creating a social hub, where all three can co-exist.

When humans utilise their urban environment in a more symbiotic way, they

demonstrate spatial competence. The gardeners are defining the design, layout

and purpose of the garden, adopting the role of planner in the conception of

place. The social practice that is occurring creates an intertwining of lived and

perceived space. There is a marriage of Lefebvre’s three spaces in guerrilla

gardens (Lefebvre, 1991: 33, 38).

Abi explains that the garden means different things to different people, variations

in perception of the same physical space. Yvonne explains what the BCG means

for her:15

“The garden for my wee lass & I means = an apple tree. We love that

garden. On one of Abi's gardening days, Cass & I took an apple tree in its

infancy round, she showed us how to plant it, & it's now got 2 HUGE

apples. EVERY time my wee girl passes, she shouts 'APPLE TREE'.”

The garden holds an emotional legitimacy for Yvonne through shared memories

with her daughter. The imprint of the garden on the landscape is creating new

narratives. There is a danger that such accounts can lean towards romanticism,

15 This communication with Yvonne was on Facebook. Her words, use of capital letters and symbols used are copied exactly.


18

but as Cook and Crang (1995: 10) argue, ethnography can generate rigorous

results and neutral detachment does not have a monopoly on validity.

Spaces of Representation

Although communal gardening is not Amin’s (2002) focus, these spaces could,

nevertheless, be an exemplar for his argument that space, in itself, is not enough

to nurture actual connection. Instead true cohesion is fostered in ‘micro-publics

of everyday social contact and encounter’ (ibid: 959). These lived spaces of the

everyday, where people meet, produce and learn become localised spaces of

representation. Emma Nicol states that North Kelvin Meadow (NKM) (Map.1)

allows people to escape from ‘stuff’ and ‘structures’. A female dog owner says

that walks in the meadow enable her to:

“declutter my mind from what may be going on in her life”

The therapeutic value of such places is repeatedly highlighted by people using

the spaces (Campbell and Weisen, 2011; Frumkin, 2005; Groenewegen, 2006).

Emma grew up without a garden and she describes NKM as therapeutic, that she

always comes away feeling refreshed. Another gardener states that working in

the garden helps him manage his depression.16

Abi explains the importance of the garden for other participants:

“…I mean a lot of these guys, the guys with additional needs; it’s more a

social aspect, somewhere to come to…”

16 This man had suffered from severe depression for much of his adult life. He spoke enthusiastically about the therapeutic properties of engaging within the community garden space near his home. For ethical reasons, he shall not be named.


19

When asked where they would be if they weren’t here, she answers immediately:

“Home, they’d be at home”17

The garden becomes part of the lived experience for many individuals.

Lefebvre discusses three other types of space: the physical space, mental space

and the social space (1992: 404). Guerrilla gardens may be places where these

modalities of space are reconciled. Here, individuals can create and produce in a

qualitative manner, reconnecting the physical, mental and social. Whilst the

gardens themselves are territorially bounded in the physical sense, these spaces

stretch beyond materiality, into spaces of consciousness and emotion. The

gardens are creating new histories that are imprinted upon the fabric of the city.

From City to Urban Society, a utopian radical praxis

Social cohesion is often cited as a valued outcome within guerrilla gardens.

Shared interests can promote positive relations (Dines and Cattell, 2006). Abi

says her specific motivations were:

“To have a focal point for the community18 that brings people together. It

fosters community empowerment and resilience and gets people knowing

who each other are, cos people will say “well there was much more

community spirit in the old days”. Maybe we did, maybe we didn’t, I

don’t know, I wasn’t there. But I think it’s a good idea anyway.”

17 The garden was offering an alternative that was not funded by the local authority. This could be perceived as true ‘care in the community’. 18 It is recognized that the very term community is contested. For instance Putnam (1995), who promotes the idea that urban life is antithetical to establishing communities.


20

How we measure historic cohesion is a valid point. We once lived closer to our

workplaces and kin.19 Humans have experienced a modified relationship with

scale over recent decades (Harvey, 1990). Many people have extensive

geographical reach in their daily lives, both physically20 and virtually.21 Guerrilla

gardens enable a redefinition of the urban dweller’s relationship with propinquity

(Amin & Thrift, 2002: 31), offering a locus of centrality within the community, a

local place of interaction, productivity and sustainability. Gillies MacPhail, a

worker in BCG offers insight:

“strong local communities will become essential in the future when

transportation costs become prohibitive.”

Whether or not guerrilla gardens as ‘micro-publics’ (Amin, 2002) offer

something alternative to formal public spaces, such as parks, was explored. For

David Bradford another BCG regular, it is because:

“you can practically get involved…you can grow vegetables.”

The sense of achievement felt when producing food is highlighted by

interviewees repeatedly, its ‘provenance’. Within BCG there is a strong emphasis

on food production with several raised beds and strawberry planters. When asked

about its relevance, Abi states:

“It’s massively important…It isn’t just about bringing us all together, it’s

also about the fact that we’re looking at the twin crisis you know, the

environmental and economic crisis and the fact that we cannot be

19 Sennett (1974, 17) states that modern ‘public’ is social life away from family and close friends. Perhaps these gardens challenge this interpretation. 20 Hour long commutes are far from unusual and many people can live in one place for years without truly knowing their neighbours. 21 Technology facilitates relationships with people and organisations out with our local environments.


21

dependent on importing food …it’s not ever going to produce enough

food to sustain the community but…it’s got people thinking.”

Significantly, Abi connected the ecological argument with the economic.

Consumer demand for out of season foodstuffs has generated reliance on global

distribution channels thereby impacting upon carbon emission levels. The direct

cost of fossil fuels impacts upon food prices. However, the associated carbon

emissions from logistics, adds an additional, externalised cost, further affecting

the consumer at the checkout. For Abi, guerrilla gardening is not only about

beautification, it has an important functional role of food provision.

The creation of abstract space through the separation of people and activity

Ecological awareness was cited as a key rationale for involvement. One guerrilla

gardener says that he is:

“…really bloody scared about what we’re doing to the planet.”

Some gardeners made links between human activity and ecological outcomes, a

global awareness. Abi believes the garden offers a place to learn about a more

sustainable way of living. For her, the city offers even more opportunity to

redress the balance than rural environments she has been used to throughout her

life.

The city is:

“…an exquisite oeuvre of praxis and civilisation”

(Lefebvre in Merrifield, 2006: 69)


22

As Abi said, guerrilla gardens are exhibiting the utopian radical praxis spoken of

by Lefebvre. Talking about difference is not enough, living the difference,

enacting and performing it within everyday space is what counts. Guerrilla

gardens encourage sharing; of land, food, beautified spaces and skills for the

pleasure and requirements of all. This pooling of resources and communal

mentality offers an alternative to the current system. However, an egalitarian way

of living conflicts with capitalism as it strips out monetary exchange.

Capitalism demands time apportionment to enable quantification and monetary

costing of labour. People have been separated from their own productive

capacity, in the name of efficiency and profit. Work life, private life and leisure

spheres have been cut up, rationalised and timetabled and humans dissociated

from particular aspects of their everyday lives. This is the creation of abstract

space (Lefebvre, 2000: 49). When individuals are separated from their productive

activity through continual quantification of labour, it can be dehumanising.

Guerrilla gardening activity reconciles home, leisure and work spheres. Such

activity confuses the dominant system; people expending energy for no apparent

monetary gain is considered inefficient to the capitalist.

Under observation, the gardeners pay little heed to time constraints; they almost

cast it aside as unimportant. In BCG, people seemed unperturbed about time,

exhibiting no pressure to perform or justify their activity. The garden created its

own rhythm, existing in the lived present.22 However, whilst gardeners seem to

22 Another aspect that was noted from the observations within the gardens was the corporeal element of the work, the physicality.


23

ignore time in the present they are, nevertheless, tied to seasonal cycles. The

garden makes its own demands upon them (Lefebvre, 2006: 10). In growing food

there is a sense of value creation,23 the garden as a site of production for future

sustainability. However, capitalism may be encroaching upon these sites of

sanctuary; urban space playing a key role in the survival of capitalism (Lefebvre,

2003: 155).

Encroachment of the System

A major point of contestation amongst various key actors is the role of

commercialisation. Many gardens run courses,24 but there is a disparity of

thought regarding whether such courses should be chargeable. Abi explains that

Urban Roots may be forced into charging:

“As a charity we have to think of ways to get away from a dependant

model. We need ways to be sustainable because the funding isn’t always

there…to cover the cost of the office.”

Charging enables quantification and could be interpreted as playing into the

hands of the dominant system; however, this seemed to affect the gardens with

actual permission to exist rather than guerrilla gardens. This highlights the

ideological negotiation that occurs. Far from simply oppositional to capitalism,

there are more relational nuances that require navigation. BCG does not charge

for courses, using the space in an unstructured and informal manner, it becomes a

site of congregation and communal activity that also serves as a place of

23 This could arguably be conceived as both use value and exchange value (Lefebvre, 2006, 12). Use value would include; a sense of worth, legitimacy, achievement (one gardener voiced their delight as being able to grow vegetables) and exchange value for the material product grown. 24 Courses such as how to ‘grow your own’, compost and cook what you produce.


24

education. Not all gardens desire expansion,25 an income or formal state

legitimacy. A lack of formal permission enables lower levels of expectation and

pressure to achieve particular outcomes for guerrilla gardens.

Gibson-Graham (2008) highlight that diverse economies not only exist they can

co-exist. Kabloom is based in Glasgow, owned by Darren Wilson, a thirty

something design graduate. His seed bombs entwine his design background and

keen ecological awareness. Darren justifies his particular form of capitalism

through its ecological foundation. As a commercial entity, profit is a necessity

for Darren’s livelihood and the future sustainability of his company. Green

capitalism may be viewed negatively as moving along the spectrum towards

capitalist exchange. However, Darren has no conflict with making money from

an ecologically ethical product:

“I’m trying to educate people about guerrilla gardening at the same

time…by using the product you kind of become a guerrilla gardener, even

for a minute.”

He was asked about whether his product was playful:

“Yeah, it’s a fun product that works as well. But it had to be fun. I think

for me to go down a line of you know, this is important, this is ethical,

this is what you’ve got to do is not the way to sell a product, is it?”

25 Some gardens wish to surreptitiously go about their business without attracting wider attention. Old Castle Road, G44 is the site of a small garden set up by around thirty volunteers in March 2012. The project does not court attention via social media or any other means. One key member states that they wanted to focus on providing a garden for the community. Retention of anonymity can be interpreted as a desire to avoid state intervention, to avoid control, to stay out with debates.


25

Darren believes that people are becoming more ecologically aware. At trade

shows he is frequently asked what the product is made from and believes that

people are becoming more sophisticated in their buying behaviour, and have an

understanding of the materials and sources of production that impact upon a

wider sustainability.

This highlights clashing ideological perspectives. A Marxist perspective would

state that capitalism is as exploitative to the earth as it is to the worker. Green

capitalism is a much debated subject and relevant for this research (Prudham,

2009). Seed bombs are now a manufactured product, sold for profit and appear to

be a viable business venture. Green capitalism and environmentalism may create

a dichotomy, two mutually exclusive ideals that cannot overlap. However,

Darren firmly believes that his business can co-exist with his environmental

ethos and that it is both progressive and realistic.

Internal contestation

Another aspect of internal contestation within guerrilla gardening is the role of

food production itself. Reynolds concentrates activity on ‘orphaned land’ and

whilst acknowledging the place for food production within the guerrilla

gardening arsenal, this is not his particular forte. Community gardening and

guerrilla gardening were once interchangeable terms; however, many community

gardens are now pseudo-legitimate or fully legitimate spaces with the full

permission of landowners. Food production may have acted as a facilitator to

legitimise community gardening, thereby, further delineating community

gardening and guerrilla gardening activities. Requiring intensity and nurturing


26

over time, food production may be out with the capabilities of certain types of

guerrilla gardening. Seed bombing and planting in specifically neglected

locations characterises the more transient forms of guerrilla gardening

(guerrillagardening.org) as the movement has detached itself from more situated

spaces; exhibiting temporary bursts of energy within a particular locale.26

Another point of debate is what actually constitutes true guerrilla gardening.

Darren was a key participant in establishing the Townhead site,27 the first

prominent site of guerrilla gardening in Glasgow that stretched the parameters

out-with community gardens. He differentiates clearly between community

gardens and guerrilla sites. The site was derelict and a handful of gardeners tidied

up and planted flowers. For them, beautification created an injection of colour

upon the landscape. Food production was never part of the plan for this site,

which characterised the highly mobile, temporary type of guerrilla gardening

(Reynolds, 2009: 60).28 This activity demonstrates lower level commitment to

place (Raffle, 1974), contrasting with guerrilla community gardens where

participants often display a desire for longevity.

After a few months, the site received official endorsement from GCC. Stevie

Scott, LES, stated that he was happy to engage with the guerrilla gardeners and

26 This is clearly the case on many guerrilla gardening websites and forums. Guerrilla gardens that are situated, such as BCG, share more commonality with community gardens than other guerrilla sites that are seed bombed or tended over a short period of time. 27 Reynolds came up from London to offer support to the Glasgow guerrilla gardening team in springtime 2010, demonstrating interconnection across space. Publicity included television cameras and Gail Porter dressed up as a gorilla 28 Reynolds (2009, 60) talks about how “gardens on roads are mostly temporary – the plants used here are either short-lived kamikaze martyrs or mobile flower arrangements. They are employed for propaganda purposes.”


27

that the council was assisting the group by providing labour and equipment

(BBC, 2010). This gave a form of legitimacy to the site. Darren states:

“at the time it all sounded good…we’re going to get permission to do

this. Then we kind of thought about it more and I was like this is not

right…when installed spaces were starting to come up and the amount of

hoops you’ve got to jump through…they had a few spaces, saw us do this

thing and thought we’ll just get these guys to do it...And that’s not

guerrilla gardening you know…so it kind of put me off.”

The state can attempt to encroach upon the everyday, upon other people’s efforts.

Darren explained that after Townhead gained official permission it ‘petered out’.

This demonstrates dialectic tensions at work; the gardeners are not to be

criminalised, however, the official endorsement changes the very nature of what

they do. For Darren, when permission was granted, the whole premise altered:

“(The) whole idea of guerrilla gardening is that it’s kind of illicit and that

you’re taking over spaces that nobody else has thought about. So as soon

as you start to make it a…proper kind of community garden it’s not a bad

thing, it’s just that guerrilla gardening is a separate thing altogether.”

!

Out-with the context of community gardening, guerrilla gardening offers

something different and what constitutes guerrilla gardening has layers of

legitimacy. It is the ‘mini raids’ and illicit nature that holds appeal. This

attraction, ironically, mirrors the consumerist demand for continual entertainment

as opposed to the more permanent, place based social relations of the community


28

garden. Without formal permission, guerrilla gardens are not assured

permanence. For David Bradford, a regular worker in BCG, this is not a major

issue:

“…it doesn’t bother us and if it’s decided it’s to be tarmacked over then

my opinion is that…we’ve made it nice for five years and so be it, life

goes on.”

For Amin and Thrift (2002: 10):

“Transivity and porosity is what allows the city to continually fashion and

refashion itself.”29

The mere fact that the garden existed is a form of protest against the status quo.

If it ceases to exist, it can never be colonised (Linzey, 2011: 73 30).

Whose city? A time to act.

Throughout history, people have reacted when their public space has been

compromised and privatised. From the ‘True Levellers’ of 1648-1649 (Hill,

1991) through to resistance against New York Mayor Giuliani selling more than

400 community gardens during the 1990s31 (Staeheli and Mitchell, 2007) and the

more recent Occupy movement, people have staked their claim to public land.

“Contestation blooms because activists and contesters know, for certain,

that capitalist representative democracy is a crock of shit.”

(Merrifield, 2006: 47) 29 This is a reference to Walter Benjamin’s positive view of the ‘inexhaustible’ nature of porosity (Amin and Thrift, 2002, 10). 30 Linzey and Reifman stated that: “As winter nears, the Occupy movement should take note of community organiser Saul Alinsky’s observation in Rules for Radicals, ‘A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.’ There may only be a brief window to convert street-level momentum into organised rights-legislating movements in each of our local communities.” 31 Guiliani was quoted at the time as saying, “Haven’t they heard Marx is dead?”


29

Capitalism continually spreads the message of ‘there is no alternative’ (TINA).

That making urban space pay its way is beneficial for the greater good of ‘the

city’. This anthropomorphism of the city is comparable to how capitalists speak

of ‘the market’, as some form of organic being that must be nurtured and fed.

Contestation denies complete surrender and acceptance of a constrained reality.

Lefebvre states contestation:

“replaces the social and political mediations by which the demands were

raised to an all-inclusive political level”

(1969: 65)

North Kelvin Meadow, a local Site of Contestation

McKay (2011) quotes Hamilton Finlay:

“Certain gardens are described as retreats when they are really attacks.”32

(2011: 6)

It was clear from conversations with gardeners that BCG is left to its own

devices. This is not always the case. North Kelvin Meadow (NKM) has become a

site of on-going political contestation between the community and local

authority.

Rachel Smith, Landscape Design & Development Manager of LES33 at GCC,

stated that the council intervenes on sites without formal permission only when

members of the local community have objected. This was not the case for NKM.

32 Appendix i tells the story of Adam Purple, a New York guerrilla gardener who created his ‘Garden of Eden’ in the 1980s. Due to word count this section had to be removed from the main body, however, it is still highly relevant, detailing what a garden meant to one community and how the city authorities attempted to shape the urban landscape. 33 Rachel was not specifically speaking about NKM at this point, but more generally.


30

GCC wishes to sell the land to a private contractor to build high value housing.

Originally the site of recreational playing fields, the location was left in disrepair

by GCC. In August 2008, the NKM campaign was founded in response to GCC’s

rejection of a survey of local residents wishing to see the creation of a green

space site. This land use correlated with the council’s own policy stating that

football pitches should not be sold if being utilised by the local community for

open space activity.

Residents invested time and energy in clearing the site of debris34, enabling safe

use by the community, for recreational and educational pursuits. In August 2009,

the local authority took legal action against two key members of the NKM team,

for putting raised beds and bat boxes on-site. The sheriff threw the case out of

court, rendering the court action a public relations disaster for GCC.35 Patrick

Harvie, co-convenor of the Scottish Green Party states36:

“I was dismayed that the Council decided that instead of supporting them

it should take them to court! Clearly there is a disagreement about the

best use of the land, but the Council should be paying attention to the

local community.”

Alternative strands of state apparatus are not always in agreement as to the

necessity of permission in legitimising activity. For the legal system, the

overarching benefit to the local community produced a form of legitimacy.

34 This debris consisted of hypodermic needles and generic waste. 35 The legal system declared that those involved had only ‘done good’. This site was defended by the ‘logic’ definition of legitimacy via the legal system. 36 Patrick Harvie took the time to respond to my email about the ongoing situation at NKM. He also said that the NKM campaigners had: “turned a dilapidated site into something of real value to the community, and this kind of action creates a strong sense of community participation, as well as a physical improvement to the environment.”


31

Ambiguity surrounds definition of NKM, with various conflicting designations

being used by different actors. Whilst the site clearly represents a green space

(Maps.2 & 3), GCC’s Open Space Strategy document states the site is ‘vacant

land’.37 This seems contradictory, however, unsurprising, as the state will attempt

to suppress any alternative vision for the land (Merrifield quoting Lefebvre,

2006: xxv).

Map 2: North Kelvin Meadow aerial view

Source: Google Maps

37 This image has not been included merely due to resolution quality, however it is visible within the document on p.44. Rachel Smith clarified that LES had responsibility for land owned by GCC, however, this land was under the responsibility of Development and Regeneration Services (DRS) and she did not wish to discuss this case specifically.


32

The document, ‘Glasgow West Consultation Draft’ (2010), produced by GCC,

claims that:

“Sections of the metal fencing enclosing the former Clouston Street

recreation ground are in poor condition and unsightly. The site is

unmanaged and overgrown. It has planning consent for new housing

development and small park but has been temporarily adopted by the

local community as ‘North Kelvin Meadow’.”

(2010: 124)

Map 3: North Kelvin Meadow aerial view

Source: Google Maps

North Kelvin Meadow

North Kelvin Meadow


33

The NKM site is in far better repair than it was previously (Pic.3), due to

community involvement, however GCC is attempting to ‘de-legitimise’ the

positive work undertaken by the community, using words such as ‘overgrown’

and ‘unsightly’. The site is managed, managed by the campaign and regulated by

the local community. The use of the word ‘temporarily’ is significant, an

implication of impending change and a flexing of policy makers’ might.

Pic. 3: Before and after pictures of North Kelvin Meadow

Source: BBC News, Friday 21 August 2009.

Not all guerrilla gardening sites require the same level of gardening intensity.

NKM differs from many other guerrilla gardening projects by retaining its wild

landscape.38 Of all sites under analysis NKM best represents the commons

(Harvey, 2012). Apart from a few raised beds, NKM is uncultivated in form and

some people may challenge the interpretation of NKM as a garden:

38 Wild orchids and other plant life grow naturally on-site. The site is maintained but not ‘over’ cultivated, thereby offering something alternative to other Glasgow guerrilla sites.


34

“wild gardening comes with one serious drawback: the very illusion of

being wild means that it is not obviously a garden.”

(Reynolds, 2009: 57)

This lack of recognisable garden structure may aid the opposition’s case for

alternative usage of this space as the council uses perceived disorder negatively.

The GCC document also states that NKM is ‘proposed for redevelopment’. It

could be argued that the site has already undergone redevelopment, without the

help of the local authority.

Key actors at NKM were far from playful in how they felt about the garden. The

campaigners became increasingly radicalised due to their shared interests,

understandable due to the enhanced political focus upon this site and

involvement of official agents such as the local authority and legal system. For

Emma, place attachment was heightened when the authorities got involved.

Douglas Peacock highlights the council’s own development strategy to build

upon brown field sites, not green. He spoke of ambiguity in determining land

classification; some designations stating ‘playing field’, others ‘sports pitches’.

The Housing Land Audit classifies the site as NB-G-U (New Build on Greenfield

Urban setting). Douglas believes the latter designation is a blatant attempt to

support the local authority’s desire to sell the land for commercial purposes.

Emma states clearly that no-one at NKM wanted a fight; they just wanted to

enjoy the space:


35

“I don’t think we’ve ever wanted conflict at all. But we’ve always felt

that the consultation has not been done. We did our own consultation.”

The NKM campaign team believe that they have legitimacy for the site, proven

via local endorsement and how the space is utilised.

Spontaneity and self-expression, a reimagining of social space

NKM may confuse the more traditional perspectives of what constitutes a

garden, however, Newman (2011: 346) supports:

“spontaneous and organic expression of a city’s unique beauty, as

appropriate to its individual natural environment, rather than imposing

upon it, bureaucratically from above, rigid, uniform design.”

The educational aspects offered by the NKM are being embraced by the

campaign. Douglas explains that NKM is now essentially a ‘playgroup and forest

school’, what could be termed a space of knowledge:

“NKM Campaign has attempted to manage the land, by encouraging its

use as a green space for allotments, wildlife, kids’ activities and

community involvement in activities such as bulb, seed and tree planting

as well as general tidying up.”

Every Wednesday a mothers and toddlers group meet. This group take children

walking through the meadow, enabling a connection to wildlife and nature that is

often so remiss within the rushed, urban context. David Bradford reflects upon

modern life:


36

“… because of computers and computer games, everybody’s stuck inside

pressing buttons…this is outside, having fun without technology.”39

The NKM team partner local schools and nurseries helping children engage with

nature. Play in the meadow was unstructured, with little adult intervention.

Edensor suggests that rhythm variation helps places to ‘stay ahead of official

designs’ (2010: 16). Children create their own games within the environment but

an attempt to structure their play would defeat the whole purpose of the

meadow,40 which is to offer the freedom to re-engage with nature.41

Politics of dereliction and the dereliction of duty

The word ‘vacant’ used by GCC regarding NKM contrasts sharply to how land is

termed by participants of guerrilla gardening, who tend to use ‘derelict’ (Doron,

2000). Derelict has connotations of being left unloved and in poor repair. To

initiate a community garden in a formally derelict space can, surely, only be an

improvement. For those wishing to designate land as being commercially viable,

the term ‘vacant’ is far more appealing due to connotations of emptiness, lack of

use or being in a state of readiness for use. From the perspective of BCG,

previous issues with subsidence may protect this site from future commercial

39 David was also reflective about children playing in the garden with hula-hoops, something he had not seen since a child himself. However, some academics such as Amin and Thrift (2002) would argue that technology creates opportunities for a new form of community. 40 This was a formal decision made within the core group. There was some discussion about whether to introduce play structures or have adults guide children in structured play, however, it was decided to leave as unstructured. 41 This is in direct contrast to the Tramway’s Hidden Garden which, in July 2012, drew up a code of conduct citing various regulations such as; no scooters or ball games, no music, no climbing on the wall or structures and sticking to designated paths. This site is not a guerrilla garden, however, this code does highlight how sites with legitimate permission can become sites of official regulations, contrasting sharply to the more relaxed attitude adopted by many guerrilla gardens.


37

viability. The capitalist system drives urban development and the manner in

which space is apportioned and subsequently utilised, geographically.

For Doron (2000) the term ‘derelict’ is problematic. Spaces that appear to have

no use are too readily labelled; ‘derelict’ belies the truth that every space has a

function: space for the homeless, a workplace for prostitution, a transition space

for immigrants. These places form worlds of:

“unwritten history, overlooked communities, unseen possibilities, a world

with a different order, but also architecture: The Architecture of

Transgression.”

(Doron, 2000: 252)

Voids do not exist (Doron: 248), they are merely a ‘colonial fabrication’

justifying land grab by elites, who then shape the space to their own purposes.

These urban locations were often previous sites of flourishing industry. Do such

spaces offer a reminder of the state’s past failures, spaces that need reassigned,

lest we recall what was there before? Doron states that community gardens,

whilst embracing a component of opposition, tend to work within the boundaries

of the system, therefore the term transgressive is more apt than resistance. Such

spaces could be perceived as a threat to the system, spaces that must be

regulated, their financial potential unlocked and their identity subsumed into the

system.


38

The State Muscles in…

The state tends to protect the interests of private property owner via the legal

system and regulatory bodies, such as the police force. However, not all state

structures have unified objectives and this disparity can create opportunities for

some gardens. South Seeds’, Agnew Lane site (Pics. 4 & 5) (Map 1) has no

official permission,42 nonetheless; the group has secured £227,570 in funding via

the Climate Challenge Fund (Scottish Government, Climate Challenge Fund,

2012). Ecological benefits brought about by such spaces may outweigh the

question over legality of land use.

Pic 4: South Seeds, Agnew Lane, Glasgow

Source: Personal photograph, August 2012

42 The person who owns the land was contacted (unclear by whom) but never responded and therefore, did not give official permission for the garden. Darren Wilson provided this information, however, he did seem concerned about discussing this and it was clear that this information was not common knowledge.


39

Pic 5: The adjacent plot at Agnew Lane.

Source: Personal photograph, August 2012

However, funding carries with it specific responsibilities to meet environmental

targets. This could be analysed as the state ‘muscling in’ on everyday life,

exploiting the community efforts. Autonomy may be more difficult to retain

when funding is forthcoming, however, this break in continuity amongst public

sector bodies does also create opportunities to confuse the parameters of what

constitutes legitimacy.


40

Sourcing the mode of production

The research highlights a high level of interconnectedness amongst gardeners.43

Virtual space, such as Facebook pages, acts as organisational and recruiting tools

as well as a medium to advertise activity across multiple projects. A strong

adherence to an ecological way of life permeates with participants as they branch

into various alternative projects. However, this is not exhaustive and tends to

represent those most involved.44 Those with organisational know how or

gardening ability are often involved with multiple projects, sharing skill set and

technical know-how amongst projects.

Sourcing skills within the community is highly relevant. When guerrilla gardens

make use of resource within their local community, they further negate the

requirement for local authority expertise. NKM has utilised resource from

participants well versed in planning laws and a local nursery45 worker who

undertook a full biodiversity study of the site to further justify the ecological

benefit realised by the meadow. Emma has responsibility for reading academic

publications46 and policy literature generated by the state enabling the campaign

to utilise GCC’s own strategic plans to gain further legitimacy, highlighting the

dichotomy of GCC’s own policy making. The council’s strategic plan supports

the kind of land use seen at NKM in theory, however, in practice; GCC

repeatedly attempts to undermine the project at NKM.

43 Interviewees spoke of involvement in multiple projects and various names were cited relating to alternative projects with ten or so key players being spoken of frequently. 44 This refers to those in organisational roles within groups. Ignoring the obvious hierarchical structures at play would over-romanticise the research. 45 This is a nursery in the botanical sense. 46 Emma and other key participants at NKM spend many hours each week working voluntarily.


41

Abi states her parents were ‘hippies’ and she has always been involved in

community projects, throughout her adult life. Travelling across Britain, she has

lived an almost nomadic lifestyle, transferring her skills across space, enabling

various projects to utilise her expertise. One volunteer at Old Castle Road

(Map.1) stated clearly that skill set was a non-issue; the garden was for the whole

community and not a hierarchical display of gardening prowess. Under

observation, some community gardens displayed a definitive structure, based

upon organisational skills and gardening knowledge. Abi gave continual

direction regarding task allocation and specific activity required during the

session under observation. For David Bradford, this is not oppressive (Young,

199047) as he has ‘never been a leader’. David demonstrated the utmost respect

for the organisational skills and expertise of key members.

Self-Regulation & Autonomous Freedom

Henaff classifies public space as a social construct:

“Public space is a human construct, an artefact, the result of the attempt

by human beings to shape the place and thus the nature of their

interactions.”

(2001: 5)

47 Young (ch. 8, 1990) has concerns over the potentially oppressive nature of communities. She rejects community as being the oppositional ‘solution’ to Liberal individualism. Communities, she says, are antithetical to difference and stifle diversity. She is, specifically talking about decentralised, autonomous communities, however, more than social groups or local voluntary associations.


42

During an observational visit to the meadow it was apparent that those using the

site maintained place themselves, picking up litter and taking rubbish away with

them. Vandalism has not been an issue for NKM despite initial concerns:48

“We can’t manage the behaviour of everybody that uses that land but

what I can tell you is that we haven’t really had any instances of

vandalism.”

(Emma)

Lefebvre (2003: 19) embraces the unknown for its power to produce spontaneous

occurrences and valued moments:

“This disorder is alive. It informs. It surprises.”

Within guerrilla gardens, the natural disorder creates its own order, with

individuals maintaining place themselves.

For Gillies, BCG is fully legitimate as city dwellers have an obligation to look

after land. He believes that local people are within their rights to intervene when

the state apparatus lets the community down. He offers an alternative

interpretation of the word ‘vandalism’:

“Leaving a site vacant to fill up with litter simply because it's not

immediately commercially viable is as anti-social an act as

vandalism...They49 vandalise the cityscape and leave it uncared for.

People who live round about and have respect for their neighbourhood

should not accept this and should actively intervene.”

48 Three separate workers within the Battlefield garden confirmed that vandalism was a non-issue. 49 Gillies was speaking of the local authority specifically at this point.


43

Gillies believes that the state’s disinvestment from the public sphere has led to

certain portions of urban land being left derelict. This has meant that grassroots

groups and community-based associations often have to step in, to get proactive.

Marxists prioritise the role of labour to affect transformation of the urban

landscape. The human influence within the urban context is:

“not merely a right of access to what property speculators and state

planners define, but an active right to make the city different”

(Harvey, 2003: 941)

Harvey (939) believes that we all shape our world, we are architects. Our labour

and productivity can change our environment but it also changes us. If urban

dwellers find the built environment distasteful, uninspiring or misused then they

can take on the architectural role and re-shape the city. If the city is a reflection

of urban dwellers themselves as something that is socially produced, then derelict

space reflects soullessness, crying out to be remade.

Darren believes that such gardens are a citizen’s right…to the city (Lefebvre,

1968):

“…it’s their space in a way, you know, this is where they live…It’s so

important, it really is, simple. Well, it should be simple.”

Beware the Cybernanthrope

When citizens stake a claim to land, the hegemonic system is threatened.

Cresswell wrote of ‘legitimate creativity’ (1996: 55). Creativity that once

occurred in everyday life is now positioned in legitimate spaces, such as art


44

galleries. Funding is one way in which the system attempts to appropriate

guerrilla gardens; to legitimise them, control them and make them sites of

capitalist exchange. Gardens as dynamic sites of creativity and free expression

may experience a curtailing effect as the state attempts to regulate and colonise

these bounded spaces and brand them.

Harvey (2012: xviii) states that:

“anomic groups construct heterotopic spaces, which are eventually

reclaimed by the dominant praxis.”

When the community maintain spaces themselves it negates the requirement for

official intervention. Official service provision50 offered by GCC is not always

required to deliver additional value. It is ironic though, that the Glasgow

Community & Safety Neighbourhood Improvement and Enforcement Service

has involvement with NKM. This scheme partners GCC51 under the Clean

Glasgow programme. Gabe Wortman, Senior Development Officer clarifies the

resource provided at NKM:

“(was to) help them with their risk assessment, provide equipment and

support them with community activities.”

There is internal conflict within the council itself as to whether or not NKM

should be endorsed, partnered or attacked, highlighting confused narratives.

Douglas and Emma state that NKM embraces elements of GCC’s own strategy

towards open space as an educational tool for the community, offering a natural,

secure, ecologically aware space for learning. However, this holds less weight 50 Such as litter collection and landscaping resource. 51 Although this group is voluntary and members are not employed by GCC.


45

when there is a proposed commercial plan offering an alternative vision for the

landscape.

The emergency services produce their own form of legitimacy via engagement.

Local community police have attended both the annual Battlefield Street Party

and events at NKM. According to interviewees, police seem unfazed by the issue

of permission.52 This apparent endorsement by those tasked with enforcing the

rule of law and securing citizen safety, belittles any necessity for permission or

formal regulatory structures which have little validity in such spaces. Here,

community cohesion outweighs any concerns regarding actual consent for land

use.

Interviewees53 often exhibited an intolerance of what they consider unnecessary

bureaucracy. Mild frustration filters through when governmental intervention is

discussed. For them, it is simple; the city should be first and foremost for the

people. As local governance moves further towards a corporate mind-set whilst

attempting to balance the requirements of service provision, purpose and remit

have become blurred. Merrifield highlights how these conflicting ideologies have

created:

“…a new hybrid Frankenstein is at the helm: the neoliberal bureaucrat

and the managerialist entrepreneur.”

(2006: 88)

52 Local community police attendance at annual events lends itself to legitimising activity. 53 In particular, this was Abi, Emma and Darren.


46

Attack of the Cybernanthrope54

“The state now raises itself above society and penetrates it to its depths,

all the way into everyday life and behaviour.”

(Lefebvre, 1979: 774)

Lefebvre (2003) explains how urban space is carved up, cut “into grids and

squares…Technocrats,” Lefebvre notes, “unaware of what’s going on in their

own mind and in their working concepts, profoundly misjudging in their blind

field what’s going on (and what isn’t), end up meticulously organizing a

repressive space” (ibid: 157):

“their type, their policies, their urban programs, the very presence of

technocrats on planet earth offended him; they were antithetical to all he

stood for, all he desired.”

(Merrifield, 2006: 89)

This leads to an even more fundamental question regarding the city. Merrifield

asks:

“Is the city a technical object or an aesthetic moment, an oeuvre or a

product?”

(ibid: 67)

Sorkin (1992) heralds the death of public space, of society subsumed by

capitalist enterprise, as predicted by Debord (1967). GCC increasingly utilises

54 In November 2012, council workers dismantled a small guerrilla garden established by the local community in Shandon by the banks of the Union Canal. Kate Gilliam set up the garden and said she was: “surprised at the speed at which it was destroyed.” This east coast site shall not be further investigated, however, it was worth noting that gardens are continually under threat. http://local.stv.tv/edinburgh/magazine/200628-community-shocked-as-guerrilla-garden-destroyed-without-warning/


47

public parks for events, as sites of monetary exchange.55 The theme park has

arrived in Glasgow. For Madden (2010: 187), public space is transforming,

becoming:

“...more meticulously managed; more explicitly experiential,

cosmopolitan, commercial and commodified.”

Madden conceptualises that such spaces decouple the public from democracy and

self-development as they are routed, instead, towards consumption practices.

Zukin (1997) identifies that such projects are political, creating opportunity for

the state to impose their vision upon urban space.

Rachel Smith clarifies the council’s strategy for attracting corporate investment

to public parks in Glasgow:

“If we didn’t reach out to these people, someone else would do it and I’ve

got to make sure that we get the best for Glasgow. We need to say ‘where

would you like to invest’ and do we need to bring something to that

project to make that happen. So we’re trying…to make sure that we’re

selling ourselves and look like an attractive option.”

Lefebvre introduces the concept of the cybernanthrope,56 a governmental being

who has given up his humanity in the quest for efficiency and order. The

cybernanthrope is doing its job to the best of its ability, unaware that the outcome

may be the design of what constitutes a repressive space.

55 Amin (2002, 959) states that everyday micro publics are far better to foster good relations than large scale organized events like public festivals. In other words the claims often made by local governance about such large-scale events benefitting the local community are challenged and contested. 56 Only the French version was available, therefore, Merrifield was used to research this concept.


48

Space itself is complex and should offer multiple opportunities for action. When

activity within space is controlled, channelled and prescriptive it limits

spontaneity and expression. Signs in public parks tells us to ‘keep off the grass!’

and ‘do not feed the ducks!’ inhibiting free action.57 The guerrilla gardens under

observation exuded an oppositional sense of freedom. Spontaneity was actively

encouraged, Abi’s ‘just do it’ mentality pervading these spaces.

“Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only

because, and only when, they are created by everybody.”

(Jacobs, 1962)

This applies to guerrilla gardens too, as sites where a diverse body of people

actively create together.

It could be argued that the state increasingly seeks to control the behaviour of

citizens (Fyfe, 1998: 254) Another tool of regulation is the ‘health and safety’

narrative, the implication of these gardens as potential sites of risk. Rachel Smith

was asked about risk:

“There have been projects where people have wanted to run a community

garden…and we needed to ask them about public liability insurance cos,

you know, there was a series of activities happening on the space and we

didn’t have any oversight of them.”

When asked if this was merely bureaucracy taking control, Rachel answers:

57 Such Lefebvre-esque freedoms would incur a monetary cost for the council, a maintenance fee. The parks do not receive free labour and therefore the council wishes to reduce overheads. One way in which they do this is to attempt to limit behavior that would incur such costs.


49

“It’s really for us to ask what’s happening in the space and what’s the

chances of someone getting hurt…someone planting a couple of flowers,

well nothing can really go wrong whereas sport facilities and allotments

where people are using weed killer…”

Judgements are made and public liability insurance is a key driver in determining

how the council measures risk. Past experience also plays its part:

“…we’re wary of people not really thinking things through with a project

and then coming to us when things, kind of, go wrong and asking us to

fix it.”

The local authority believes it is their role to evaluate levels of risk and that the

personnel involved in each project cannot be responsible for assessment. There is

a dialectic tension between what the council perceives as necessary safety

measure and what is understood or desired at garden scale.

Walzer (1995) theorises two alternative functions for public space; single

minded: “designed by planners or entrepreneurs who only have one thing in

mind” (321) versus open minded: “designed for a variety of uses, including

unforeseen and unforeseeable uses and used by citizens…” (321). When people

deviate from planned activity it poses a threat and health and safety is an

appropriate tool to re-align activity in the everyday with the overall strategy. In

the case of guerrilla gardens a lack of Public Liability Insurance and formal

health and safety regulations can provide the local authority with the optimum

tool to delegitimise the activities undertaken by the community in such spaces.


50

Merrifield (2006: 92) argues that raw energy unnerves the cybernanthrope.

Bursts of creative expression take place in many guerrilla gardens during key

annual events where displays of artwork, recitals of literature and theatrical

performances are all encouraged. This spontaneity is difficult to categorise, to

order and this poses a concern to those tasked with regulation. As individuals

produce their own narratives in the gardens, they are offering an alternative to the

council’s formal cultural programmes and events.

For Jacobs, the landscape can be read, like a text (1993: 830); quoting from

Choay, language on the city is far more relevant and worthy than language of the

city. What imprint do actions leave on the fabric of the city, its tapestry?

Guerrilla gardeners are producing new geographies. There is space for

playfulness and meaning as alternatives evolve. This Marxist sociological

perspective addresses how the capitalist system drives urban development and

the manner in which space is apportioned and subsequently utilised,

geographically.

The concept of guerrilla gardening as warfare is explained by Reynolds (2009).

His book consistently uses language such as enemies, troops and war. The

meaning of guerrilla, as little war is significant; mini raids undertaken by

untrained bands of people. Guerrilla gardening may be more than a playful

statement of resistance; it could be a new form of urban warfare.

“Calmness and civility in urban history are the exception not the rule.”

(Harvey, 2003: 939)


51

Reynolds states:

“At its most urgent, guerrilla gardening is about people fighting for the

right to have dinner on their plate.”

(2009: 19)

The tone of this publication is far from playful; it justifies this guerrilla activity,

citing basic human rights within city space. For Reynolds, guerrilla gardening is

a “battle for resources” (5).

Perhaps a more transient approach was the optimum tactic for guerrilla gardening

to survive against a capitalist onslaught, attempting to control, monitor and

influence its behaviour, as well as profit from its mere existence. Less

commitment to place may have acted as a facilitator of freedom and resistance,

enabling guerrilla gardeners to continue mini raids and retain anonymity. This

may explain why certain guerrilla gardening activity, such as seed-bombing

seemed to diverge from more situated community gardens.

Merrifield (2006: 92) states that:

“The war of anthropes contra cybernanathropes will be a guerrilla war”

A garden for cybernanthropes, an unlived place

This issue of temporality is not perceived as negative for SAGE

(SowandGrowEverywhere),58 co-funded by Glasgow Life.59 SAGE works with

58 Whilst an interview had been arranged for the Project Leader of SAGE, she failed to attend. Email confirmation had been sent as is my usual practice.


52

various community projects to instigate food production on ‘derelict’ and

‘vacant’ land. SAGE growing kits60 are designed as mobile and modular. The

website states that ‘when land is required for development’ these gardens can be

transferred, thereby prioritising the requirement for commercial expansion over

the need for permanent green space for local communities. This project works on

a basis of temporality, sold as an attribute. Additionally, the project requires legal

documentation to be signed regarding this temporary nature. This measure seems

bureaucratic and formal for such, allegedly, well-intentioned community spaces.

Observation of the SAGE Greyfriars Garden site, Shuttle Street (Pics.6, 7 & 8)

(Map.1) was enlightening. A perimeter fence and padlocked door signified

exclusivity, characteristics of what could only be termed a private space, a

‘walled, restrictive fortress’ (Madden, 2010: 188). Signs declare ‘Stalled spaces,

a wee space for a wee while’ and ‘Stalled spaces, a community fit for a wee bit’.

Rachel Smith states:

“I think these derelict sites can be such a focus for what’s wrong in your

community.”

The garden was ordered, only those with gardening expertise could have created

such a cultivated place. Only twice was anyone observed in the garden, solitary

gardeners tending the plants. Whilst seemingly benign, this specific project could

be viewed with cynicism as a blatant attempt by the council to appease. The

59 Glasgow City Council’s former Culture and Leisure Services department is now a limited company. This is not the first GCC department to move to limited liability status, now classified as an ‘extended arms-length organisation (ALEO). 60 Raised beds utilised for food cultivation.


53

garden feels like a constructed place,61 as opposed to one that has evolved, led by

the community. It is situated amongst retail outlets, commercial spaces and

university buildings.62 Rachel was asked about this specific point, that the

location was not really residential. She offered no response.

Pics. 6, 7 & 8: Photographs of Greyfriars Garden from outside and through fencing.

61 In the interest of balance it is fair to state that the Greyfriars Garden is a newly constructed space. SAGE does partner other projects, such as Dennistoun Diggers, which is a vibrant, inclusive community garden. 62 Residential housing is c. half a mile away in Duke Street so who is this garden for? However, it is fair to say that people have allotments that are not situated beside their homes. These can still be considered communities.


54

Source: Personal photographs, Sept 2012.


55

Rachel says that funding will help enhance such spaces in time for the

Commonwealth Games in 2014 when:

“we need to put our best face on for the world.”

Leaving the playground behind

Whilst Lefebvre spoke of spontaneity and playfulness he was not trivialising

what could be achieved within the everyday. His lived, social praxis was a call

for change, a response to the dominance of the hegemonic system. Privatisation

has gripped the urban setting over recent decades. Guerrilla gardening may be

playing a part in a territorial reclamation of the local.63

Many urban dwellers are being disenfranchised within the city, due to economic

restructuring; the working class, the immigrants, the homeless (Mitchell, 2003;

Purcell, 2002; Smith, 1996). For Purcell, the right to the city is not a cure for

wider systemic issues; however it does form part of a solution to existing

problems for city inhabitants. Guerrilla gardening may rest within this realm, as a

form of resistance to unrestrained capitalism, particularly relevant during

economic recession.

The re-introduction of natural products, such as plant life, on sites of derelict

land not only creates new functions for the space, it makes a statement about

future land use. As plant life grows over time, it becomes stronger; roots are

63 If the global scale is the site of the spatially mobile, trans-national corporation, global political institution and, indeed media, then the local is the scale most easily maintained, managed and nurtured by individuals and communities alike.


56

established, grounding the plant to place. Not only is land reclaimed from

dereliction, it is being shaped ecologically for the future.

Conclusion

In Glasgow, formal public spaces are under more pressure than ever before to

generate monetary value and urban dwellers have little input into how their city

is shaped. Public space is increasingly subject to private influence and capitalist

opportunities are prioritised before the social needs of urban dwellers. This

research found that guerrilla gardeners are demonstrating an alternative spatial

practice, out with the gaze of the state.

Legitimacy often stems from communities themselves, as well as the deeper

ideological beliefs of the individual. Guerrilla gardens offer a contrast, unusual in

their lack of monetary exchange. They act as sites where humans are reconnected

with their productivity, the everyday offering an opportunity for the kind of

alternative social praxis spoken of by Lefebvre. Guerrilla gardens are creating

new narratives and promoting forms of distribution based upon the sharing

principles of the commons. Gardens are neither neutral nor inert; they produce

continual growth and change and this produces agency. Guerrilla gardening has

varied meaning; some gardens exist for beautification purposes and can be

temporary in nature. Other, more situated, gardens celebrate food production and

skills exchange, exhibiting a communal approach to resource sharing. The

exchange is based upon requirement and necessity rather than economic

rationale. In these gardens labour is not quantified and people exhibit an

indifference to time pressures.


57

Key actors exhibited little concern regarding permission. Whilst authorisation

clearly protects sites from alternate land use; sites without permission can still

gain legitimacy from state organisations. Both the law enforcement and judicial

systems legitimised specific guerrilla gardening activity, placing the social needs

of the community before the requirement for formal permissions. The provision

of central government funds to guerrilla garden projects, lays bare the duplicity

surrounding permissions. Narratives created by state actors can be fluid; open to

change dependant on the most powerful policy requirements at any given time.

Central government led ecological initiatives enable elements of state apparatus

to gain a level of control over gardens, subjecting them to a target driven

environment. However, the legitimacy these programmes provide can conflict

with practices at local government level. Even within local government itself,

there was evidence of conflicting narratives when the North Kelvin Meadow

campaign was examined. Whilst the production of various forms of legitimacy

can often protect guerrilla community gardens for a time, this can all change

when the potential for commercial development beckons.

To believe capitalism sits on one side and socialist alternatives on the other is

naïve. Green capitalism offers a way of working with the dominant system whilst

retaining an altruistic moral code and is considered a legitimate form of

capitalism by many gardeners. There is a spectrum, a network even, with varied

options for economic participation. However, when alternatives conform too

much to hegemonic ways, they may compromise their whole identity. For some

gardeners the more surreptitious elements to activity are what make it truly


58

guerrilla. The lack of permanent status associated with guerrilla gardens may be

conducive to the ability to outmanoeuvre spatial entrenchment and colonisation

by the system.

Glasgow City Council offers partnership and expertise within the Sow and Grow

Everywhere food programme. This participation demonstrates that the local

authority is considering a citizen’s right to urban space. However, this

programme sells temporality as a transient benefit. The lack of permanent status

allows for legal adherence to this temporality, which enables that the dominant

structures retain power over long-term land use. When communities engage in

this programme, they may be selling their rights short and losing sight of a wider

claim to urban space and some assurance of permanence. Without permission

there is always a risk factor; risk of temporality, risk of the space being taken

away.

Many guerrilla gardens demonstrate self-regulation without the need for formal

regulatory structures. Whilst guerrilla gardens do not tend to represent blatant

civic disobedience, this research uncovered ripples of anti-bureaucratic leanings

amongst participants and language occasionally challenged governmental control

and (over)regulation. Gardeners often exhibited playful urban mischief and it

was clear that spontaneous behaviour was actively encouraged within these

spaces as a way to question the status quo. Whilst not overtly political, these

spaces do offer an alternative. Guerrilla gardens exhibit freedom, cooperation

and also transgression, rejecting unnecessary bureaucracy and (ir)rational order.

Many participants exhibited territoriality, these are their spaces. Guerrilla


59

gardens contribute positively to the urban tapestry; creating new narratives,

raising ecological awareness and educating. Participants often cited concerns

about the world in which we live, what humanity has created and this creates a

form of legitimacy for action. These gardens offer a retreat from the dominant

ideology but they may also be an attack on the system. These counter hegemonic

spaces may become increasingly important if more people become disillusioned

with how the state produces urban public space.

Community gardens are not so much reclaiming urban space as they are

completely reshaping it, offering a new vision of what constitutes public space.

These places are not merely thinking about difference, they are living difference

within the everyday. Lefebvre believed that commodification within the urban

environment will never be absolute. It will give rise to contestation and

alternative spaces. The urban shall be the site of lived moments. To change life,

we must first change space via an alternative social praxis. “The rhythmanalyst

calls upon all his senses” (Lefebvre, 2004: 21). Where better to experience this

than in a garden? I believe Lefebvre would have appreciated guerrilla gardening

for all its expression, freedom and reconnection of physical, mental and social.


60

References

• Amin, A. (2002) Ethnicity and the multicultural city: living with diversity.

Environment and planning A, 34, 959-980.

• Amin, A. and Thrift, N. (2002) Cities: Reimagining the Urban. Blackwell

Publishers: Oxford.

• BBC News (15 March 2010) How guerrilla gardening took root by Mark Fraser

(Accessed 12/1/12)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8548005.stm

• BBC News (15 March 2010) Garden guerrillas wage urban campaign. (Accessed

20/11/12)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8550101.stm

• Bondi, L. and Domosh, M. (1992) Other figures in other places: on feminism,

postmodernism and geography. Environment and planning, 10, 199-213.

• Boyle, M. et al (2008) The Spatialities of Actually Existing Neoliberalism in

Glasgow, 1977 to present.

• Bryman, A. (2008) Social Research Methods (3rd edition). OUP: Oxford

• Campbell, L. and Wiesen, A. (2011) Restorative Commons: Creating Health and

Wellbeing Through Urban Landscapes. Government Printing Office, US.

• Cook, I. and Crang, M. (1995) Doing ethnographies. Geobooks: Norwich.

• Cresswell, T. (1996) In place out of place. University of Minnesota Press: United

States.

• Davis, M. (1990) City of Quartz: excavating the future in Los Angeles. London:

Verso.

• Debord, G. (1968/1995) The Society of the Spectacle. Zone Books: New York.


61

• DeLyser, D. et al (2010) The SAGE handbook of qualitative geography, Sage

Publications Ltd, London, UK

• Denzin N (ed)(1998) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, Sage:

London

• Dines, N, and Cattell, V. (2006) Public spaces, social relations and well-being in

east London. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation report.

• Doron, Gil M. (2000) The Dead Zone and the Architecture of Transgression,

City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action, 4:2, 247-263.

• Fielding, N. G. (ed) (2002) Interviewing, Volumes 3 and 4, Sage: London

• Fontana A. and Frey J.H. (2005) The interview: From neutral stance to political

involvement. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of

Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 695-728.

• Frumkin, H. (2005) Guest editorial: Health, Equity and the built environment.

Environmental Health Perspectives, 113, 5, 290-291

• Fyfe, N. (1998) Images of the Street: Planning, Identity and Control in Public Space.

Routledge: London.

• Garden Digest (Accessed 27/2/12)

http://www.gardendigest.com/death.htm

• Gibson-Graham, JK. (2008) Diverse Economies: Performative Practices for

‘other worlds’. Progress in Human Geography, 32, 613.

• Glasgow City Council, Glasgow West conservation area appraisal, 2010

(Accessed 26/9/12)

http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A02F1B1A-14D7-40A1-8784-

9625DE76B9EB/0/GlasgowWestConsultationDraftMarch2010b.pdf


62

• Glasgow City Council, Open Space Strategy document (Accessed 8/12)

http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D2F0ABA1-662E-4D12-9C91-

99C37B6BD60B/0/110805_Glasgow_Open_Space_Strategy_Final_Nov.pdf

• Goonewardena, K. et al (2008) Space, Difference and Everyday Life: Reading

Henri Lefebvre. Routledge: Oxon.

• Groenewegen, Peter P. et al (2006) Vitamin G: effects of green space on health,

wellbeing and social safety. BMC: Public Health, 6, 149.

• Guerrillagardening.org. (Accessed from 13/12/11)

http://guerrillagardening.org/community/index.php?PHPSESSID=658464aa5fde

36b6d6338cc3938d0166&

• Harvey, D. (1989) From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The

Transformation in Urban Governance in Late Capitalism. Human Geography, 71,

1, 3-17.

• Harvey, D. (2003) The right to the city. International Journal of Urban and

Regional Research, 27,4, 939-941

• Harvey, D. (2007) Neoliberalism as creative destruction. The annals of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science, 610,1,21-44.

• Harvey, D. (2012) Rebel Cities. Verso: London

• Henaff, M (2001) Public space and democracy. University of Minnesota Press:

Minneapolis.

• Hill, C. (1991) The World Turned Upside Down. Penguine Books: England.

• Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2010) Cultivating Questions for a Sociology of Gardens.

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 39, 5, 498-516.

• Jacobs, J. (1962) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House,

New York, NY, USA, 1962.


63

• Jacobs, J. (1993) The city unbound: Qualitative Approaches to the City. Urban

Studies, 30, 827.

• Katz, C. (1994) Playing the Field: Questions of Fieldwork in Geography. The

Professional Geographer, 46, 1, 67-72.

• Lefebvre, H. (1969) Explosion: Marxism and the French Upheaval. Monthly

Review Press: US.

• Lefebvre, H. (1979) L’Etat.

• Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space. Blackwell: Oxford.

• Lefebvre, H. (2000) The Production of Space. Blackwell Publishers: Oxford.

• Lefebvre, H. (2002/1961) Critique of Everyday Life volume ii. Verso: London.

• Lefebvre, H. (2003) The Urban Revolution. University of Minnesota Press:

Minneapolis.

• Lefebvre, H. (2004) Rhythmanalysis. Continuum: New York.

• Lefebvre, H. (2006) Critique of Everyday Life volume iii. Verso: New York.

• Linzey, T. and Reifman, J. chapter How to put the rights of people and nature

over corporate rights in This changes everything (2011) Edited by Sarah van

Gelder and the staff of YES! Magazine. Berrett-Koehler Publishers: San

Francisco.

• Longhurst, R. Chaper 8 Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Groups in

Clifford, N, French, S & Valentine, G. (2010) Key methods in Geography. Sage:

London.

• McKay, G. (2011) Radical Gardening. Frances Lincoln Limited: London.

• Madden, D. (2010) Revisiting the End of Public Space: Assembling the Public in

an Urban Park. City & Community, 9, 2, 187-207.


64

• Massey, D. (2005) For Space. Sage: London.

• Merrifield, A. (2006) Henri Lefebvre: A critical introduction. Routledge: New

York.

• Miles, S. and Paddison, R. (2005) The Rise and Rise of Culture-led Urban

Regeneration. Urban Studies, 42, 833-839.

• Mitchell, D. (2003) The right to the city: Social justice and the fight for public

space. Guilford Press: New York.

• Mohammad, R. (2012) Lecture on Positionality and Self Reflexivity, University

of Strathclyde.

• Mooney, G. (2004) Cultural Policy AS Urban Transformation? Critical

Reflections on Glasgow, European City of Culture 1990. Local Economy, 19, 4,

327-340.

• Newman, S. (2011) Postanarchism and space: Revolutionaru fantasies and

autonomous zones. Planning theory, 10, 4, 344-365.

• Occupy Wall Street, Planting Change: Guerrilla Gardening and the Occupy

Movement, Nov 8, 2011 (Accessed 3/1/12)

http://occupywallst.org/article/planting-real-seeds-change-guerrilla-gardening-

and/

• Pain, R. (1997) Social geographies of women’s fear of crime. Transactions of the

Instititute of British Geographers, 22, 2, 231-244.

• Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (2002) Neoliberalising space. Antipode, 34, 3, 380-404.

• Pile, S. Chapter 13 Ghosts and the City of Hope in Lees, L. (2004) The

Emancipatory City. Sage: London.


65

• Prudham, S. (2009) Pimping climate change: Richard Branson, global warming

and the performance of green capitalism. Environment and Planning, 41, 1594-

1613.

• Purcell, M. (2002) Excavating LeFebvre: The right to the city and its urban

politics of the inhabitant. GeoJournal, 58, 99-108.

• Raffel, S. in McHugh, Raffel, Foss and Blum (1974) On the Beginning of Social

Enquiry. Routledge & Kegan Paul: London.

• Reynolds, R. (2009) On Guerrilla Gardening. Bloomsbury Publishing: London.

• Rose, G. (1997) Situating knowledges: positionality, reflexivities and other

tactics. Progress in Human Geography, 21, 3, 305-320.

• Save North Kelvinside Meadow, 18 August 2009, ‘Growing Vegetables on

25+year vacant council land ends up in court’

http://northkelvinmeadow.com/2009/08/18/growing-vegetables-on-25-year-

vacant-council-land-ends-up-in-court/

• Schmelzkopf, K. (1995) Urban community gardens as contested space.

Geographical Review, 85, 3, 364-381.

• Scottish Government, Climate Challenge Fund, Round 10 (Accessed 3/9/12)

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/climatechange/howyoucanhelp/

communities/ClimateChallengeFund/projects/CCF10

• Sennett, R. (1977) The fall of public man. Knopf: New York.

• Smith, N. (1996) The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist

City. Routledge: London.

• Sorkin, M. (1992) Variations on a Theme Park. Hill and Wang: England.

• Staeheli, L., Mitchell, D. and Gibson, K (2002) Conflicting rights to the city in

New York’s community gardens. Geojournal, 58. 197-205.


66

• STV Edinburgh, 15 November 2012, Community shock as ‘guerrilla garden’

destroyed without warning. (Accessed 5/12/12)

http://local.stv.tv/edinburgh/magazine/200628-community-shocked-as-guerrilla-

garden-destroyed-without-warning/

• The Herald, 29 August, 2009, Guerrilla Gardeners are reclaiming Glasgow’s

neglected spaces…one plant at a time.

• The Hidden Garden, Tramway, Code of Conduct (Accessed August 2012)

http://thehiddengardens.org.uk/assets/images/cms/501fe2fa2f375-

Code%20of%20Conduct%20for%20website.pdf

• Tracey, D. (2007) Guerrilla gardening: a manualfesto. New society publishers,

Canada.

• Valentine, G. (2008) Living with Difference: reflections on geographies of

encounter. Progress in Human Geography, 32, 3, 323-337.

• Van Dijk, T. (1997) Discourse as social interaction, volume 2. SAGE: London.

• Walzer, M. (1995) Pleasures and costs of urbanity. In P. Kasinitz (ed)

Metropolis: Center and Symbol of our Times. MacMillan Press, UK, 320-331.

• Young, I.M. (1990) Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University

Press: New Jersey.

• Zukin, S. (1997). Cultural strategies of economic development and the hegemony

of vision. In A. Merrifield, & E. Swyngedow (Eds.), The urbanization of injustice

(pp. 223–243). New York University Press: New York.


67

Appendix I Title: Press article detailing the work of Adam Purple

Adam Purple's Last Stand By JESSE McKINLEY Published: February 22, 1998

IT'S a bright Sunday morning and the sole resident of 184 Forsyth Street, a small, spry man with a long gray beard, is in his backyard performing his most cherished ritual.

''This ground is all handmade,'' he says, crouching over a shallow pit and slowly tipping several cans of ash, sawdust, food scraps and his night soil into the earth. He replaces the bricks that cover his pit, then scoffs at the city officials whose plans may well put an end to his special means of making compost.

''They're going to come destroy this?'' he says. ''By what right?''

His name, at least most of the time, is Adam Purple, and since 1981 he has lived on the ground floor of No. 184, an abandoned city-owned building on the Lower East Side, without electricity, without heat, without indoor plumbing.

His endurance is impressive when you consider Mr. Purple's age -- 67 -- and the other elements of his ascetic regimen. He is a strict vegetarian, fueling himself with a tofu-based stew he makes once a week over his wood-burning stove. He collects his water from fountains and open hydrants and then stores it in jugs in his ever-cool basement. He eschews petroleum products and the machines that consume them, from oil lamps to city buses.

He scavenges most everything he needs on the streets, he says, from his gray tennis shoes to wood for his stove to batteries for the flashlights he uses after dark. And the cans and bottles he collects and recycles earn him about $2,000 a year, money he uses for two extravagances: a phone and a daily cup of coffee.

What's driving him?

''One doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist or a doomsayer to recognize that there may be something happening to the atmospheric systems on the planet Earth,'' Mr. Purple said. ''That's why I renounce the flush toilet, renounce the internal combustion engine. As a political statement. I can live without.''


68

This ecological ethos led to Mr. Purple's most noted accomplishment -- and his animus toward all things bureaucratic. In the mid-1980's, Mr. Purple was at the center of a bitter fight over his Garden of Eden, an elaborate and widely praised community garden he cultivated on five vacant city-owned lots behind his building.

The city wanted to build low- and moderate-income housing there. The battle drew international attention and the scrutiny of the Federal courts. In January 1986, the city finally bulldozed the garden; several low-rise apartment buildings were put up on the site.

Now, Mr. Purple is fighting the city again, this time over a plan to demolish 184 Forsyth, a decaying six-story tenement, and replace it with a 21-unit federally funded housing project sponsored by the New York Society for the Deaf. Mr. Purple thinks the building should be renovated, preferably with an apartment for him.

Community Board 3 is to vote Tuesday on the demolition plan. But the final decision lies with the City Council, and there, Mr. Purple's prospects seem slim. ''No one wants to displace people,'' said Councilwoman Kathryn E. Freed. ''But you can hardly quarrel with the need of housing in his city.''

Even Mr. Purple's supporters say his blocking the project is a long shot. But his latest campaign has codified his reputation as an ornery gadfly, a man whose quixotic struggles seem focused not only on defending his turf but also on maintaining a life style and ideals that, for many, went out of style with the Nixon Administration.

''He is the purest example of a hippie ever seen in this city,'' said Mary Cantwell, the author of ''Manhattan, When I Young,'' who met Mr. Purple in 1985. ''He is an artifact of that era, living in a very unlikely time and place, namely present-day New York City.''

Mr. Purple has been something of a fringe fixture ever since he moved to the city 30 years ago. His appearance and his moniker were striking even in a city known for its eclectic characters and wild sartorial tastes. During much of the 70's and early 80's, he dressed almost entirely in the royal hue: purple shirts, purple sweaters, purple pants. With his beard, gray hair, floppy green stocking cap, sunglasses and twinkling blue eyes, he looks like Santa Claus if Santa hit the skids and lost the belly.

He moved into 184 Forsyth in 1972 as a month-to-month tenant. In 1976, the building was abandoned by its landlord and later transferred to the city. Its last tenants -- all but Mr. Purple -- left after Consolidated Edison turned off the electricity in 1981 because the city had not paid the bill.

Mr. Purple says he hasn't paid rent since the landlord left and services ceased, and city records show he owes some $350,000 in back rent,


69

unlikely to be paid anytime soon. ''Those pinheads,'' Mr. Purple said recently in typical fashion. ''Don't they know who they're dealing with?''

Mr. Purple has staved off at least four attempts to evict him, said his lawyer, Colleen McGuire. Three eviction proceedings were dismissed on technicalities; the fourth has been pending for nearly a decade, effectively killing the case, Ms. McGuire said.

The city's Department of Housing Preservation and Development released two statements this month supporting the deaf project and saying they would try to to settle with Mr. Purple. But a spokesman, Rick Lepkowski, declined to discuss specifics.

Mr. Purple, meanwhile, says he works hard to keep up the building, putting makeshift caps on several chimneys and spending $3,500 for a new roof. ''The issue is not Adam Purple, the issue is this building,'' he said, pointing at its ragged exterior and shattered windows. ''The issue is malicious neglect, and this is the evidence.''

For some observers, there is more at stake than where Mr. Purple lives. It is what he represents: a kind of radical individualism that thrived on the Lower East Side long before the musical ''Rent!'' made squatters fashionable and trendy clubs began sprouting on gritty side streets.

''It seems what he's trying to preserve is really himself, and that's a cause that deserves some support,'' said James Stewart Polshek, the former dean of the School of Architecture at Columbia University, who called the destruction of the Garden of Eden ''an urban crime.'' ''He's more important than the bricks and mortar.''

While his place in the pantheon of the city's eccentrics is secure, Mr. Purple remains an elusive public figure. Nobody seems sure of his real name. Over the years he has assumed pseudonyms ranging from the clever (the Rev. Les Ego) to the historical (John Peter Zenger 2d) to the just plain odd (General Zen of the Headquarters Intergalactic of Psychic Police of Uranus). A database search of the Social Security number listed for Mr. Purple on a 1982 city document found it registered to a man born in North Carolina in 1978.

What Mr. Purple reveals of his history suggests a life colored by both a traditional American upbringing and a countercultural awakening. He was born and raised in Independence, Mo., one of seven children. His father, Richard, was a machinist; his mother, Juanita, a seamstress.

Two jarring episodes marked his early life. When he was 9, he said, his 11-year-old brother died of appendicitis because ''the doctors wouldn't operate on him until my father got there with money.''


70

Three years later, his father was accidentally electrocuted fighting a fire at the machine shop while his son Adam looked on. ''That's another reason I don't need electricity,'' Mr. Purple said.

He says he attended a small college in Kansas and served two years stateside in the United States Army before returning to school for a master's degree in journalism from the University of Missouri. After several years teaching at high schools and junior colleges in California and South Dakota, Mr. Purple said, he made his way East, working briefly for a political action group run by Paul Krassner, the satirist, and then landing a job as a reporter for The York Gazette and Daily in York, Pa.

It was there, working the police beat, Mr. Purple says, that he began to feel distanced from the mainstream. ''It taught me to be wary of the police,'' he said. ''They had dogs and they used them on people.''

He left Pennsylvania. During the mid-1960's, he traveled, he said, finding kindred spirits in hippie havens like Berkeley and Big Sur, in California, and Dixon, N.M., experimenting with drugs and writing.

In 1968, he landed in New York, hoping to get a book contract for the volume of meditation games he called ''Zentences!'' While he never found a publisher, Mr. Purple says, he made some 600 copies of the book between 1967 and 1973. One copy, measuring one inch by one inch, is currently safeguarded as a historical artifact in the New York Public Library's rare book collection.

The Village Voice was the first publication to notice Mr. Purple, with a report in June 1969 of ''a bearded bon vivant'' who hung out in Central Park, called himself Les Ego and put ''people on his back to 'blow their minds and straighten their spines.' ''

Though Mr. Purple sometimes calls himself ''an old reporter'' and keeps careful records of all the articles ever published about him, he remains extremely skeptical of the press. In 1990, a reporter from New York magazine requested an interview for a ''Where Are They Now?'' article. Mr. Purple sent back a copy of the reporter's letter with its grammar corrected.

''Please allow me to respond to your somewhat inept note,'' he wrote, under the Les Ego pseudonym. ''Because New York has published nothing zenlightening about the Garden since 27 August 1979, I see no reason to trust your magazine.''

Reporters who do manage to interview Mr. Purple typically have their published work mailed back to them with corrections, factual and interpretive, penned in the margins. Photographers are told how, where and sometimes even with what lens to shoot.


71

He reads voraciously, spending much of each day perusing journals like the World Press Review and Foreign Affairs, or digging into the 3,000 books he stores throughout the building. A recent visitor noticed copies of The New York Observer, Time Out magazine and Vanity Fair lying inside the front door, some addressed to fictional characters of Mr. Purple's invention.

On the third floor are his archives, a collection of press clips and personal writings stored on long hand-made tables and covered with old newspapers to protect them from the occasionally leaky roof.

Anyone looking for a simple answer or a sound bite from Mr. Purple is likely to be frustrated. Conversations with him travel in immensely wide, long arcs. He quotes freely -- and accurately -- from Socrates, Shakespeare and Bob Dylan, and finds connective tissue between such topics as the ozone layer, the irrationality of pi and the relation between his garden and the black monolith from the movie ''2001: A Space Odyssey.''

''What makes him interesting is that he's not a nut,'' Mr. Polshek said. ''He likes to pretend he is, but he's one smart cookie.''

Also, it quickly becomes apparent, his mind runs in circular currents, and the destruction of the Garden of Eden is an eddy that often traps his thoughts. ''It was my pursuit of happiness,'' he said. The current threat to his building only increases its pull.

The Garden began in the spring of 1975. Forsyth Street, like much of the Lower East Side, had fallen into a spiral of urban decay, with prostitution, drug use and trash-strewn lots marring a strip once known for vibrant storefronts and sturdy old tenements. With the city suffering a financial crisis, vacant buildings in the area were often demolished to prevent arson and other crimes.

One building torn down was directly behind the back windows of the apartment of Mr. Purple and his companion at the time, a young woman who went by the name of Eve. They decided to plant something, said Mr. Purple, in part to attract crickets, which he said would warn them if someone was approaching their back window. ''You can't get within three feet of a cricket without it stopping its chirping,'' he said. ''It's silence as a security system.''

He began biking to Central Park to collect horse manure, which he then mixed with ash, his own waste, and with rubble in the lot to create batches of fertile topsoil. That process alone attracted attention.

''He'd pull up every so often on his way back from the park, with a full load,'' said Seymour Hacker, a rare books dealer on West 57th Street and Mr. Purple's friend. ''It was quite a vision for my customers.''


72

Planted in perfect concentric circles around a yin-yang symbol, the garden slowly grew outward into neighboring lots, becoming a majestic 15,000-square-foot array of raspberries, roses, lilies, fruit trees and other flora, all diligently tended by Mr. Purple and his supporters.

The garden drew local admirers and global press. National Geographic did a photo spread, as did several foreign publications. Mr. Purple's work drew comparisons to the earth sculpture of artists like Robert Smithson and Walter De Maria.

''It was an absolutely astonishing creation,'' said Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblet, an expert on street life and a former head of New York University's Department of Performance Studies. Besides its natural beauty, Ms. Kirshenblatt-Gimblet said, the garden had an inherently political message.

''He made a garden out of a ruin,'' she said. ''So symbolically it was an especially strong indictment of the failure of the city to do the same.''

But by the early 1980's, city officials were looking for places to build housing for some half-million people. One site they had in mind was that of the garden.

As the demolition date approached, opposition grew. Neighborhood activists and supporters swarmed into community board meetings and the garden's brick paths. Painted purple footprints began appearing on sidewalks, wending their way to the garden. A group of architects, academics and environmentalists went to court to block construction.

In 1985, Judge Vincent L. Broderick of Federal District Court, who had previously barred the garden's demolition, ruled that ''irreparable harm would be incurred only by Purple were the garden to be destroyed since few others derive benefit from it.''

On Jan. 8, 1986, as Adam Purple watched from his windows, bulldozers uprooted the Garden of Eden. ''I gave this city two works of art,'' said Mr. Purple, referring to the garden and his book. ''They ignore one and trash the other.''

He added, with a pinch in his voice: ''Give me a break. When do I get respect?''

In response to questions about the current conflict, the Department of Housing Preservation and Development issued a statement saying that it and the Society for the Deaf were willing to help Mr. Purple find another apartment. ''But he has not been amenable,'' the statement said.

Considering Mr. Purple's cantankerous nature, that may be an understatement. He is certain that those who demolished his garden -- or who destroy 184 Forsyth -- will have a cosmic comeuppance.


73

''The mills of the gods grind slowly,'' he said with a sly smile, paraphrasing a quotation whose author he has forgotten. ''But they grind exceedingly fine.''

In the meantime, Mr. Purple sticks to a regular routine, waking at dawn, redeeming his cans, meditating or reading in the afternoon. His building is chilly and damp inside. In the front hallway, amid dozens of scavenged umbrellas, the plaster has begun to slip from the ceiling. At the end of the hall is what Mr. Purple calls his ''inner sanctum,'' two rooms adorned with his wood stove, a typewriter, a mattress on the floor, and a pair of enamel kettles he uses as chamber pots. On cold days, he is a slave to his fire, stoking its embers early in the morning and feeding it scavenged wood all day long.

At night, he stows away his reading and turns on a small radio to listen to the news and opinion on WBAI-FM, a longtime bastion of liberal die-hards. Depending on the cold, he might wear a scarf or gloves to bed.

All that remains of the garden is a single Chinese empress tree, a few transplanted black raspberry bushes and, in his kitchen, some dried basil he uses to season his stew.

Mr. Purple wears little purple nowadays, except the ball cap under his stocking cap. He put the color away, he said, after the garden was destroyed.

''Purple went out with the garden,'' he said. ''Adam Purple doesn't exist.''

He said he might consider taking an apartment if the city offered it, but only if he could continue his ritual of turning waste into soil. And, of course, he'd have a few questions. ''How come I'm being given preference?'' he said. ''How can I be put at the top of the list?''

Why wouldn't he leave the city, he is asked, go someplace where the climate --

both human and celestial -- is more in tune with his horticultural urges?

Mr. Purple harrumphs. ''I'm teaching lessons about how to survive, an experiment on making earth,'' he says. ''Of course you could do it outside the city, but the challenge is here.''

He pauses for a second, and then, as is his way, reconsiders. ''It's the Athenian oath,'' he said. ''The Athenian oath. The duty or responsibility of every citizen to leave the scene a little better than when they got there, to improve things.''

A Rare, Classic Volume, All One Square Inch of It


74

Deep within the New York Public Library's rare book collection, there is an old wood cabinet where the some of the world's tiniest works of literature sit under lock and key.

The collection includes a 1660 edition of a shorthand Bible (2 1/2 inches tall) and a 19th-century copy of a letter by Galileo that measures a whopping 1/2 inch by 3/4 inch. Then there is a more recent addition: ''Zentences!'' by Les Ego, also known as Adam Purple.

The book, donated by Mr. Purple in 1972, has been preserved because of its quality and because of its author's historical significance, John Rathe, a librarian, said. It measures one inch by one inch. Besides its size, the structure and content of ''Zentences!'' are also curious. Each tiny page is split in two. On the top are nouns like ''Love'' or ''The Tao.'' On the bottom are verb phrases, for example, ''needs a vacation in Oz'' and ''is a chaste shadow.''

The idea, Mr. Purple said, was that a reader could flip through the book and pair the nouns with the verbs to create koan-like sentences for meditation. Hence the title.

Its trippy concept notwithstanding, ''Zentences!'' is precisely crafted, with a cloth cover, dyed page edges, headbands on the binding and an inscription page. ''This is not an art object pretending to be a book,'' Mr. Rathe said. ''It is, in fact, a book made in classic fashion.''

Mr. Purple says that he hand-made some 600 copies, each with different words but that probably fewer than 100 existed today.

''People left them in their pants and they got washed away,'' he says. ''But the ones that are still around are going to be worth a lot someday.'' JESSE McKINLEY

An analysis of guerrilla gardens using ... - Urban...

Documents

Transcript of An analysis of guerrilla gardens using ... - Urban...