community building

Luca Oszwald

Democratic values are based on a certain level of trust in the community. Community can be viewed on many different scales, from a small group of friends to society as a whole. A neighbourhood like Shtromka is an interesting size of community. It is a place where democracy can be tried out directly and on a small scale. As human beings, our neighbourhood is also our most everyday connection to reality.

Regular encounters are necessary for a community to develop. The Estonian tradition of community houses (rahvamaja) and the theory of 'third places' indicate that a community needs locations where people can experience spontaneous encounters and meet regularly. With a building explicitly designated for the community, we can create physical and linguistic space for community in our reality.

In my work, I investigate the thesis that we need spaces whose intention is to enable people to meet, exchange ideas and get to know each other in order to better understand ourselves as a community within the neighbourhood and the democratic society.
Since the topic of community building has been occupying me for quite some time, I want to develop a new perspective on this subject through the case study of Shtromka and, with the help of this topic, develop a new perspective on Shtromka itself.

Examining Shtromka as a case study is particularly interesting because there are no clear definitions and borders of where or what Shtromka actually is. It is an intuitive district. The name Shtromka, which is not an official term for this area, can therefore be seen as describing the shared reality of the people living here. What I am still not sure about is where in space Shtromka becomes clearly visible. A community building could be the answer to that.

double meaning

When I talk about community building, I mean both the process of forming a community and a built space for the community. It is precisely this double meaning that creates an interesting tension and forms the starting point for my research.

I claim that it is this synergy between process and object that is needed to manifest community in reality. A place named after the purpose of community building opens up room for community in space and also in spoken language. "[...] spaces do not simply exist, but rather are created in action and as spatial structures are embodied in institutions that pre-structure action. [...] Doreen Massey ends her book For Space with the words: “If time presents us with the opportunities of change and (as some would see it) the terror of death, then space presents us with the social in the widest sense: the challenge of our constitutive interrelatedness” (Massey 2005, 195)." [1]
The meaning of a space is therefore very important to the interaction of its users, as well as its spatial formulation. And we should not forget about that the process of creating a space and the way it is built also influence the users. In the case of a community that creates a space together, this process itself not only symbolises the value of the community but strengthens it at the same time.

detour

To translate the theoretical concepts of community building into tangible experience, during our Detour for the final event of the studio, we made a small experiment together.
We stopped by the square in the middle of Shtromka close to the administrative building and the Stroomi Keskus, the location I picked for an input about community building. The exercise aimed to demonstrate physically what I argue for theoretically: that community building requires both process and space.

Initially gathering closely around the sheet, we then stepped backward while holding on to the fabric, creating tension in it. This demonstrated how spatial separation after encounter doesn't have to dissolve communal ties. The stretched material illustrated that our connections persist across different contexts and distances, with future encounters strengthening our group identity over time.

In the end, we elevated the sheet above our heads, symbolically constructing both an abstract community and its physical building. This represented how our individual participation in space-making enhances collective cohesion, converting connection into three-dimensional space. Through this we embodied the emergence of shared infrastructure from our collaborative engagement.

This exercise made visible what remains abstract in theory: that community is created through action, and that a physical space (even a temporary one like our bed sheet) can catalyse collective identity. It raised the question: what if Shtromka had a permanent place where such moments of coming together could happen not as a one-time happening, but as everyday reality?

community building
as a process

why do we need community?

Aristotle describes humans as Zoon Politikon, which characterises them as social and political beings. The city, as a political community, is for Aristotle one of the highest forms of community. [2]

The whole world relies on communities. We organise ourselves in nations, cities, tribes, families (...) and make ourselves dependent on each other. Through trade relations and digitalisation, we are globally connected. Through the internet, the exchange of information is faster than ever - regardless of distance. And traveling from one country to the other is physically as easy as never before. This shows also a different perception of space, which Martina Löw descripes as relational. Looking at different concepts of space, we can see, that the perception of space nowadays is influenced by our world being so interconnected. That dimension of how we perceive space nowadays leads to insecurities in some people, which describes pretty well our times of existing fear the need of defending national territory. So we need new spatial solutions to help people regain more trust. [3]

And trust is necessary for a functioning democracy. Democratic values are based on trust in the community. Strengthening trust in the community is therefore a democratic act and spaces for enabling and supporting community building are therefore democratic spaces.
Gaining trust in a smaller community such as a neighbourhood is easier to achieve and can serve as a model and motivator for a larger scale community, such as an entire nation.

I think the neighbourhood is an interesting size of community. Here democracy can be tried out directly and on a small scale. To build a community, we must be able to develop an understanding of other peoples lived realities. Once we develop a sense for the plurality of society, we can truly appreciate diversity.

encounter leads to community

In order to develop a sense of belonging to a community, it is necessary to experience regular encounters with the others. "[...] people get to know one another and to like one another and then start to care for one another." [4]
As Ray Oldenburg describes it, in devotion to community builing, we need next to our home and our workplace a "third place", an informal public gathering place. "These places serve community best to the extent that they are inclusive and local. The first and most important function of third places is that of uniting the neighborhood." [5]

community building
as a place

community buildings in estonia's history

Because Estonia already has a rich background in the topic of community buildings, I want to use the chance to look a bit into that history. What narrative do these buildings hold? What was their purpose and how were they used?

The Beginning of the community house
In the early 20th century, in the first independent Estonian state, the first community houses (rahvamaja) were built by ordinary people, aiming to offer a space for new types of cultural activities such as choirs, plays, orchestras, lectures, libraries and public festivities for local communities. The state set up a network of approximately 500 community houses all over Estonia. The cultural centers were led by bottom-up initiatives, which was a very clear symbol for the importance of the citizens themselves for the civil society. [6]

Sovietisation
During the Soviet occupation, the community houses were closed and the civic initiatives were prohibited. The buildings that the state then took over were instrumentalized as a means of power - community houses were turned into centers for "political education". Instead of having free places for gathering and discussions, community houses were led under the state administration's strict rules, censorship and propaganda, shaping the "homo sovieticus". The symbolic of the places completely changed. [7]

Current role
Today there are still over 300 community houses. And they play an important role again - now in preserving Estonian culture and traditions. Through a wide range of offers for many age groups, such as music classes, concerts, language courses or traditional dance workshops, people with different backgrounds are to be brought together. Their claim is, that a sense of community is created through gathering for these activities. The community houses once again stand for the appreciation of cohesion, education, and cultural exchange. [8]

Shtromka

In Shtromka, there is currently no community house; the nearest one is in Kopli. The place that maybe comes closest, is the square in the middle of Shtromka, next to the administative building, which is offering courses, and Stroomi keskus. It's a place of many encounters with free activities, like a playground and a skate park, as well as a stage (as they also are in the rahvamaja).

Anyways, the offer doesn't allow unconditional use. Neither in the square, nor the rahvamaja. This would also be my critique on oldenburgs "third places". The Places he mentions to be third places mainly have a specific purpose. And I believe that is necessary for community building to be open in use. For the courses in the administrative building, one has to register, in the restaurants one needs to consume and even on the open square the weather-conditions influence its use. An intentional space for unintentional encounters does not exist yet.

Still people find places for gathering. In Shtromka some neighbours for example meet in a kinder-garden to have their neighbourhood meetings there in the evening. And also schools are used for afternoon- and evening-activities such as language classes. [9] Using these places outside of the time of their main purpose use is definitely a beautiful way of using what exists in the district. But having a place named after a certain function, also displays it's use's importance. when we talk about a school, we immediately know what place this is and what is done there, it's a place for education and learning. We don't necessarily also have in mind, that it is used differently in the evenings. This is what I want to highlight with my research about community building.

reality through space and language

"Every configuration of space transports a narrative." [10]

I believe we need places dedicated to encounter and community because they demonstrate the importance of community for our democratic society. That a built space holds a strong narrative can also be witnessed by looking at the history of the rahvamaja in Estonia.

A community building that supports community building in the neighbourhood shouldn't force specific uses and should be open to anyone. Having a community building of the kind that I imagine in Shtromka means there would be a place for unconditional use and encounter in the neighbourhood. From the rahvamaja we can learn that multi-purpose places that can host a variety of activities serve the community. What is still missing in traditional community houses is an everyday-ness. Going to a place because of a specific activity is one thing, but going somewhere without a specific intention brings the place to another level of feeling at home.

Having a space in the neighbourhood as an extension of one's own home, a sort of collective living room, can strengthen the sense of community on the one hand through regular encounters and on the other hand through common ownership. I think that a new community building for Shtromka should neither be privately owned nor belong to the government. It should be owned by the community, be commonly led, and every person should be able to participate. In that case, the shared responsibility also brings people closer together. Of course, this shared responsibility does also bring conflicts into the community. But conflicts also mean having to deal with each other, think about other people's intentions, and find solutions.

What I imagine is a place that is flexibly usable, where people can stay even without intention, a space for which responsibility is shared together.
For Shtromka specifically, such a community building could serve as a concrete manifestation of what is currently an intuitive district. The connections that define Shtromka exist primarily between people, not through official borders or administrative definitions. A physical place dedicated to community would strengthen these human connections and give spatial presence to what already exists as a shared understanding among neighbours.
And maybe this can be a spatial answer to the uncertainties and mistrust that characterise today's world of globalisation and digitalisation.

References:

[1] Martina Löw, The sociology of space, Berlin: Springer, 2016, p. xiv

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_(Aristotle); https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politik_(Aristoteles) accessed: 12.11.2025

[3] Martina Löw, Refiguration. Über Stadt- und Raumentwicklung im 21. Jahrhundert, online: https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=UWHg-P_YwF4 accessed: 14.11.2025

[4] Ray Oldenburg, The great good place, Cambridge 1989: Da Capo Press, p. 20

[5] Oldenburg (1989) p. 16

[6] Egge Kulbok-Lattik, The Sovietization of Estonian Community Houses (Rahvamaja): Soviet Guidelines, in Acta Historica Tallinnensia, 2014, 20, p. 157-190, here: p. 157f

[7] Kulbok-Lattik (2014), p. 160-162

[8] Ren Reinumg, The Heartbeat of Estonian Communities, https://kultuurikeskuskosmos.com/blog/exploring-the-role-of-cultural-centers-in-estonia-s-community-life 21.07.2025 (accessed: 20.11.2025)

[9] Karina Vabson (as an inhabitant of Shtromka) in a personal conversation about Shtromka, 18.11.2025

[10] Martin Düchs, Weimarer Kontroversen: Wie können wir besser zusammen wohnen? Mit Martina Löw & Martin Düchs, www. youtube.com/watch?v=MN-V0fXtQyY accessed: 14.11.2025

[11] Aleksander Kurvits, Rahvamaja: käsiraamat rahvamajade asutamise ja ülalpidamise, ruumide ja ümbruse korraldamise ja kaunistamise ning tegevuse juhtimise ja edendamise alal. [Community houses: a handbook on establishing and maintaining community houses, organising and decorating their premises and surroundings, and managing and promoting their activities.] Tallinn: Kirjastus kooperatiiv 1935