A factory of the future - An attempt to revitalise industrial heritage with new technologies

By Meta Štular


Industrial heritage as an integral part of the general cultural heritage has an important role in a city’s identity, because the accelerated development of contemporary cities was the result of the emergence of industrialisation. The abandoning of industrial activities raises the issue of the fate of the heritage that has so pro- foundly marked our cities and impacted their architectural and societal appearance. 

This contribution is a detailed report on the revitalisation of the former Rog factory complex, whose central building was proclaimed an object of cultural heritage based on an ordinance on protection of the districts of Poljane and St Peter. The former factory is one of the last preserved fine examples of old industrial architecture in Ljubljana. The Municipality of Ljubljana (MOL) based its revitalisation scheme on continuing the industrial tradition by focusing on developing a centre for production in design, architecture and the visual arts.

In the first part, we will touch on the topic of preserving industrial cultural heritage, provide a short history of the factory, and summarise the chronology of the revitalisation process that has been carried out by MOL since 2007. 

Next, we present in more detail the European Second Chance development project, whose pivotal contribution has been its methodological approach to culturally developing and revitalising degraded industrial areas. Through the Second Chance project, we again verified the original renovation design proposal for Rog, and opted for the development of a decentralised factory with shared manufacturing work- shops and jointly used spaces in which individual creators, businesses, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) as well as educational and research institutions could make use of the common infrastructure coupled with appropriate support programmes[1]. 

Temporary use is an important constant in the former factory’s recent history. How to include the grassroot use of the space by interested groups and individuals in the city’s renovation plans is a complex challenge – and one that was particularly pressing at the time this article was written[2]. Yet this topic, which deserves attention in a public debate, will only be partially dealt with herein. 

In the exhibition catalogue, our focus will be on presenting the development methodology and the role of new technologies in revitalising former factories. This endeavour will be based in part on the example of the RogLab Production Space – a pilot project for the new Rog Centre. We will also consider whether the globalisation processes and new technologies can be harnessed for the benefit of independent creators, innovators, small and micro enterprises and NGOs. We will ask which institutional, organisational and business models are required for these new production modes and relations. Furthermore, we will outline a possible future for factories at a turning point, as the second industrial revolution comes to a close, the third is in the process of arriving and a fourth is already being announced.

The history of the Rog factory[3]

Primary use 

The industrial history of the Ljubljana district of St Peter, where the former Rog factory stands, goes back to 1871, when the owner Ivan Janež built a ground-floor tannery. In 1879, he built a single-storey factory building on the same site. His son, who took over the business in 1879, further enlarged the tannery building. At the end of the 19th century, nearly 100 workers were employed at the tannery. 

In 1900, Janež’s factory was bought by Carl Pollak, who modernised it and expanded the production to leather products. The new factory was the first ferro-concrete industrial structure in the city. A patent of the French engineer Francoiş Hannebique and plans (1922) by the structural engineer Alois Kral were employed in the building of it. 

During the economic recession of the 1930s, Pollak’s firm was placed under the administration of the City Savings Bank. After going into bankruptcy in 1938, the factory’s operations passed on to the Indus company, a leather and leather products factory. In 1952, the building began to be used by the Rog bicycle and typewriter factory. The last major restructuring works on the central and accessory buildings were carried out in 1953 and 1963. 

Secondary use 

Once the factory had ceased operations in the early 1990s parts of the factory complex began, on occasion, to be used by various organisations for the staging of cultural events – like the Biennale of Industrial Design and the Break Festival. In 2002, MOL signed a lease agreement with LB Hypo for the Rog factory area and the associated buildings. Since being closed down, the future of Rog has been the subject of many discussions. In 1995, MOL hosted the Eurocultures colloquium, which focused on revitalising the area of the former factory. The colloquium’s conclusions stressed the significance of a public and mixed programme (cultural, crafts and residential designations). Since 2006, many temporary users, different groups and individuals have operated in the former Rog factory complex, pursuing largely cultural, artistic and social programmes. 

Chronology of the development of the former Rog factory[4]

MOL signed a lease agreement with LB Hypo for the structures in the Rog area. 2007: MOL’s collaboration with a project group of experts in visual arts, architecture and design led to the first programme design for the new Rog Centre. 

An open urban planning and architectural competition for reconstruction of the Rog fac- tory area, which was won by the MX_SI studio. The renovation project for the entire area of the former Rog factory was initially conceived on the basis of a public-private partnership model. The public section of the area would comprise the Rog Centre for Contemporary Arts with an associated underground parking garage, while the private section would encompass the residential, hotel and business complex with an associated underground parking garage. 

MOL, in collaboration with the Museum and Galleries of Ljubljana, joined the European Sec- ond Chance project, whose aim is to revitalise former industrial areas in five European cities. 

MOL finally buys the former factory Rog com- plex. The project plan for restructuring the area was limited to renovation of the listed building of the former Rog factory that would become, along with a new extension for the Exhibition Hall, the Rog Centre. The renovation also included the construction of business premises on the ground floor, an underground parking garage and the possibility of building a hotel or apartment complex along Trubarjeva Street. 

An unsuccessful call for a public-private partnership. Start of the RogLab pilot project. 

MOL abandoned the public-private partnership model and reduced the renovation project which, in the end, only included the listed former factory building, the construction of a small parking lot, and a public park. 

MOL began demolition work on the extensions of the factory’s central building, sparking a conflict over the intentions of the reuse. 

The industrial heritage 

Why and how to preserve the industrial heritage? 

The sight of decaying industrial structures in city centres has a particularly bitter aftertaste for Slovenians as the result of the questionable privatisation measures carried out during the political and societal transition that followed the breakup of Yugoslavia. The revitalisation of former factories would send out the unequivocal message that we, as a society, wish to constructively overcome this situation. 

The Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage from 2003 states that adapting industrial sites to the new content/program is an acceptable practice provided it contributes to the preservation of industrial heritage. But the Charter also recommends that the new uses of former industrial structures be as compatible with the original or core use as possible.[5]

Therefore, re-using former factories only makes complete sense if the new content/program underlines the value of the activities, people and knowledge they housed in the past. They are also symbolic structures that help bridge
the gap between the old and new modes of production. “Industrial heritage can have an important role in the economic regeneration of decayed or declining areas. The continuity that reuse implies may provide psychological stability for communities facing the sudden end of long-standing sources of employment.” NTC 2004). Last but not least, former industrial complexes also perform a connecting function in terms of space, as they usually constitute large, enclosed, derelict areas that cut off part of the city from the rest, from the life of the city. 

The non-material heritage of the former Rog factory has clearly also been marked by temporary use. Through public programmes such as the Rog Social Centre, the ‘invisible’ consequences of deindustrialisation and globalisation have become more visible. An example is the distress of numerous disfranchised migrant workers whose problems should not be disregarded by an inclusive city. On the contrary, they should be integrated into the narrative of the former factory’s future development as an inclusive and international space for joint use and collaboration. 

Yet preserving industrial heritage does not merely promote understanding of the industrial past and present, it also moves us look into the future. 

The Second Chance project – checking the starting points and goals of revitalisation 

The theme-topic of the European Second Chance project[6] was the cultural revitalisation of degraded industrial areas in five Central European cities. The project I conducted[7] between January 2010 and September 2013 was based on the earlier development process of the former Rog factory. Its aim was to trigger a wider discussion with interested groups of stakeholders to check whether the past findings and goals based upon them were still valid. 

Rog has always been at the intersection of two approaches to development – bottom-up and top-down. The Second Chance project plainly showed that projects as complex as revitalising the former Rog factory require more than a bot- tom-up approach. The horizon of this type of planning is essentially limited by the interests of specific groups and individuals and intrinsically involves excluding groups and individuals with different interests. Nor is exclusively top- down planning sufficient, since it lacks practical experience and doesn’t provide information about future users’ actual needs. The best ideas crystallize through a (usually lengthy) dialogue between different groups of stakeholders and decision-makers. But ongoing dialogue represents a huge challenge over lengthy development processes. During the Rog factory’s more than 10-year development process, there have been changes in the structure of stakeholders as well as the local and global cultural, economic, societal and technological contexts. Finally, it is difficult to reconcile complex and lengthy development processes with the timelines and political objectives of the relatively short terms of office at the municipal and national levels. 

In the Second Chance project the approaches were complementary, since in all project phases upwards of 300 stakeholders from different interest groups were included: temporary users of the Rog factory[8]; creators (artists, architects, designers); producers in culture from the public sector and non-government organisations, decision-makers from the city and government; entrepreneurs; an international group of professionals in the field of culture; local residents living near the former factory. 

When the Second Chance project started, the urban planning and architectural solutions for the former Rog factory area has already been agreed, and the Centre’s use had also been largely determined. So the Second Chance project focused on developing a new cultural institution: its programmes and possible or- ganisational models. Our activity thus found its place in the gap between the needs and plans of the Municipality of Ljubljana and the potential users’ expectations. 

We began our research by analysing good examples of revitalised production spaces across Europe. We then continued with an in-depth SWOT analysis (analysis of strengths, weakness- es, opportunities and threats) aimed at revising the existing revitalisation plans for the former Rog factory area. In December 2010, we presented our draft plan to members of the expert group who had participated in the drawing 

up of the first programme concept for the Rog Centre in 2007.[9] In February 2011, we presented the results to the broader interested public. The analysis confirmed all essential aspects of the project (location, architectural and urban de- signs, direction in terms of content), but a great number of findings were inconsistent with the stakeholders’ experiences, triggering a vivid and constructive exchange of ideas concerning possible improvements to the revitalisation plans. The ensuing active discussion with nearly 100 participants showed that the former Rog factory’s revitalisation held a special place in the public discussion, and that the dialogue among different future interest groups would probably reveal whether we as a society had the tools and procedures necessary to carry out such a development to the advantage of as many citizens as possible. 

This was followed by a transnational public-private partnership (PPP) analysis, with which we wished to verify the existing PPP practices in culture. The practical cases demonstrated that possible partners in such projects could come from both the private sector and civil society. In April 2011, we debated the transnational draft PPP with the interested local community public and the project’s international partners. In planning the RogLab pilot project, it was also the PPP analysis that made us focus on building a private-public-civil partnership whereby the partners both use and give meaning to the public infrastructure. 

In September 2011, we organised a meeting with people who either live or work in the vicinity of the former Rog factory. The neighbours were sorry not to have been included in the development process earlier, but still showed great interest in the development plans. They proposed fresh non-commercial (for example, a library and a youth centre) and commercial contents (for example, a bakery, a café) that are missing in the area. But, above all, they were interested in access to the parking lots. 

All of the information collected up to that point was summarised in a working paper entitled “The Development Vision”, which served as a draft usage concept plan upon which to base a scheme for further development of the former factory and the pilot investment. The feasibility of the development plan was checked using the focus group methodology. We tried to compose a heterogeneous structure of stakeholders[10] and interest groups that would enable us to identify the key elements of a successful societal, cultural and economic revitalisation of the former factory. The analysis provided us with deeper insight into the needs of potential partners and users, which is essential to avoid implementing generic solutions determined in advance.[11]

During the more than three-year investigation and development process that unfolded in the course of the Second Chance project we found, along with several other participants, that the initial design concept idea no longer met the requirements of the present time and potential users. We could better face the complex challenges of society today by employing the intersectoral collaboration of various experts who nowadays act as private entrepreneurs, independent creators and researchers associated in informal groups or active within structures that do not allow for enough interdisciplinary cooperation. New communication and production technologies promoting and enabling decentralised work could also prove helpful. We reformulated our vision of the Rog Centre, placing greater emphasis on the joint use of space, new technologies and new forms of management. The 8,000 m2 of the Rog Centre’s surface area employs a modular design so as to adapt to users’ changing needs, while 5,000 m2 is intended for a public culture programme (shared workshops, laboratories and social spaces on the ground floor; multi-purpose spaces, education and exhibition spaces and a library on the first floor; design work studios and studios for visiting creators on the second floor). The remaining space is intended for a storage and communications area and commercial content for the local community and the Centre’s users. The Rog Centre would be directly connected to the immediate neighbourhood primarily by a public park in front of it, a library, and multi-purpose spaces whose programmes would be adaptable to the needs of the immediate local community. 

RogLab – implementing the results of the Second Chance development project 

The RogLab pilot project was designed as a pro- duction, education and presentation space with- in a shipping container-like structure of 30 m2. The pilot project was intended to test the out- comes of past research and develop, on a small scale, the potential of the content and ways of working that might be developed at the new Rog Centre once the former factory was renovated. 

With regard to the role and impact of the future Rog Centre, the interested public expressed doubts about this new big institution, feeling it would encroach on the already limited resources allocated to culture and creative activities. As a result, we decided to design the RogLab so as to develop an organisational model that would combine and support – in terms of programme and infrastructure – the existing creative initiatives and organisations and could to form the organisational basis of the Rog Centre. 

In the context of the global economic crisis and the de-industrialisation of European cities, we also found it challenging to give meaning to a former factory by introducing fresh contents while still preserving the industrial tradition. Reestablishing a bicycle factory let alone a typewriter factory was unimaginable. In order to include multiple and heterogeneous potential partners and users, we wanted to develop a collaborative platform and an encouraging environment – one that included intersectoral collaboration in which the challenges of con- temporary society could be better tackled. In terms of infrastructure, we leaned on the concept of a small manufacturing laboratory[12] in which the users have access to computer-con- trolled fabrication technologies such as 3D printing, laser cutting and CNC milling. 

On average, RogLab has about 16 permanent partners: local NGOs, businesses, public cultural institutions, educational and research institutions as well as international project partners. RogLab’s users are students and professionals in the fields of design, architecture, visual arts and engineering as well as entrepreneurs, innovators, researchers, do-it-yourselfers, amateur creators, children and youth. 

Every other week RogLab hosts training sessions to support the independent use of new technologies, where users acquire licences allowing them to use the machines, assisted by technicians. The prototype workshop and sup- porting programmes are designed to empower users, showing them that the first steps to producing a functional prototype can be relatively quick and inexpensive. 

Our work with partner organisations is project-based, whereby we develop a specific programme of type of cooperation with each of them – from use of the infrastructure and technical support and co-producing projects to joint fundraising and synchronising individual programmes. RogLab’s four years of operation have also seen two 2-year development projects in which, through building prototypes, we have reflected on actual societal challenges. 2013 featured a project called RogLab – The Factory that is Making Itself, which brought together 43 designers, architects, engineers, technicians and artists who, by developing 10 prototypes, tackled different urban challenges – from bicycle culture to small mobile gardens. The project was meant to underline the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and the creative application of new technologies in dealing with societal and design challenges. The Design (Dis)Ability project was launched in collaboration with physically disabled people in 2014 with a call for a competition. With the call we wanted to know whether fashion and physical disability posed a good challenge for de- signers. The positive response encouraged us to embark on a longer-term project in cooperation with the Open Style Lab from the MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Together, we developed an international product workshop in which 14 designers, engineers and technicians from 7 countries as well as 3 users took part, initially in a web workshop and later on in an intensive prototype workshop in Ljubljana. Eight prototype garments and fashion accessories served to draw attention to issues of the fashion system relative to actual users’ needs. 

RogLab, as a part of public infrastructure, is focused on socially and environmentally responsible projects and products emphasising the real needs of users with a critical view of the mass production model. Empowering users by providing access to fast prototyping technologies is an important goal of the RogLab programme. Similarly, it supports programmes that help them crystallise their ideas through prototyping processes and working prototypes that clearly communicate those ideas to co-workers or potential investors. With empowerment in mind, we pay special attention to ensuring children are familiar early on with new technologies so they are well prepared for the cultural and technological environment they will inhabit as adults. 

The role of new technologies in revitalising former factories 

The context of the third industrial revolution and decentralised production 

The decline of the second industrial revolution, its institutions and economic models begins with the imminent exhaustion of fossil fuels. At the same time, we are witnessing the progress of the third industrial revolution, which will
be marked, as forecast already 10 years ago by economist Jeremy Rifkin, by the concurrence of digital communication technologies and renewable energy sources. Due to the decentralisation of energy sources and the decentralisation of industrial production made possible, it is suggested, by digital manufacturing technologies and giving rise to a network of decentralised small manufacturers, we will need new economic and organisational models.[13]

Running parallel to the deindustrialisation process is the development of digital communications and digital manufacturing technologies, both of which have become increasingly cheaper and more accessible. This led Massachusetts Institute of Technology[14]  to create the fabrication laboratory concept, with a view to investigating the way information was expressed as physical representations and whether access to advanced technologies stimulated so-called grass roots creativity and productivity in a community. Today, some 2,000 such workshops are operating around the world. The use of identical technologies, tools and processes enables them to be connected in a global network with- in a dispersed space of (co)creation, research and innovation. So far, these small fabrication workshops have demonstrated their capacity to play an important role in democratising the means of production, encouraging individual creativity and small enterprises that aim at producing small product series. 

In Slovenia, manufacturing is largely comprised of small and micro businesses and individuals. Therefore, the utility of the shared workshops model in which users could share infrastructure, knowledge and work space, as well as supply and marketing channels, was demonstrated not only through the investigations of the Second Chance project but, over the past four years, also by the RogLab pilot project and the development of public and university fabrication workshops and coworking spaces. Chris Anderson, author of the book Makers: The New Industrial Revolution, explains that the decentralised mode of production enabled by fast prototyping technologies offers fresh opportunities for small businesses. In his view, small entrepreneurs can today be both small and global, craftsmen and innovators, high-tech and low cost. Anderson goes on to emphasise that the maker movement allows for creating products the world needs but does not know it yet because these products are not part of the old model mass-production economy.[15] We were also compelled to address this problem at the RogLab when doing the Design (Dis)Ability project, in which we developed eight functional prototype garments and fashion accessories for physically disabled people. At the moment, we don’t have a good marketing model for niche products – this despite the fact that there is a real, widely acknowledged need for one, and the fact that digital marketing platforms for mass-production goods have been evolving for well more than a decade. In 2005, for example, the online platform Etsy was set up to enable makers to sell their products on the Internet, and in 2007 the application Square appeared, which allows makers to engage in direct billing via credit card. There are also online platforms for the free swapping of 3D models, like Makerbot’s Thingiverse, a 3D printer manufacturer. But for now these platforms and applications primarily serve amateur designers and makers with the aim of helping them create simple products and gadgets for sale to the general public. Today’s cultural patterns and predominant business models aren’t compelling enough for professional designers to allow their open files to be used free of charge. 

Researcher Brooks Rainwater states in a report by the National League of Cities entitled How Cities Can Grow the Maker Movement that the greatest strength of the maker movement prob- ably lies in bringing manufacturing back to the cities and freeing up the unexploited skills and knowledge of the cities’ residents.[16] The idea of distributed manufacturing made feasible by digital manufacturing technologies anticipates a host of advantages: lower transport costs thanks to shipped digital models; efficient use of resources, a smaller environmental impact, faster adaptation of tools, products tailored to local needs and so on.[17] But technological advances usually also engender an element of techno-utopianism, which should be regarded with reservation when designing new production models.

Researcher Anna Waldman-Brown from the University of Berkeley warns against a techno-utopian mentality that can only introduce disruptive market forces like Uber, which throws the roles of manufacturers, creators and consumers into confusion without radically altering these relations. Similarly, it is necessary to consider who controls the machines and how they are made, who actually makes them and for what kind of compensation. She concludes that “the technology can only help if it doesn’t end up repeating established pat- terns that exacerbate those differences in the first place.”[18]

Decentralised organisational models 

I began to focus on the need for fresh organisational models for cultural institutions within the Open Institutions framework,[19] a regional project aimed at exploring the need for greater openness on the part of public cultural institutions in their collaboration with non-governmental organisations.[20] The project outcomes were also partly applied in the study of public-private partnerships within the Second Chance project. The study showed that there is a lively practice of public-civil partnership in Slovenia, as NGOs are often long-standing partners of public cultural institutions. If, in the case of the future Rog Centre, we wished to create an institution with a mission to become an important international reference point for creativity and innovation, we would then have to include various private, civil and public partners in the management model.Based on these outcomes the Strategy for cultural development in MOL for the period 2012–2015 highlights a measure connected with the organisational model of the Rog Centre pilot project, which describes “establishing public-public, public-private and public-civil partnerships with the accent on interdisciplinary and intersectoral cooperation.”[21]

Since the conclusion of the Second Chance project in September 2013 we have witnessed rapid changes in technology, society and culture that require more suitable, dynamic systems of management and governance. The president of the World Economic Forum Klaus Schwab argues that we are at the threshold of the fourth technological revolution, which will radically change our way of living and our mutual relationships, including the structure of our institutions.[22] He believes the current systems of public policy and decisionmaking no longer fit today’s context, since they were linearly[23] and mechanistically shaped to meet the needs of the second industrial revolution and its economy – this when politicians still had time to examine specific challenges and take appropriate action. Nowadays, decision-makers and operators lack the tools to access, in real time, the data they need on issues for which they are responsible. 

Establishing a new institution on the basis of the development model for the former Rog factory could build on shaping a fresh organisational and management model in order to move beyond both the outdated model of public in- stitutions and the ideologies that drive the core of many self-organising models responding to those intitutions. Both came into being with the second industrial revolution that is now fast in decline. While remaining critical of the view that technology can resolve deeply rooted socio-economic issues, I think we can constructively exploit the conflict between the two models – the planned Rog Centre is our opportunity to establish a brand-new institution. We might consider whether the fresh management and business models based on new technologies can provide us with the starting points for creating new types of organisations that are a better match with the time and people’s needs. 

In 2009, “blockchain” technology appeared, which enables the maintenance of a continuously growing list of data records to be (where transactions are transparent) public and secured against tampering and revision. This allows processes to be the decentralised and would at the same time prevent corruption and censorship due to transparency. Blockchain technology represents a new technological infrastructure on which to build decentralised collaboration and organisation. At present, it is most often used to record cryptocurrency transactions and employed in the decentralised financial sector. But the app’s development is also moving towards storing smart contracts,[24]  which are intended to replace certain legal, cadastral register or notary services. In the future, it would also allow for the development of decentralised computer protocols enabling the free and systematic collaboration of thousands of people, without any control or coordination from a central authority. And the open source startup Backfeed is developing a social operating system for decentralised organisations that allows large groups of people to collectively create and then share the created valuables in proportion to their contributions. The start-up’s website discusses the two main deficiencies of organisational structures today. The operation of large organisations is often based on rigid hierarchical structures. These structures serve as an efficient coordinating mechanism, yet they are non-responsive and inflexible. But it is difficult to value an individual’s contribution within an organisation and adequately reward it without a hierarchical structure or a central authority managing and valuing other people’s work. Backfeed’s protocol is intended to overcome these obstacles: it is based on mechanisms that decentralise collaboration and indirectly stimulate individuals to synchronise their actions in order to achieve certain collective objectives. Its authors claim that the protocol can be used to regulate the processes of distributing values in both formal and informal organisations (social groups, NGOs, corporations, associations, businesses and more).[25] Blockchain technology represents the promise of numerous applications that may well have an important impact on the way we manage organisations and society.[26]


In the more than 10 years of its development, the project to revitalise the former Rog factory has continued to attract lively, often confrontational public debates – debate based both on actual data and sometimes merely on opinion. Who was more or less right in these debates, and which interest groups are more or less entitled to this central location are crucial questions for the interested groups. In my opinion, the most relevant question, in terms of a wider city context, is the question of whether we, as a society, are capable of carrying out important public investments through a dialogue that will benefit the largest possible number of people – not only those who presently live in the city but also those who will come to populate it in the future. Regardless of the course of further development, the methodology applied in the 

Second Chance project has established a new practice in developing investment strategies in culture and established a body of criteria to bring to similar projects. An important lesson arising from this project shows that the development of public infrastructures and programmes is a process that demands ongoing verification, one that is both well suited to its users and fulfils the requirements of the day. The decline of the second industrial revolution and the advances of digital technologies are bringing rapid changes in technology, society and culture that demand more suitable and more dynamic management and governance systems. To some extent, the new technologies already provide solutions in the form of decentralised management, production and marketing models, but they also forecast the emergence of yet more segmentation – between those with access to and control over technologies and those without. In striving to develop creative, progressive and inclusive cities, more than ever it will be important to connect numerous sectors and stakeholders – educational and research institutions, cultural organisations, businesses, non-government organisations, informal groups and individuals – and to learn from them what they actually need and how we can help them realize these needs. 

The article was first published in: Županek, B. (ed.). (2016). New Age is coming: Industry, Work, Capital. Ljubljana: Museum and Galleries of Ljubljana, 184–204.


[1] The design submitted for the building permit and the document “The Development Vision of the Rog Centre” are published on the RogLab pilot project webpage: http://roglab.si/sl/center_rog.
[2] The announcement made by MOL of the start of partial demolition works relaunched the discussion on temporary use, future content, practicality of the investment etc. 
[3] Summarised from http://www.secondchanceproject.si. 
[4]  Summarised from http://www.secondchanceproject.si. 
[5] The Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage. [accessed on 20 May 2016]. Available at: http://ticcih. org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/NTagilCharter.pdf
[6] More detailed information can be found on the project's website. All research studies, reports on stake- holders' meetings and conferences and all preceding documentation associated with developing the former Rog factory are also published at http://www.secon- dchanceproject.si.
[7] The project's development was run in close cooperation with my colleague Urška Jurman, public clerks from the Department of Culture of MOL, and many external collaborators – authors of the studies.
[8] When shaping the development approach we paid special attention to our relationship with the temporary users of the factory, as use of the former Rog factory was only temporary from the beginning, as was outlined on the temporary users' website back in 2007. http://tovarna. org/node/1176; 04/06/2016. 
[9] The initial programme design of the Rog Contemporary Arts Centre can be found at: http://www.secondchan- ceproject.si/csu-rog/dokumenti.
[10] It was made up of the temporary users of the Rog factory; creators; producers in culture (Museum of Architecture and Design, Monochrome, International Centre of Graphic Arts, the P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E. Institute); the decision-makers (Municipality of Ljubljana, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology, Ministry of Economic Development and Technology and Ministry of Foreign Affairs); entrepreneurs; an international team of professionals in the field of culture (Vienna Design Centre, SantralIstanbul, HALLE 14 from Leipzig, LABoral from Gijon and FabLab Amsterdam). 
[11] The outcomes of the investigations and the development plans were further checked within the framework of international public conferences that recommended more temporary user programmes be included. The final papers of the series of investigations were the “Draft Management Plan” and the “Definition of the partnership structure design of the pilot project for the future Rog Centre” on whose basis we developed the business model and the partner- ship network design of the RogLab pilot project. 
[12] Explained in more detail in the following section.
[13] Rifkin, J. (2011). The Third Industrial Revolution: How Lateral Power Is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World. London: St. Martin's Press
[14] Three laboratories took part in the project: Media Lab, Centre for Bits and Atoms, and Grassroots Innovation Group. 
[15] Anderson, C. (2012). Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. New York City: Crown Publishing Group. 
[16] The report estimates that in the USA there are 135 million people who are makers, 26 per cent of cities have makerspaces and 13 per cent have hosted a Maker Faire. 
[17] Robbins, E. and Langan. T. (2016). How Cities Can Grow - The Maker Movement, National League of Cities, Center for City Solutions and Applied Research. [accessed on 12 June 2016]. Available at: https://www.nlc.org/resource/how-cities-can-grow-the-maker-movement-report
[18]Waldman-Brown, A. (2016). Can Manufacturing be Democratized? [accessed on 13 June 2016]. Available at: https://medium.com/a-nation-of-makers/can-manufacturing-be-democratized-355e6ba96cb9
[19] I co-developed this project, which was funded by the Europe for Citizens programme, together with the Asociacija association and in collaboration with two partner organisations, Centre for independent culture and youth in Zagreb, and Kontrapunkt in Skopje. For more on the project, see: http://openinstitutions.net. 
[20] See Celakoski, T. et al. (eds.) (2011). Open Institutions – Institutional Imagination and Cultural Public Sphere. Zagreb: Alliance Operation City. [accessed on 13 June 2016]. Available at:https://operacijagrad.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/open-institutions-2011.pdf
[21] Strategija razvoja kulture v MOL 2012 – 2015, 46. [accessed on 8 June 2016]. Available at: https://www.ljubljana.si/assets/Uploads/Strategija-razvoja-kulture-v-MOL-2012-2015.pdf
[22] Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. [accessed on 6 June 2016]. Available at: https://www.wefo- rum.org/pages/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-by-klaus-schwab 
[23] The third and fourth industrial revolutions are based on new communication and manufacturing technologies and are set apart with regard to the preceding ones by their exponential development. 
[24] Smart contracts are computer protocols that facilitate, verify and implement contracts, or make a contractual clause unnecessary. 
[25] See Backfeed web page. [accessed on 13 June 2016]. Available at: http://backfeed.cc
[26] Summarised from the start-up Backfeed's website: http://backfeed.cc/assets/docs/TechnicalSummary.pdf; 13/06/2016. Another interesting start-up developing similar solutions is Colony.io: https://colony.io. Within the context of new organisational models, there is another interesting concept called “futarchy”.The desicion making in this system is based on so called "prediction markets" where we vote on values which in taking decisions applies so-called prediction markets where we vote values, but bet on belief about the value, which depends on something that we only predict