Bottom-Up Urbanism: A Survey of Temporary Use in Europe

Client & Contact: Dates & Delivery: Delivery Partners: Budget: Project Lead:

CREATE 2011 (Anna Doyle), The Barbican (Katrina Crookall) 2010 – 2011 CREATE, The Barbican, muf architecture/art and 68 local businesses and groups. £40,000, fee: £4,000 Lewis Jones

Folly for a Flyover aimed to test the viability of an derelict motorway undercroft in Hackney Wick as a new public space. The project provided a café, cinema and workshop space which hosted an eight week programme of events and drew over 20,000 people to the previously unused undercroft. The site’s potential future users, both local residents and businesses were invited to join in right from the inception of the work, from assisting with construction to collaborating on programming.

BOTTOM UP URBANISM The unintended bi-product of the intersection of the Lea Navigational Canal and the A12, the undercroft is at the meeting point between Hackney Marshes, the residential and rapidly changing industrial areas of the Hackney Wick and the nascent Olympic Park.

For years a place of misdemeanor and anti-social behavior, public access to the site was blocked. However, the undercroft is on the edge of a well-used towpath, and possesses the rare physical conditions of being both under-cover but open air. The main factors constraining its potential were legislative prohibitions and its troubled social history. Development of the project therefore took two inter-related courses; an extensive process of negotiations with the legislative bodies responsible for the site and using a design-based solution, focused on opening up participation as broadly as possible to shift the public perception of the site.

Folly for a Flyover was supported by the Bank of America Myrill Lynch CREATE Art Award, was nominated for Design Museum Design’s of the Year 2012, Conde Naste Traveller Awards, was listed in The Observer’s ‘Top Ten Architectural moments of 2011’, featured in The New York Magazine’s ‘Delirious City’, a selection of twenty four exemplary urban inventions from across the world, has been exhibited at Maison D’Architecture and Pavilion D’Arsenal in Paris and is the flagship project International Showcase of Pop-Up Architecture in Lima, Peru, as part of the British Council’s contribution to the London Festival of Architecture 2012.

A Survey of Temporary Use in Europe

Turning the existing problems of the site into opportunities, the Folly acted to re-write the site’s troubled history.

Posing as an imaginary piece of the area’s past, a building trapped under the motorway, providing recreational and community uses that capitalized on the surrounding green space and canal route, incorporating a cafe, events space and boat hire facilities.

COMMUNITY FELLOWSHIP

David Glick – Summer 2012

La parcelle du 56 -ancien passage dans le centre du quartier Saint Blaise, fermé suite à la construction d’un nouveau bâtiment- est considérée inconstructible, car bordée de nombreuses fenêtres, et laissée à l’abandon. En 2005, la DPVI propose à aaa d’explorer les potentialités d’usage de cet espace très visible et qui intrigue… Après quelques mois d’arpentage et de multiples contacts avec des acteurs locaux, aaa propose un projet élaboré sur la base des désirs récoltés, et qui devrait évoluer par la suite avec les futurs usagers du lieu. Un réseau de partenaires se tisse -parmi eux l’APIJ, une association spécialisée dans l’éco-construction. L’usage du terrain -d’abord libre, puis équipé par deux modules mobiles- n’est pas interrompu pendant les travaux; au contraire, les réunions de chantier -comme dispositif du projet- sont l’occasion d’échanges sur des questions écologiques que le projet explore. Des interventions ponctuelles donnent lieu à des chantiers «parallèles» pour la construction d’une serre mobile, de «murs de voisinage», des parcelles… Fin 2007, une trentaine de personnes ont les clés de l’espace et l’utilisent périodiquement pour du jardinage, des spectacles, expositions, débats, fêtes, ateliers, projections, concerts, séminaires… D’autres projets d’usage d’aménagement continue à émerger .

The project 56, explores the possibilities of an urban interstice to be transformed into a collectively self-managed space. This project has engaged an unusual partnership between local government structures,culmination local organisations, inhabitants of the area This book is the of research supported by the Hart Howerton Community Fellowship program.which The run findings and a professional association trainingare based upon articles, programmes interviews, inand observational of 28 case eco-construction.

The analysis management studies in six cities visited in the summer of 2012. of the project gives space and time to construction, Copyright © 2013 David Glick. the by construction site becoming itself a social and cultural act. Together with the construction of the physical space, different social and cultural networks

Designers, planners, and citizen activists can learn from vacant or underutilized

sites appropriated by artist collectives and creative entrepreneurs. With the imperative to extract surplus value relaxed, these moments of rupture from the status quo are unique in that they afford a temporal window for programmatic experimentation, yielding entirely novel spatial and social relationships.

Out of these voids where the private (and public sector) operating under the mantra of “highest and best use” have failed to assess the full potentials of a site, this research explores how self-organized collectives or small-scale entrepreneurs have generated “added value.” It traces a range of case studies from the scale of a pop-up cinema under a highway overpass in London to an entire cultural district in the center of Hamburg that have emerged through bottom-up processes, to unlock latent urban potentials.

These outlier examples in aggregate begin to suggest an exciting range of largely untapped, alternative models by which urban interventions might be conceived, implemented, and continue to evolve through cross-disciplinary collaboration and grassroots models of participation.

INTRODUCTION A Growing Trend Tactical Urbanism

CITIES

12

Itinerary City collages

CASE STUDIES

34

Objectives Process Categories • Squatter Settlements • Grassroots Organization • Interim Use • Design Build • Entrepreneurial • Hybrid

SOCIAL VALUE 100 • Programmatic Synergies • Maximizing Diversity • Degrees of Ownership • Active Space • Flexibility

CONCLUSIONS 113 Passage 56 & Ecobox by Atelier d’Architecture Autogérée (Images: Urban Act and Translocal Act available at http://www.urbantactics.org/) Images on front cover courtesy of Assemble – for more information see http:// assemblestudio.co.uk/ Images at left – Lido Beach by Exyzt, from https://www.flickr.com/photos/exyzt/ sets/72157630461756992/

A Growing Trend Though the 2008-2009 Great Recession may have slowed the pace of large-scale urban redevelopment, it has also lowered the barrier of entry for a wide range of actors to participate in transforming the city through resourceful “Do It Yourself” approaches.

Food Trucks

Views from the “Lot” beneath the Highline in New York City

Guerilla Gardening

This unsolicited “placemaking” practice began in the 70’s and continues to gain popularity as a method for introducing greenery into banal streetscapes.

n ts

ately

taction of

by San , were ect regreen Street psters, arking ap for Buena nclude tactiets. being Each uding s, and ng so,

Parkmobiles are, well, mobile.

Credit: Dwell via Miyoko Ohtake

Park Mobiles, San Francisco

These seating and landscape elements were converted out of dumpsters at a low cost, and are able to be periodically rotated to different locations around the city.

A parkmobile located outside of SPUR’s urban center.

Credit: Dwell via Miyoko Ohtake

guerilla DIY pop-up insurgent open source spontaneous tactical ________ urbanism

...whatever the buzzword of choice – as a growing trend throughout many US and European cities suggests – an incremental, “temporary” approach to producing urban interventions increasingly appears to be a viable means for affecting long-term change.

5

In New York, it’s shipping containers repurposed as radio stations or an entire flea market, dumpsters refurbished

as swimming pools, roof top gardens, or food trucks which form impromptu public spaces.

Dumpster pools

What began as a pop-up urban beach on a vacant lot next to the Gowanus canal was quickly picked up by NYC’s Summer Streets Festival and installed on Park Ave. (Images: http://inhabitat.com/dive-into-a-dumpsterguerrilla-pool/)

Pop-up Retail

A temporary market made out of repurposed shipping containers Dekalb Market – Brooklyn, NY

Urban Agriculture

Improved green roof technologies, a growing ecological consciousness, and new tax incentives have propelled a dramatic increase in rooftop farms.

In San Francisco, it’s parking spaces transformed into public spaces. Beginning in 2010, the city instituted the “Pavement to Parks” program to reclaim excessive space dedicated to the automobile for pedestrians.

PARK(ing) Day

In 2005 Rebar, an art and design organization in San Francisco transformed a metered parking space into a public space for a day. This “open source” project has now grown into an annual event celebrated in 162 cities across the globe. (source: www.parkingday.org)

“Parklets”

38 parking spaces have been transformed into public spaces since the “Pavement to Parks” program began in 2010. (source: www.sfpavementtoparks.sfplanning.org)

INTRODUCTION / A GROWING TREND

THE INCREMENTAL CITY Though the terminology has been on the rise in recent years, D.I.Y./Tactical Urbanism is hardly a new phenomenon. Les Bouquinistes (mobile booksellers) in Paris for instance, have been referred to as an early parallel to pop-up retail.

What began in the 1500’s as unsanctioned activities along the Seine River, over hundreds of years have become institutionalized by the city.1 The regulations have gone through several iterations to now mandate “shops” collapse every night into boxes of standardized dimensions.

This incremental process of refinements to an urban space that eventually become institutionalized practices or manifested as physical structures , stand in stark contrast to todays dominant ideology that conceives of each space individually, as self-enclosed and permanent artifacts.

1 Allison Arief, “It’s Time to Rethink Temporary,” New York Times, Dec. 19th, 2011.

Les Bouquinistes, Paris (1500’s – present) An early example of pop-up retail

Farmers Markets New York City currently has 138 farmers markets, a 73% increase since 2006. (source: www.osc.nys.us.)

Yet cities have always (to some degree) evolved through organic, additive processes.

The winding streets of medieval cities crystallized over time – out of the ebb and flow of daily use –following what Le Corbusier dismissively referred to as “the donkey cart’s way.” The bustling, kinetic energy of the markets and street vendors was just as integral to daily life and commerce as “brick and mortar” establishments. Out of necessity, the social and economic dynamics between inhabitants and physical form were tightly interwoven, and inscribed upon temporary and permanent structures through small transformations, accumulated over centuries.

The advent of the industrial revolution began

to dramatically alter this balance – that with the rise of automobility paired with the technical rationality of the post war era ushered in an even more dramatic transformation. The massive outward migrations that ensued emptied cities of their former densities, and in conjunction with increased regulations on temporary usage/public space (vendors, festivals, etc.), led to a decline of open-air markets and the overall vitality of the “sidewalk ballet” Jane Jacobs so famously celebrated.

The smooth efficiency of the grid and single use zoning became more conducive to keeping traffic and pedestrians moving, rather than at producing spaces that encouraged one to linger, or break from routine.

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

D.I.Y. CULTURE In recent years, informal strands of economic and cultural production have begun to make a resurgence, particularly in “global” cities of the US and Europe. Street vendors have become more tolerated, or even embraced by some urban governments as part of larger redevelopment strategies, i.e. food trucks used to “activate” vacant lots beneath the Highline in New York City. Popup retail has also become a popular technique for increasing visibility and familiarity with an undeveloped property. More substantially, urban agriculture and farmer’s markets have become a ubiquitous phenomenon in most major cities.

Cyclical events such as holiday markets to maker fairs have also become increasingly prominent.

Whereas temporary events such as the Festival of Ideas for the New City have more overtly explored the future trajectory of D.I.Y. culture.

After such exuberant, but fleeting celebrations that showcase local artisans, storytelling booths, and skills sharing classes – it’s impossible not to imagine how aspects of this largely untapped “creative engine” might be more fully realized.

The growing popularity of open air markets and ‘maker’ fares can’t simply be attributed to convenience or low prices (as they often offer neither); instead, the motivations are likely more nuanced. Their success may correlate with any number of cultural shifts, such as the local, handicraft, and artisanal food movements, as well as a growing eco-consciousness, celebrating organic and locally grown agriculture. In addition to ethical factors, these destinations can offer far richer experiences than supermarkets or chain stores, which present the same range of products and interiors that can be found nearly anywhere.

By contrast, markets and festivals can satisfy the desire for unique experiences, or even hold the mystery of potential discoveries. Likewise, these environments don’t perpetuate the same vague sense of estrangement from a product and where it was made (and at what social and environmental cost), rather – the degrees of separation between consumer and producer are reduced yielding presumably higher quality interactions, i.e. the possibility to haggle over price, or learn more about a product from its maker. There’s also the psychological value in knowing one’s money is going directly to support a small business, local farmer, or artisan.

We can only speculate whether these trends are connected by common cultural, technological, or environmental origins. Yet even isolating them individually, they suggest significant shifts in cultural values, which (at least among certain demographics) places a renewed emphasis on quality of experience and local connections. In combination with the enhanced networks of social exchange enabled by the Internet and open access to temporary/pop-up tactics – a wider range of entrepreneurs and artisans have been able to take risks, and express their creativity.

All of these factors form a compelling backdrop for examining this burgeoning D.I.Y. culture as a means to illuminate alternative modes of practice, leading to very different kinds of urban environments.

Festival of Ideas for the New City, NYC Ideas Symposium and D.I.Y. showcase Hosted by the New Museum in spring 2011 (source: http://www.ideas-city.org/)

9

INTRODUCTION / TACTICAL URBANISM

Tactical Urbanism “short term action - long term change” In 2010, a 3. The Internet as a tool for building the civic economy New York City based group of urbanists published the “Tactical Urbanism” toolkit. This

First, a benefit of the recession is that it slowed catalog celebrated a range of D.I.Y. transformations the North effectively of the public realmAmerican acrossgrowth the machine.

US, by This situating forced citizens, city departments, and developers to take what might have otherwise seemed isolated The Great Shifting matters into their own hands, get creative with project Recession Demographics phenomenon under one umbrella, and provided funding, and concentrate on smaller, more incremental it with a new moniker. The term “tactical” was efforts. carefully chosen to contrast long term “strategies,”

This has occurred while more and more people— especially the young and well educated—have continued which require tedious bureaucratic processes, large to move into once forlorn walkable neighborhoods.This upfront investment, and generally allow little public The Internet as includes retirees, who are also interested in reinput. As ancohort alternative – they propose deft, shorta Tool for making their chosen neighborhoods. Interestingly, some Building the term actions as a way to open up the planning of these young people are also moving into government Civic Economy process andleadership positions as the baby boomers retire. inspire the creativity of ordinary citizens to become moreFinally, the culture of sharing tactics online has involved in shaping their urban grown tremendously and is becoming more sophisticatenvironments – beginning at the sidewalk, street, ed. Thanks to web-based tools, a blogger can share someand block. In addition to the free online publication, The rise in tactical urbanism may be attributed to three recent and thing tactical in Dallas and have it re-blogged, tweeted, overlapping trends. they’ve hosted a series of salons and operate a facebooked etc. in dozens of cities within minutes. The rise of Tactical Urbanism blog, providing a platform for bringing likeminded The most industrious tactical urbanists, such as Team Better (Image: 2) siliency Tactical found in Urbanism sprawling, auto-centric environments. “tacticians” Block, Rebar, and Depave, are using the web as a plattogether to share their ideas. Their It seems that human-scaled places, where social capital form for sharing free how-to manuals aimed at helping Lydonare attributes the rise Tactical narrative serves as a continual reference point for Mike and creativity most easily catalyzed, are of a pre-reqUrbanism to a confl uence of factors: thede2008 uisite for tactical urbanism.

The larger moves and discussions you bring their tactics to your town. Such a trend is an on the potentials of D.I.Y. Urbanism. example of what Britain’s National Endowment for Sci- sign techniques, such as those highlighted in the Sprawl recession, which has forced cities, developers, ence, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) calls the ‘civic Repair Manual and Retrofitting Suburbia might provide even individual citizens to become more Tactical Urbanism defi ned by: economy’ — is the spirit of entrepreneurship combined and more appropriate first moves in dealing with America’s resourceful; shifting social demographics, i.e. with the aspiration of civic renewal.

• A deliberate, phased approach to instigating unwalkable suburbs. young and upwardly mobile demographics change ANDideas NOT THERE? are tending to choose walkable urban • An offeringWHY ofHERE local for local planning

Theoretically, tactical urbanism can be applied to challenges the arterials, parking lots, and cul-de-sacs of America. neighborhoods over the suburbs; and the internet as a catalyst that has accelerated • Short-termYet, the best examples are consistently found in compact commitment and realistic expectationstowns and cities featuring an undervalued/underutilized the exchange of ideas and prototype ideas, adaptable to local specificities. supply of walkable urban fabric. We believe this calls at• Low-risks with the possibility of a high reward tention to the limited social, economic, and physical re• The development of social capital among citizens, (Source: Tactical Urbanism 2 – available at http:// issuu.com/streetplanscollaborative/docs/tactical_urand the building of organizational capacity Can this be chairbombed? banism_vol_2_fi nal)How does a parklet add value if there is no on-street parking or sidewalks? Can you build a better block if there is no between public/private institutions, non-profits/ coherent block structure? Credit: Unknown NGO’s, and their constituents Tactical URBANISM

Tacticians MIKE LYDON, Project Editor/Author DAN BARTMAN, Layout/Copy Editor TONY GARCIA, Contributor RUSS PRESTON, Contributor RONALD WOUDSTRA, Contributor

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Pedestrianization of Times Square

1. Initial Test

2. Prototype

An Iterative Approach to Improving Public Space A compelling piece of the Tactical Urbanism argument revolves around the economic and political advantages of an incremental approach. They claim low budget, temporary projects not only have merit in terms of their expediency, but are a smarter way to design. An idea can first be tested, in order to make improvements and learn from how people actually use a space, before long term-investment. One of their favorite cases in point , is the pedestrianization of Times Square. First, portions of Broadway were closed to traffic and filled with foldout lounge chairs. This initial phase served the function of gradually shifting public perception and user behaviors, so that the Department of Tranpsortation’s risky proposition could clear the next political hurdle for an inexpensive asphalt coating to be adhered and moveable furniture provided – creating a pedestrian plaza overnight. This example demonstrates, that by garnering enough popularity an interim period can also function as the means to leverage political support. Funds have now been secured, and plans are underway for a multi-million dollar permanent transformation. Such a dramatic change would have been politically infeasible without first convincing the key stakeholders of a pedestrian plaza’s social and economic value, through a “demonstration” project.

Bottom-up Urbanism

3. Permanent Plaza

This study overlaps with several key concepts offered by the Tactical Urbanists, particularly on the broader implications of direct citizen participation, and how lessons learned from these iterative approaches might challenge normative planning/ design assumptions. But in order to more fully understand these inherent constraints and opportunities, the scope will expand to situate D.I.Y. practices within a larger paradigm, the rubric of “bottom-up” most closely captures. The common thread among these cases is that instead of land use decisions and design visions descending down centralized chains of command, in the form of RFPs (Request for Proposals) and master plans – they emerge out of tightly knit social networks, in which power is more evenly distributed among a broad range of consitutents (presumably fewer degrees separated from community interests and on the ground realities).

11

CITIES LONDON

June 21st – 23th

ROTTERDAM

June 24th – 25th

AMSTERDAM

June 26th – 27th

BERLIN HAMBURG COPENHAGEN

June 28th – July 8th July 9th July 10th – 13th

LONDON post card

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

everyday

transition zones

15

LONDON appropriated

groups

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Individuals

17

ROTTERDAM post card

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

everyday

transition zones

19

ROTTERDAM appropriated

groups

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Individuals

21

AMSTERDAM post card

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

everyday

transition zones

23

AMSTERDAM appropriated

groups

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Individuals

25

BERLIN post card

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

everyday

transition zones

27

BERLIN appropriated

groups

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Individuals

29

HAMBURG post card

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

everyday

transition zones

31

HAMBURG appropriated

groups

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Individuals

33

CASE STUDIES

OBJECTIVES

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

INTENTIONS Showcasing this wide range of case studies is intended to suggest potentials for cross-disciplinary collaborations and grassroots models of participation in conjunction with temporary uses, i.e. festivals or recreational and cultural activities to activate underutilized spaces. These examples demonstrate how unexpected programmatic synergies might excite a local community to imagine a long-term vision for what could be there, and how habits engrained through interim use might feed back into these sites of experimentation, to enhance their social and symbolic value.

METHODS Using data gathered through articles, interviews, and observational analysis I examined the prospects of small-scale actions as a viable means for affecting long-term urban transformations, and the social/cultural value these iterative approaches might afford. Whereas broader speculations revolved around whether insights learned from these outlier examples might be transferable to other contexts. I categorized the strengths and weaknesses of these various bottom-up approaches across a gradient from sanctioned to unsanctioned projects. Acknowledging that left alone, a coherent organizational structure may not always “bubble up,” this study is preferential to the nuances of hybrid strategies that blend professional expertise and local knowledge.

PARTICIPATION A central focus throughout has been to consider the benefits and pitfalls of a heightened level of direct citizen participation. I questioned whether the positive feedback loop registered in these environments (where individuals more readily see the affects of their actions enacted in the world), might play a role in enhancing civic efficacy, acculturating participants to become more deeply involved in future activities, or opportunities to influence land use decisions; as well as how the distinction of a space as quasi-public and collectively self-managed, might function as a social catalyst for binding likeminded individuals together through active forms of engagement. Likewise, what attendant spatial or programmatic arrangements might help foster this sense of inclusivity?

EXPECTATIONS Using diagrams and imagery unpacked key findings into a series of spatial principles, programmatic synergies, and collaborative organizational principles. Yet rather than a tool-kit of techniques to be directly implemented, the expectation is that these lessons learned might encourage more holistic thinking about how, and for whom urban public spaces are shaped. As well as point toward planning/design approaches that are flexible to a broad range of inputs, blending outside expertise with local knowledge – to instantiate a more reflexive relationship between urban citizens and their built environments.

35

CASE STUDIES / PROCESS

who INITIATES a project? who provides INPUT into the design process? who has the POWER to make DECISIONS? HOW are projects implemented? how do projects continue to EVOLVE?

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

ADDED VALUE Attempting to address social or ethical concerns through the standard economic frameworks can be a challenge, as such issues are generally considered extra, unless they can be justified as “added value” that contributes to a higher return on investment. Even the term “added value,” through its continual usage tends to reinforce the assumption everything outside a template of predetermined formulas is optional, or bonus, overlooking the prospect that created value might drive a project. As the Highline so powerfully demonstrates, the reflex to begin with an analysis of what market projections will “support” can easily miss what is already there (and could be enhanced). For many developers the mile long “eyesore” along Manhattan’s west side was standing in the way of capitalizing upon the potential land value beneath. Yet it only took two concerned preservationists and a photographer to mobilize a wellspring of political and economic support in opposition to the mayor Giuliani’s plan to demolish the elevated railway. Ironically, the transformation of the aging piece of infrastructure into a tremendously successful park was able to generate over two billion dollars in spin-off revenue to the surrounding areas, eclipsing the original projections several times over.

The highline is an extreme case, presented not necessarily as template to copy (given it’s oversuccess), but to convey the magnitude of latent urban potentials and range of alternative practices that a greater sensitivity to bottom up forces might unlock.

CREATED SPACES OF PARTICIPATION Andrea Cornwall makes a useful distinction between “invited” spaces of participation (mediated through state agencies and widely discredited as perpetually stuck at “token” levels, and generally ineffectual) versus “created” spaces of participation, such as the mobilization of grassroots networks.1 Institutionalized participatory planning always assumes a “receiver” side to the decision making process, filtered through top-down power structures. Whereas “created” spaces of participation break this mold. Cornwall argues they offer environments where power is more evenly distributed among individuals united by a common goal. Which for instance yields greater possibilities for the

empowerment of less skilled speakers, by affording them the

opportunity to more effectively develop their arguments.

Likewise, since the parameters are not pre-defined, a selforganized coalition can bring greater bargaining power to negotiations with city agencies, investors, etc. by maintaining some degree of control over the terms of engagement. This model of “deep” participation suggests tremendous potentials for producing spaces more attuned to the best interests of a given community, yet is largely unexplored in the realm of urban planning and design.

PROCESS An investigation of “Bottom-up” Urbanism must fundamentally be concerned with process... to question who initiates a project, the sequence by which actors become involved, their motivations (financial, social, cultural, humanitarian, other), who has agency to make decisions, and what financial instruments or political persuasion is necessary to make these ideas a reality? Urban environments that are flexible to adapt to user demands through multiple iterations to inform more “authentic” places that in turn feed back into rituals, festivals, and every day social behaviors are very compelling in theory – but how does this process actually work? How do these projects (many of which originated out of unsanctioned activities) actually drift toward gradual acceptance, and in rare occasions become celebrated cultural institutions?

Instead of taking hundreds of years, i.e. Les Bouquinistes in Paris – can similar adaptations happen in five years, or over a summer?

TOP DOWN City Agency

Developer

Small-scale Entrepreneur

Architect/ Artist Collective

Community group

FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS These citizen-led efforts tend to be initiated by artists, activists, grassroots networks, or even architects. Yet they defy easy categorization (as any urban intervention often requires coordination among many different constituencies). To simplify – this survey provides a snapshot from the point of view of the initiators, categorizing them by position along a gradient from bottom-up to top-down hierarchies, and in relationship to their relative degree of social acceptance and/or legality.

1. Andrea Cornwall, “Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings and practices,” Community Development Journal Vol 43 No 3 (July 2008): 270.

Citizen Activist

Squatters BOTTOM UP 37

PROCESS // INITIATORS [projects by CITY]

London

New Addington Sugarhouse Studios Box Park Folly for a Flyover Cineroleum BT5 parking garage Lido Beach Union Press

Rotterdam

het Schieblock

Amsterdam

Almere retrofit Stoerepicknick Jasper Leijnsenstraat 21 Valreep Westergasfabriek NDSM

Berlin

Prinzessinnengarten Mauerpark flea market Holzmarkt Beach Mitte Strand Bar Mitte Ostrand Badeschiff Tempelhof Airfield Kids Garden Tacheles

Hamburg

Park Fiction Gaegeviertel

Copenhagen Christiania

[reshuffled by INITIATOR]

TOP DOWN

Almere retrofit (DUS) New Addington (Assemble)

City Agency

Sugarhouse Studios (Assemble) Mauerpark flea market Holzmarkt Box Park Beach Mitte

Developer

Strand Bar Mitte Ostrand Beach Bar Badeschiff

Small-scale Entrepreneur

Folly for a Flyover (Assemble) Cineroleum (Assemble) BT5 auditorium (Practice) Lido Beach (Exyzt) Union Press (Public Works)

Architect/ Artist Collective

Tempelhof Airfield Westergasfabriek NDSM Shipyards het Schieblock (ZUS)

Community group

Park Fiction Prinzessinnengarten Stoerepicknick

Citizen Activist

Kids Garden Jasper Leijnsenstraat 21 Gaegeviertel Christiania Valreep Tacheles

Squatters BOTTOM UP

Almere retrofit (DUS)

Holzmarkt

New Addington (Assemble)

fully funded / semi-permanent

Sugarhouse Studios (Assemble)

established institution

short-term lease

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM tacit acceptance/ short duration

city or large developer

unauthorized

top-down

PROCESS // MATRIX

INITIATORS – STEWARDS – OWNERS

(proposal)

Kater Holzig

Morchenpark prototyping Bar 25 event Tempelhof Airfield

entrepreneur/ interim use

Box Park BT5 parking garage (Practice) Lido Beach (Exyzt)

artist/architecture collective

Cineroleum (Assemble)

Mauerpark flea market Strand Bar Mitte Beach Mitte Ostrand Badeschiff

Folly for a Flyover Gaengeviertel

Westergasfabriek

NDSM

(Assemble)

Union Press (Public Works)

Park Fiction

programmed by community

het Schieblock (ZUS)

Stoerepicknick

grassroots/ community organization

Kids Garden

Prinzessinnengarten

prototyping events

Christiania

Jasper Leijnsenstraat 21

Tacheles

bottom-up

Valreep

squatter activity

unsanctioned

STATUS

sanctioned

Y Axis: Bottom-up to Top-down

The current position of the initiator/steward/owner of a space is located across a spectrum ranging from informal organizations of limited agency and resources to established institutions with far reaching decision-making capacities.

X Axis: Unsanctioned to Sanctioned

Since most of the instigators of these projects do not own the properties, their use of the space is contingent upon an array of social and legal arrangements. This gradient defines thresholds – ranging from tacit acceptance, formalized legal contracts, short-term leases, to full ownership.1 This additional metric is important to trace projects as they transition across key thresholds, out of temporary status toward more lasting manifestations. In instances where the current stewards and/or owners of a space are different from the original initiators – these trajectories extend back to pivotal moments that altered the long-term fate of a site (that would have otherwise been solely transformed by speculative real estate processes).

1 “Sanctioned” to “unsanctioned” metric partially adapted from Tactical Urbanism 2, pg. 7. (Source: http://issuu.com/streetplanscollaborative/docs/ tactical_urbanism_vol_2_final) 39

CASE STUDIES // CATEGORIES [SELECTED case studies] Almere retrofit (DUS) New Addington (Assemble) Sugarhouse Studios (Assemble)

Mauerpark flea market Holzmarkt Box Park Beach Mitte Strand Bar Mitte Ostrand Beach Bar Badeschiff Tempelhof Airfield

Folly for a Flyover (Assemble) Cineroleum (Assemble) BT5 auditorium (Practice) Lido Beach (Exyzt) Union Press (Public Works) Westergasfabriek NDSM Shipyards

het Schieblock (ZUS) Park Fiction Prinzessinnengarten Stoerepicknick Kids Garden

Jasper Leijnsenstraat 21 Gaegeviertel Christiania Valreep Tacheles

Hybrid

Professionals hired by a city agency or developer to supervise DIY interventions, or through outreach or curated events filter user feedback to inform semi-permanent interventions.

Entrepreneurial

Property is leased for a highly themed, but low cost profit making venture.

Design Build/Installation

Artist/Architecture collective enlists volunteer labor to construct temporary structures.

Interim Use

Arrangment with landowner that authorizes temporary use.

Catalyst

Individual or collective sets the spark to catalyze a latent base of support enlisting volunteer labor, ideas, or crowdsourced funding.

Grassroots Organization

A collective (often representative of individuals from the neighborhood) enters a lease or formal agreement with the landowner outlining conditions of use.

Squatter Settlements

Occupation of abandoned buildings - which can often lead to acceptance, develop into a formalized institution granted rights to use the property, or eventually raise enough money to purchase the land outright.

Almere retrofit (DUS)

Holzmarkt

New Addington (Assemble)

fully funded / semi-permanent

Sugarhouse Studios (Assemble)

established institution

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM short-term lease

tacit acceptance/ short duration

city or large developer

unauthorized

top-down

PROCESS // MATRIX (ALL CATEGORIES)

INITIATORS – STEWARDS – OWNERS

entrepreneur/ interim use

BT5 parking garage (Practice) Lido Beach (Exyzt)

artist/architecture collective

Folly for a Flyover Gaengeviertel (Assemble)

Union Press (Public Works)

Kids Garden

Prinzessinnengarten

prototyping events

Entrepreneurial

Interim Use Catalyst

Westergasfabriek

NDSM

Park Fiction

programmed by community

het Schieblock (ZUS) Stoerepicknick

grassroots/ community organization

Mauerpark flea market Strand Bar Mitte

Morchenpark prototyping Bar 25 event Tempelhof Airfield Beach Mitte Ostrand Box Park Badeschiff Cineroleum (Assemble)

Hybrid

Design Build /Installation

(proposal)

Kater Holzig

CATEGORIES

Christiania

Grassroots Organization Squatter Settlement Out of the wide range of case studies surveyed, several distinct categories emerge, each carrying their own inherent advantages and disadvantages.

Jasper Leijnsenstraat 21

bottom-up

Valreep

Tacheles

squatter activity

unsanctioned

STATUS

sanctioned

41

SQUATTER SETTLEMENTS SQUATTING AS A POLITICAL STATEMENT Unlike in the United States, where illegally “squatting” abandoned buildings is immediately cracked down upon – squatting in Europe has to varying degrees been more tolerated. Likewise, it doesn’t necessarily carry the same stigma as in the US. Squatters in Europe are not necessarily people that would otherwise be “homeless.”

Instead they are often willingly declassed, and self-identify with counter-culture movements envisioned as political demands for affordable housing, historic preservation activism, or as pioneers of alternative communal lifestyles.

HISTORY

Hafenstrasse squat, Hamburg

Squatted (1981 – 1996) Housing Cooperative (1996 – present)

These twelve buildings became the symbolic front line of the autonome movement in the early 1980’s. Out of a series of confrontations the city periodically granted autonomy to the squatters, and ultimately sold them the properties for $1.2 million DM. This latent grassroots network was later reactivated to boost the Park Fiction participatory planning process of the 90’s and early 2000’s.

(Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafenstra%C3%9Fe Nina Bednarz, “When Squatters Grow Up” DW, May 26th, 2004, http://www.dw.de/when-squatters-grow-up/a-1216679)

Though squatting may be the oldest mode of land tenure, these practices had not been widely (re)established in the developed world until the post-war era as a direct response to massive housing shortages. In the 70’s and 80’s the motivations for squatting began to move beyond basic necessities of shelter, to take on more complex political issues. In the Netherlands for instance, unsanctioned occupations were selectively aimed at developers who “land banked” underutilized properties to drive prices up. Enough political support was garnered in the 70’s for the Netherlands Supreme Court to grant “squatters rights” for buildings unoccupied for longer than 12 months. Squatter activities in general reached a height in the 80’s aligning with the punk counter culture, and were often organized around leftist political ideologies, such as the Autonome in Germany. In Hamburg, the Hafenstrasse squatters played a symbolic front line to this movement, ultimately gaining property rights to twelve buildings, currently run as a housing cooperative. (The deep social ties fostered through these efforts were to be later reactivated by the Park Fiction participatory planning process initiated in the mid 90’s). In

Berlin squatting was already prevalent in West German regions such as Kreuzberg, but with the mass exodus that followed reunification, a floodgate was opened for the appropriation of vast areas of unoccupied buildings in the former GDR (many of which remain in dispute since the clear-cut ownership rights became incredibly ambiguous through the transfer from state to private ownership). However, in recent years there has been significant political backlash against squatting. In 2010, squatter’s rights were overturned in the Netherlands. In 2012, the UK also passed legislation criminalizing the occupation of abandoned buildings (one of the few other countries to extend legal protections to squatters). Yet despite increased restrictions, these laws are still only enforced on a case-by-case basis. Though the role these practices once played has been significantly diminished, the culture of squatting is still engrained in the collective memory, and continues to affect the trajectory of land use decisions for many underutilized sites throughout Europe.

URBAN FRONTIER The diagram to the right underscores how there are many possible scenarios for spaces that begin as squatter settlements to pass key thresholds over time, and become established, even beloved cultural institutions. Squatters are often the trailblazers who first refurbish an underutilized site and test differnet uses, demonstrating its long-term potentials to a wider audience. Those that invite the public in for arts related events can become particularly successful at putting these sites on the “on the map” as cultural destinations.

Unsanctioned occupation also plays a unique role in that it can “buy time” to set the groundwork for other parties with greater organizational capacity to “carry the torch” ahead, and coordinate funding and political support to make a long-term vision a reality.

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM fully funded / semi-permanent

established institution

short-term lease

tacit acceptance/ short duration

city or large developer

unauthorized

top-down

PROCESS // MATRIX

CATEGORIES Hybrid Entrepreneurial Design Build/ Installation

INITIATORS – STEWARDS – OWNERS

Interim Use Catalyst

entrepreneur/ interim use

Westergasfabriek

Organization

Gaengeviertel artist/architecture collective

NDSM

Park Fiction het Schieblock (ZUS)

prototyping events

grassroots/ community organization

Valreep

bottom-up

Grassroots

Christiania

Squatter Settlement

Occupation of abandoned buildings eventually leads to acceptance, develops into a formalized institution granted rights to use the property, or raises

Tacheles Hafenstrasse squatters

squatter activity

unsanctioned

STATUS

sanctioned

43

CASE STUDIES // SQUATTER SETTLEMENTS CONTINUITY

Valreep, Amsterdam

Squatted (2011 – present)

Valreep is the last existing building slated for demolition to make way for a large-scale development.

The rationale for this unsanctioned occupation, is that it is a historic preservation protest. By functioning as a live/work space and venue for cultural events it also announces this community’s desire to become more substantively involved in shaping their urban environment.

These processes operate somewhat different from artist “pioneers,” who make a blighted neighborhood “safe” for the first wave of gentrification. Because such appropriations are generally disarticulated, the actors who have created this added value are easily displaced, and the slate is wiped clean to maximize the highest return on investment. By contrast, the selected case studies have been chosen to indicate the possibilities of continuity; either through informal organizational networks that become institutionalized, or negotiations that allow the initiators to preserve some echo of the social character and types of use that preceded more permanent transformations. By tracing these lines of causality back 10, 20, or 30 years to an original “occupation” – it is most significant to highlight how these unsanctioned actions were pivotal in altering the fate of a project toward culturally and socially productive ends. The Westergasfabriek for instance used to be an old gas works complex. Now it is operating as a Culture Park, and has become one of the leading entertainment destinations in Amsterdam.

Likewise, it was a coalition of squatters that partnered with several outside organizations to transform the NDSM shipyards in Amsterdam into a small business incubator. This space operates as a mini-city under one roof, with elevated streets and co-working spaces that each tenant designs themselves (staying true to the D.I.Y. ethos).

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM EVALUATION Though squatter settlements are not the primary focus of these investigations, they are the most appropriate place to begin an investigation of bottom-up urbanism, in order to understand the phenomenon in its purest form. Instead of relying only on legal frameworks and profit motivations to differentially weigh the potentials of a site these enclaves of resistance operate under a different logic (at least temporarily), where land use is based upon internal dynamics that balance social and cultural metrics with profit. Decision-making processes operating at the most informal end of the spectrum might have the potential to be more efficient and egalitarian, yet without a without a clear authority structure to fall back on, they might easily devolve into chaos, or suffer severe political fissures from within. The question is whether a stable organizational dynamic can somehow evolve organically, and arrive at a consensus yielding the best use for a site? Or does this process need to be augmented by topdown hierarchical structures? As many of these cases suggest – the best outcomes often involve some combination of both. Efforts that achieved long-term stability were generally able to meet investment or political interests halfway, around a common goal.

Squatters’ vision

The Valreep house represents an example of a protest movement against a very large development project, conducted in situ by occupying a historically significant building slated for demolition. It houses artists and hosts events from musical performances to book discussion groups. Though it is not likely to succeed, this alternative vision could be viewed as a barometer for the types of uses inhabitants of the area might like to see on the site (if given the choice). Moving to a much larger scale to consider Christiania, we see a more politically successful example.

It has maintained a relatively stable standoff with the authorities for nearly forty years.

However its fate is still held in the balance, with hostility flaring up again in response to the renewed public debates about how to redevelop the 82 acres of city owned land near the center of Copenhagen. This alternative community boasts its own currency and legal system, yet skews heavily toward a counter-culture of conspicuous drug use and an anarchistic ethos, which emphatically declares its separateness from the rest of the city (a stance that could very well hinder its odds for long-term success).

Developer’s vision 45

CASE STUDIES // SQUATTER SETTLEMENTS

Christiania is an intriguing experiment, yet its full-time festival atmosphere and selfcommodification as an edgy destination for “indie” tourists makes it easy to criticize as a spectacle, and its larger cultural contribution, questionable. Tacheles is another infamous holdout, with a slightly better track record with the state. This five-story department store turned squatter “art house” has persisted for twenty-two years, and was only recently shut down in September 2012. Though its appearance was somewhat foreboding, it remained open to the public. And by housing artist studios and performance spaces it garnered enough public support to warrant funding from the city for various productions.

Christiania, Copenhagen Squatted (1971 – present)

More successful strategies for gaining broader acceptance seem to be those that foster a culture organized around common goals of artistic production, rather than recreational use or abstractly defined concepts such as “anything goes,” i.e. Christiania. The last example, the Gaengeviertel, demonstrates how a large-scale citizen-led effort organized with a strong focus on cultural production might actually become relatively integrated, and even embraced by some politicians and investors.

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Tacheles, Berlin

Squatted (1990 – Sept. 2012)

a former department store appropriated as art studios and performance spaces

47

CASE STUDIES // SQUATTER SETTLEMENTS

Gaengeviertel, Hamburg Squatted (2009 – present) In a relatively short period of time this squatter settlement has achieved a cultural vitality and “authenticity” even the best team of architects, planners, and developers would have difficulty “designing.”

Plan

Surrounding context

twelve buildings saved from demolition by 200 artists

Valentinskamp entry

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Courtyard

A Dutch developer’s plans to demolish nearly a full city block of historic buildings in the center of Hamburg and develop highend offices and condominiums was stalled due to the 2008 global financial crisis. Recognizing their window of opportunity, a coalition of over 200 artists occupied the vacant buildings. Over several years they have transformed the complex into one of the most vibrant hubs of cultural activity in Hamburg. Most of the surrounding buildings are composed of high end, shining glass and steel facades, yet the area remains desolate after the workday is through. The Gaengeviertel stands in stark contrast as an oasis of activity. The dynamic mix of uses within these twelve buildings, ranging from a comedy club, restaurant, cafÊ, bike shop, bar, yoga and dance studios, galleries, artists’ residences and studios, and a playground, is enough to create the sense of a bustling 24/7 community. Meals are prepared for residents in a communal kitchen, using a barter system, rather than the exchange of currency, to create a stable system of shared resources.

Likewise, the decision making process is more akin to that of a housing cooperative: if an individual has an idea, they propose it to the group (usually easily gaining approval), and can then quickly move ahead to begin building anything from a stage to a public art piece (without the usual red tape and bureaucratic hurdles).

This open process significantly reduces barriers to participation. Individuals can make their mark by modifying theses spaces through performance or artistic intervention.

The informality helps blur boundaries between programmatic elements and contributes to a densely interconnected and vibrant social life.

program: art gallery, sculpture park, restaurant, cafe, bar, comedy club, book store, music venue, studio space, classroom, bike shop, game space, theatre/dance, playspace, residences 49

CASE STUDIES // SQUATTER SETTLEMENTS

A snapshot of activities around Gaengeviertel: one group is choreographing a dance performance, across from a playground that is being constructed while dinner is being prepared for the residents of the complex.

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

In this case, squatters were able to demonstrate a site’s potential cultural value to the city, and convince authorities to purchase the property back from the developer, and authorize their use of the space. Ironically, for city planning officials these unsanctioned activities unexpectedly aligned with their new branding strategy: “Hamburg, city of Talent.” After realizing the renewed life these squatters brought back to the center city might be harnessed to further their broader strategies to attract the “creative class,” they have negotiated a contract authorizing the temporary use of the space (though the artists’ ultimate fate and use of the facilities is still to be decided). Realizing that their efforts have been co-opted by the city, the artists have written a manifesto entitled, “Not in Our Name.”

negotiate a deal to purchase the property at a reduced price? There is also an argument that they should “capture” some of the created economic value which will presumably benefit surrounding redevelopment ventures.

(Source: http://das-gaengeviertel.info/)

Regardless of their ideological differences, both sides stand to mutually benefit from the arrangement. The occupation represents a partial victory for this coalition of squatters, in that they have determined use of the site. The real question however, is whether they will be able to maintain their presence and/or some influence upon its longterm fate. One option might be to follow a similar path as the Hafenstrasse squatters, to eventually

51

GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION Spaces produced through grassroots organization have much in common with squatter settlements, in the way power is distributed. Yet differ, in that squatters preemptively occupy a space, with greater organizational capacity generally evolving after the fact. NDSM shipyards and Westergasfabriek are examples in which squatters set the initial spark, but it was ultimately grassroots efforts that mobilized outside stakeholders to carry a longer-term vision forward. The following collectively produced spaces are presented at moments when they are more or less operating within the system (though not to say they don’t have an activist political dimension embedded).

D.I.Y. office space

NDSM Shipyards, Amsterdam

Small Business Incubator (Source: http://www.ndsm.nl/en/)

Generally a small neighborhood coalition is first formed, a concept for an underutilized site proposed, and then a short-term lease or legal agreement outlining terms of temporary use is secured. Community gardens are by far the most common examples (a template that has been widely utilized in the US). Looking to Europe however, we find a range of experiments that look familiar at face value, but are in fact not so easily categorized.

Westergasfabriek, Amsterdam

Culture Park (Source: http://www.westergasfabriek.nl/en/)

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM fully funded / semi-permanent

established institution

short-term lease

tacit acceptance/ short duration

city or large developer

unauthorized

top-down

PROCESS // MATRIX

CATEGORIES Hybrid Entrepreneurial Design Build/ Installation

INITIATORS – STEWARDS – OWNERS

Interim Use Catalyst

entrepreneur/ interim use

Westergasfabriek

NDSM artist/architecture collective

grassroots/ community organization

Grassroots Organization

A collective (often representative of individuals from the neighborhood) enters a lease or formal agreement with the landowner outlining conditions of use.

Squatter Settlement

Stoerepicknick

Kids Garden

Prinzessinnengarten

bottom-up

Jasper Leijnsenstraat 21

squatter activity

unsanctioned

STATUS

sanctioned

53

CASE STUDIES // GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION

Jasper Leijnsenstraat 21, Amsterdam (2011 – present) Initiator: Natascha Hagen Beek, Artist Contract: informal agreement with owner For more information see http:// icanchangetheworldwithmytwohands.blogspot.co.uk/

community garden in a residential courtyard

The initiative has proven very popular in two short years; to which the owner has responded with great enthusiasm, explaining his interest in making the garden permanent – except that it should not be accessible. His attitude underscores how often the value collectively produced projects hold for end users of a space is missed completely by private land owners and political institutions . In this case, the garden’s true value is not as a passive visual amenity, but as an active landscape. The shared chore of cultivating the space serves as a social catalyst to bring residents together, to foster a sense of community.

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Kid’s Garden, Berlin (1999 – present) Initiator: Green for Children (partnership w/ neighboring schools) Owner: city of Berlin Contract: periodically renewed land-use agreement source: http://kidsgardenberlin.wordpress.com/ The lot in 1999

The Kids’ Garden incorporates gardening as part of an educational curriculum for children. The formerly vacant lot has been transformed with some minimal structures, paths, and seating elements, but for the most part has been left to grow wild for over twelve years into a secret urban forest. It provides an alternative to sterile playgrounds as a safe zone for unstructured play, that weaves together engagement with the natural environment as a core component to childhood development. Currently a neighborhood association maintains the space, holding a legal agreement authorizing its temporary use. As is the case for nearly all of the showcased examples, its long-term fate is uncertain. The local munipality is in negotiations to build a day care center on the site (which ironically already partially serves this function, quite successfully, and without a large operational budget).

The lot in 2012

urban forest and play area managed by a neighborhood association

55

CASE STUDIES // GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION

Prinzessinnengarten, Berlin (2009 – present) Initiators: Marco Clausen and Robert Shaw Contract: yearly lease with the city of Berlin

The site of a former grocery store produces food again as a community garden.

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Beyond initial appearances the Prinzessinnengarten is much more than an urban farm. It also has a cafĂŠ, library, beehives, a restaurant (which serves food that has been grown on site), and regularly hosts performances and lectures.

57

CASE STUDIES // GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION The Prinzessinnengarten defies ready-made categories – demonstrating there’s still potential for completely new typologies to be invented, and it is perhaps by leaving a degree of open-endedness that some of the most novel programmatic combinations might be achieved. It’s through this model of accumulated D.I.Y. contributions from over two hundred volunteers, that the space has evolved from a relatively modest urban farm into a vibrant mixed-use destination.

However, rising property values in the area have fueled pressures to redevelop the site. Every year when the lease is up for renewal the Prinzessinnengarten founders face the threat of eviction.

To counteract their impending fate, they have begun to take proactive measures by launching a grassroots campaign that has received over 500 crowdfunded contributions and 30,000 signatures on a petition to preserve the garden. This groundswell of support is a testament to the social value even a small community space with a modest investment of financial capital, but a great deal of social capital can foster.

Source: http://www.startnext.de/en/prinzessinnengarten

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

cafe

kitchen

restaurant

library

school

performance space 59

CATALYST

het Schieblock, Rotterdam ZUS as an anchor tenant (2001 – present) Initiators: Elma van Boxel and Kristian Koreman (ZUS architects) Contract: five year lease with the property owner

These projects have taken on more ambitious agendas than the previous case studies, requiring the creativity and expertise of select individuals to serve as a catalyst for overcoming significant political and financial hurdles.

Besides a few squatters and a sole tenant, ZUS architects, a large office complex close to the central transit station and city center lie derelict for nearly 15 years. However in the past four years, the site has been reviatlized as an experiment that employs a completely different approach to “making” the city.

het Schieblock (studios/start up business incubator) As early pioneers of the Schieblock in 2001, ZUS discovered through renovations to their own office space the structure had many redeemable characteristics... which began to spark their imaginations about the adaptive reuse potentials for the rest of the building. However, it wasn’t until the announcement of a 2007 city redevelopment plan, slating the Schieblock for demolition, that a more dramatic transformation was to be set in motion.

physical context

economic context The fact that 600,000 square meters of office space lie empty in Rotterdam, yet high rise office buildings continued to be developed (in order to inflate public perceptions that the market was still strong) ZUS took as justification to form an opposition movement. They published critical articles rallying against the city’s masterplan, and teamed up with a small development firm CODA, to launch their own initiative to revitalize the area without demolishing the existing structures.

Serving as realtor, ZUS successfully attracted many of the most innovative artists and creative professionals in Rotterdam, to relocate to the Schieblock. Two years after this remarkable turnaround began, the city announced their position remained unchanged, triggering ZUS to attempt yet another, more ambitious scale of interventions. In 2010 they negotiated a fiveyear test period with the owner, permitting them to experiment with the surrounding sites as a “laboratory for urban development.”

established institution

short-term lease

tacit acceptance/ short duration

unauthorized

top-down

city or large developer

fully funded / semi-permanent

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

PROCESS // MATRIX

CATEGORIES Hybrid Entrepreneurial

bottom-up

INITIATORS – STEWARDS – OWNERS

Design Build/ Installation Interim Use entrepreneur/ interim use

Catalyst

artist/architecture collective

grassroots/ community organization

Luchtsingel bridge

het Schieblock (ZUS)

Park Fiction

An Individual or collective sets the spark to catalyze a latent base of support, enlisting volunteer labor, ideas, or crowdsourced funding.

Grassroots Organization prototyping events

Squatter Settlement

squatter activity

unsanctioned

STATUS

sanctioned

61

CASE STUDIES // CATALYST Cultural liquidation in Rotterdam (Image: http://www.zus.cc/work/urban_politics/127_De-Dependance.php)

CULTURAL PRESERVATION

The centerpiece of these transformations has been the re-activation of the ground floor with de Dependance, a “center for urban culture.” For three weeks instead of working at their computers, the office labored to transform what was previously a boarded up retail space into a café, lecture hall, and gallery. To counteract the effect the surrounding office buildings have had at emptying the sidewalks of human habitation after 6 o’clock, ZUS actively worked to foster synergies between this hub of creative production and ground floor public programming to stimulate an “18 hour economy.” They’ve increased visibility and curiosity about the activities within by painting the surrounding sidewalks with brightly colored yellow stripes. More extensive transformations include a passageway that cuts through a series of buildings directly linking to the central transit station, creating an internalized pedestrian street with a series of temporary public spaces such as a beer garden and pop-up restaurant. They envision their fight is not only to preserve a building, but the “cultural infrastructure” of Rotterdam, that has been largely displaced to the periphery.

passage linking het Schieblock to central station

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

new pedestrian street and pop-up public spaces

63

CASE STUDIES // CATALYST LUCHTSINGEL The next phase is a pedestrian bridge that will cross over a six-lane highway, elevated railway, and parking lots to provide greater connectivity to burgeoning retail and cultural destinations in nearby Angniesbuurt (a neighborhood currently under served and physically disconnected), while introducing a series of new green spaces where the bridge touches down. Through an online crowdfunding campaign, the bridge and public spaces (currently under construction) have been enabled by the financial support of thousands of individual contributions ranging from 125 to 1,250 euros. A strategic move by ZUS was to etch all the names of the contributors on the bridge itself, which has served as a symbolic statement of the massive public support the project has garnered.

The Rotterdam International Architecture Biennial (curated by ZUS) also showcased the project as a “test site,� bringing increased visibility that has helped them secure a $5.2 million dollar grant from the city to continue their placemaking experiments.

Barriers

crowdfunded urbanism

Design studios in Angniesbuurt (adjacent neigbhorhood)

each contributor gets their name etched on a plank

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

phase 1 underway

proposed public spaces at bridge touchdown 65

CASE STUDIES // CATALYST

proposal for phase 2

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

ADAPTIVE URBANISM Popular public support however is not enough in and of itself to preserve the Scheiblock as a site of artistic and cultural production. Once their lease is up and the five year test phase is through, there is no guarantee ZUS and the other tenants will be able to remain as more “permanent” redevelopment plans go into effect, nor that the “mark” they’ve made will necessarily translate into future uses. Their task in the interim, is to make this portion of the city successful enough as a ‘place’ to warrant subsidization, or perhaps alternative modes of investment that sustain the renewed energy these small-scale coalitions have created. Yet allowing top-down hierarchies to be temporarily short-circuited, so that bottom-up forces can also participate in the practice of city making is understandably going to make investors and officials nervous to leave open so many variables. To quell these fears: ZUS founders Elma van Boxel and Kristian Koreman make a compelling case that an incremental approach can actually be quite sensible.

They claim: “testing is a preventative measure against utopian failure.” It is in fact less risky than deriving grand proposals purely from market driven predictions, wagered upon an increasingly uncertain economic future. They advocate instead, for a more adaptive approach that trades in [master] “plans” for “scripts” – to build upon existing potentials as a “base” for future development. Due to the long time lag required to finance and construct large-scale development projects they argue instead of waiting 20 years to build a city:

“why not start achieving your ambitions in a single day?”

They don’t envision these transformations as a direct alternative to the city’s long term plans, but see it as a way to test ideas through low cost interventions such as the Luchtsingel (designed for a 15 year lifespan), which can be learned from, and improved upon before manifesting into a more permanent form.

Poster by ZUS, at Rotterdam International Biennial, 2012.

“… stacking these layers of tested ideas will finally compose a city fabric that is physically and mentally interwoven from the start.” – Elma van Boxel and Kristian Koreman Source: http://www.zus.cc/work/urban_politics/index.php?1=y

67

CASE STUDIES // CATALYST

Park Fiction, Hamburg Planning phase (1994 – 2003) Project completed in 2005 Initiated: Christoph Shaefer and Margit Czenki (local artists) Owner: city of Hamburg

Map

citizen led planning

View from the “flying carpet”

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM The Park Fiction efforts began back in 1995, in response to an announcement of the city’s plans to sell the only plot of land in Saint Pauli with direct access to the waterfront to a developer intending to build luxury housing. This clear-cut example of neoliberal privatization (consistent with the city’s broader policy of auctioning off publicly held land to the highest bidder), triggered a group of local artists led by Christoph Shaefer and Margit Czenki to mobilize an opposition movement.

But instead of a protest – they threw a party.

a “planning container” was located on site in the mid nineties.

Versed in theoretical texts by Lefebvre and Rem Koolhaas, the initiators merged art and politics, into what proved to be a powerful combination. They spent time extensively documenting the cultural value of the neighborhood, and located a “planning container” as mission control for an on site parallel planning process funded by the “art in public space” program of the city’s culture department. Over the course of several years they held festivals in situ (at the time, only a hillside with patches of grass), encouraging residents to not only fill out questionnaires describing what they would like to see on the site, but also rolled out an “action kit” with art supplies, and asked them to draw or paint their ideas. The organizers referred to this gamification of the planning process, as a “collective production of desires.”

a series of festivals brought members of the community together around “infotainment” programs, aimed to educate the public about urban planning issues.

69

CASE STUDIES // CATALYST

Images from the Park Fiction Archive, 27 Fischmarkt, Hamburg, courtesty of Christoph Schaefer

questionnaires

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Action kit

a portable planning studio was opened up at events to prompt design input from community members

Resident contributions

many ideas submitted by the community were directly incorporated into the final design

collective “production of desires�

71

CASE STUDIES // CATALYST

NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE The fact that squatters fought for years to attain property rights for the adjacent block in the 1980’s provides an important backstory, that gave the Park Fiction site an inherent political advantage. The latent network of alliances these former squatters had made between key institutions in the neighborhood, i.e. the local church and elementary school, were readily reactivated through the catalyst Park Fiction initiators provided, in order to reify a broader coalition of support.

unsolicited billboard displaying the residents’ design...

key stakeholders

squatters

church

Some residents contributed eclectic ideas such as a flying carpet, and metal palm tree sculptures, which actually worked their way into the final design.

After years of stalled progress by the city to uphold their tacit agreement to make the park a reality, the Park Fiction team resorted to publicity tactics such as erecting a makeshift billboard on site that displayed the neighborhood’s collectively designed vision for the site. Officials quickly called for the billboard’s removal, citing safety violations. However, armed with a compelling narrative and bolstered by a deep network of support within the community, representatives of Park Fiction argued their case, and after drawn out negotiations the city modified the billboard to make it “official.”

local school

political struggle

...the city eventually responded to their demands and paid for the park, which was completed in 2005

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM PARTICIPATION SPILLOVER EFFECTS The park was a site-specific design project as well as social project, with measurable spillover effects into to the surrounding area. Christoph Shaefer points to many anecdotal examples such as a Tabaco shop owner with a secret passion for watercolor painting, who proudly began displaying his artwork in his shop after participating in Park Fiction events. Though trivial in isolation, compounded we can imagine many of these slight shifts in behavior and expectations as constituting Tabaco store art a significant social tranformation.

Park Fiction was an unsolicited art/design project

that acquired weight as a political statement, not through its graphic respresentation or a pro-forma analysis projecting a high financial return, but by demonstrating its social value through a compelling narrative of broad citizen participation. The role of space itself can be said to have played a pivotal role in stitching together and sustaining a social resistance movement, which continues in various forms nearly twenty years after its conception.

Park Fiction initator, Christoph Shaefer explained that the continual use of the ”park” (before it was a park), made it a “social reality.”

Through interim use, a curated “infotainment” program afforded a dynamic mixing of creative energies. This multitude of voices, Margit Czenki explained as constituting a space in which

“art and politics made each other more clever.”

Source: “Spatial Agency” http://www.spatialagency.net/database/ park.fiction

the park has become an incredibly popular destination, and its unique story is common knowledge in Hamburg.

73

INTERIM USE Instead of leaving under utilized lots unoccupied until conditions are ready for long-term investment, property owners often lease the space out, or negotiate land use agreements for temporary use. These uses may include food trucks, farmers markets, festivals, or even cultural events. This category excludes entertainment complexes and retail uses (covered in the entrepreneurial category), to focus instead upon the role of vendors, artists, and small cultural organizations. For vendors, temporary use arrangements can provide them the opportunity to occupy desirable locations without the heavy expense of leasing out a “brick and mortar” store. The food truck model for instance has become an increasingly popular way for aspirational restaurateurs to take risks, by testing unconventional themes. It’s a path of incremental growth that starts with building a customer base first (and enough start up capital), that may often lead to a restaurant or store later. For property owners there is a double incentive to generate revenue while strategically planting the seeds for future economic opportunities. By attracting crowds to an overlooked destination, they can incrementally shift public perceptions about a site before moving ahead with long-term plans.

Tempelhof Airfield, Berlin “The World is Not Fair” expo (Summer 2012) Airfield decommissioned (2008) Re-opened as a public park (2010) D.I.Y. World’s Fair organized by Raumlabor

The former Tempelhof airfield was opened as a public park in 2010. In the interim period before the final park design is implemented, a wide range of D.I.Y. experimentation has been permitted, some of which was showcased in the 2012 “World is Not Fair” expo. The platform gave artists, performers, and everyday people an opportunity to build structures that explored alternative modes of social engagement.

Though these interventions were temporary, the event opened up a space of creativity and playfulness that can leave a lasting memory and spark the public’s imagination about the future possibilities of the park.

Sugarhouse Studios by Assemble (Spring 2012 – TBD 2013)

A pop-up cinema, restaurant, and event space. For more information see http://assemblestudio.co.uk/.

The London Legacy Development Corporation for instance, has helped finance a small art and architecture collective’s transformation of a former sign making shop into a pop-up cinema. However, the donation is not purely to advance the arts: the owner also wants to familiarize the public with this formerly industrial zone (just south of the Olympic Park) before breaking ground on a large mixed use development project in late 2013. Unlike a fleeting event such as the Tempelhof expo, significantly more time and volunteer labor goes into improving a space like Sugarhouse Studios (knowing full well they can only use it for one and a half, to two years). Assemble self-consciously operates with a mind-set that their work temporary. The intentionally makeshift aesthetic of the furniture even fetishes this reality, adding an aura of authenticity via a visual reminder each element was assembled by hand. Furthermore, the informal boundaries between spaces contributes to a more seamless overlap between the theater, pizza restaurant, café, gallery, and lecture space. This model of gifting space to artists and architects can be a very successful technique for sparking networks of shared interests to quickly congeal together and create a strong sense of place. However, the downside to this pop-up community model, is that it needs to keep moving every few years to the next industrial area slated for redevelopment, rather than setting down roots in a particular neighborhood.

established institution

Sugarhouse Studios (Assemble)

short-term lease

tacit acceptance/ short duration

unauthorized

top-down

INITIATORS – STEWARDS – OWNERS bottom-up

city or large developer

fully funded / semi-permanent

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

PROCESS // MATRIX

CATEGORIES Hybrid Entrepreneurial Design Build/ Installation

Mauerpark fleamarket

Interim Use

Arrangment with landowner that authorizes temporary use.

entrepreneur/ interim use

Tempelhof Airfield

Catalyst Grassroots Organization

artist/architecture collective

Squatter Settlement

grassroots/ community organization

squatter activity

unsanctioned

STATUS

sanctioned

75

CASE STUDIES // INTERIM USE

Mauerpark fleamarket, Berlin

PARK

FLEA MARKET

Mauerpark: publicly owned (1993 – present) Fleamarket: privately owned (2004 – present)

Seamless pedestrian circulation between the park and market enhances the vitality of both programs.

View from the fleamarket looking toward the park

The park/market brings in huge crowds on Sundays, which often spill out and patronize local restaurants and businesses after a day at the park.

weekend market as a catalyst to activate public space

Performers set up throughout flea market

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Mauerpark occupies a massive area, formerly part of the “death strip” along the Berlin wall in Prenzlauerberg (a neighborhood that has become very trendy in the past ten years). At face value the park appears much like any other; however its unique mix of programmatic elements and landscape features fosters a dynamic mixing of activities. On Sundays the park becomes an event, drawing crowds from all over the city, with the key constitutive element of this vitality – a flea market. The market brings a critical mass of visitors and forms a synergy between other destinations like the ‘Bearpit Karaoke’ show. These moments of intensity occupying different ends of the park enable a multiplicity of itineraries between.

Much of the park’s vitality arises because these diverse programs are not clearly bounded, but blur together, intermingling passive recreation, entertainment, and informal economic activity. The market is directly adjacent to the park, and allows many points of entry, facilitating a steady stream of visitors moving between the two. Street performers set up in locations throughout the park and within the flea market space. The market itself also spills out beyond the stalls, to occupy the entrance steps, and into some portions of the park.

View from main lawn looking toward south entrance

Street vendors at park entrance steps

market activity spills out to occupy the entrance steps, and portions of the park 77

to see and be seen impromptu performances

karaoke ampitheater FUTURE OF MAUERPARK

Many are compelled to show off for their friends, or grab the attention of strangers along the quieter circulation routes.

basketball ampitheater

impromptu dispersed performances performances within the fleamarket

buskers

Musicians congregate along the main route, often prompting small audiences to form.

performances

professional musicians

Acknowledging the important role the market plays in enhancing the overall vitality of the park (as well as contributing economic multiplier effects to surrounding restaurants and businesses with increased foot traffic on weekends) does not change the fact the land is privately owned, and the potential revenue for the given parcel is far greater as luxury housing than if left accessible to the public. For several years the owner has entertained various development proposals, which have prompted the non-profit organization ‘Friends of Mauerpark’ to join forces with the ‘Mauerpark Foundation for a World Citizens Park,’ in hopes of raising enough money to purchase the flea market property in order to preserve its current use, and formally integrate it with the park.

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

play

people watching

park as stage a large hillside along the eastern edge of the park looks out onto the lawn, creating a natural

ampitheater for watching the activities below.

79

Cineroleum, London

by Assemble

DESIGN BUILD

Installation: 2010

before

after

process (images: http://assemblestudio.co.uk/)

a gas station converted into a cinema In the US, the University of Alabama (with the Rural Studio) and Parsons New School for Design incorporate design build studios as a key component of their architecture curriculums. The model falls under a similar category as habitat for humanity aid programs, in which outside expertise is brought in to empower those in underprivileged communities. The following selected case studies by contrast, rather than following the more established design build template predominately aimed at delivering basic needs such as shelter, use volunteer labor and affordable construction techniques to create pop-up venues focused on fostering novel cultural experiences. Though these examples are only installations, we might learn from the ways artist and architecture collectives creatively transform under utilized sites into exciting destinations. A key to the spontaneous vitality they are able to generate, is the direct connection the initiators who conceive of, construct, and program the spaces have with the end users. This can lead to more collaboration between those designing/ constructing a space and the artistic content producers (Practice), as well as boost the popularity of an event using established online networks to bring large crowds out to unexpected locations (Exyzt).

established institution

short-term lease

tacit acceptance/ short duration

unauthorized

top-down

city or large developer

fully funded / semi-permanent

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

PROCESS // MATRIX

CATEGORIES Hybrid Entrepreneurial

bottom-up

INITIATORS – STEWARDS – OWNERS

Design Build /Installation

Artist/Architecture collective enlists volunteer labor to construct temporary structures.

entrepreneur/ interim use

Interim Use BT5 parking garage (Practice) artist/architecture collective

Lido Beach (Exyzt)

Catalyst

Cineroleum (Assemble)

Grassroots Organization

Folly for a Flyover (Assemble)

Union Press (Public Works)

Squatter Settlement

programmed by community

grassroots/ community organization

squatter activity

unsanctioned

STATUS

sanctioned

81

CASE STUDIES // DESIGN BUILD

Southwark Lido Beach, London

by Exyzt (Paris based design build collective) Installation: summer 2008 and 2012

Gathering spaces under the arches

Nomadic placemaking is a relatively new phenomenon on the rise in London, Paris, and Berlin. A Paris based group, Exyzt, fluctuating between 5-10 individuals, moves to interstitial sites in multiple European cities to produce alternative forms of collective experience, that fall outside the standard cultural silos. They camp on site and usually spend about a week constructing their fantasies into environments that facilitate completely unstructured festival atmospheres. The communal experience the design/builders share through the process of constructing these spaces appears as important to them as the final unveiling and celebration that follows.

For their Southwark Lido project, they constructed a pop-up beer garden under the arches of an elevated railway – with a little sand, a swimming pool, and wooden canopies they created an urban beach. The owner has been supportive because it brings visitors to the site and sparks the public to consider more imaginative possibilities about what could be there. However, those that live in the immediate area often have little or no direct

nomadic placemaking

relationship to these interventions, that only last a week to several months. The organizers rely heavily upon online social media platforms to attract people from locations throughout the city. Part of the excitement is intrinsically tied to the knowledge these surreal experiences are well outside of one’s everyday reality, and exist as fleeting moments.

The de-familiarization of an overpass or parking garage from utilitarian infrastructure into an edgy destination is part of what charges these spaces.

Therefore, they might naturally resist formalization as permanent (quasi) public interventions, since the novelty of the experience will inevitably wear off.

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Union Press, London

by Public Works (art and architecture collective) Installation: summer 2012

Union Press was installed a few blocks from Lido Beach.

Though this collective of artists sometimes works with Exyzt, they employ a very different approach. Public Works by contrast, seek extensive engagement with local communities through public art interventions that encourage public contributions, such as impromptu publications, in the case of Union Press. This installation also aspired to revive the memory of the role the printing industry once played in the area, in hopes of sparking residents to imagine counter narratives to the growing number of high-end housing and office tower developments, rapidly erasing this historic legacy.

BT5 Parking Garage, London

Poetry in the square

Information kiosk/D.I.Y. publishing

by Practice (London based design build collective) Installation: summer 2009 and 2011

Practice, a London based architecture collective transformed portions of an under utilized parking garage into a popular cultural destination. Using low cost, sound absorbent materials (straw bales) they constructed an auditorium and a pop-up restaurant out of reclaimed wood on the roof. The entire garage also periodically becomes a canvas for artists to set up installations. This is an example where the designers of temporary interventions have expressed a desire to affect longer-term change. Through the iterative process testing various uses on site, they’ve also developed a long-term vision that would transform the garage into a community center. However they lack the financial means and political backing to do so. This sentiment is actually quite common; yet only in the rare exception an intervention becomes so beloved it cannot be removed without major political resistance, these “claimed” spaces are generally scraped away once the real estate market is ripe for development. The long term challenge then, is how to ensure the robust and inclusive qualities incubated during an interim period persist as a space evolves into more formalized manifestations.

Frank’s Cafe (on the roof)

Straw bale Auditorium

83

CASE STUDIES // DESIGN BUILD

Folly for a Flyover, London

by Assemble (design and architecture collective) Partners: 68 local businesses and community organizations Owner: London Legacy Development Corporation Constructed with the help of 200 volunteers in 2011

Assemble’s Folly for a Flyover is an example of an art project/ event space that significantly engaged with the local community to leave a lasting mark after their work was through. Built with the help of 200 volunteers in four weeks, and only £ 40,000 – the folly activated a derelict site under an overpass to house a café and event space. While the cinema was a destination drawing in an influx of hip outside visitors to this quiet neighborhood on the outskirts of London (similar to Exyzt’s work), the organizers also coordinated with 68 local organizations to program the space with everything from knitting circles to orchestras.

After the installation phase materials from the folly went to a nearby school, and some have been reused on site to house a temporary bike shop. The owner of the property (LLDC) is now working with an architect (MUF) to envision longer-term plans for how the site might better link with nearby green spaces and and remain in active use as a public amenity. (source: http://assemblestudio.co.uk/)

t & Contact: CREATE 2011 (Anna Doyle), The Barbican (Katrina Crookall) pop-up event s & Delivery: 2010space – 2011under a highway overpass ery Partners: CREATE, The Barbican, muf architecture/art and 68 local businesses and groups.

CASE STUDIES // DESIGN BUILD

=68@C:N B6GH=:H

(Images courtesy of Assemble: info@assemblestudio.co.uk)

9:CI>6A

DANBE>8 E6G@

=68@C:N L>8@

K>8IDG>6 E6G@

Context

Process

The project was funded by LLDC to improve public perceptions of the site and involve the community in a process that will inform a permanent design intervention linking new residential areas to greenspaces.

Box Park, London (2011 – present)

pop-up mini-mall made from reused shipping containers

ENTREPRENEURIAL In this category of temporary use, land is leased to small-scale entrepreneurs to experiment with profit making ventures. Given the relatively modest cost of construction, low risk, and often advantageous locations, temporary retail and entertainment venues can actually become quite lucrative scenarios. Box Park is an example of an innovative re-use of shipping containers as a mini-mall, strategically located along a narrow plot of land directly adjacent to a popular transit hub. The project activates a site that would otherwise remain exclusively for parking or as an empty lot surrounded by a chain link fence until longer-term development moves ahead. Meanwhile, temporary retail brings in revenue, shifts perceptions about the site, and contributes to the success of surrounding businesses by bringing in more foot traffic to the area. The model is also advantageous to retailers because the lease terms are more flexible than “brick and mortar” establishments. After Box Park was initiated in late 2011, “cargotecture” pop-ups have rapidly spread to many other cities around the globe; underscoring how in the era of trendspotting blogs, it does not take long for good ideas to transmit and morph into variations on the same theme. The Badeschiff in Berlin is another case illustrative of the ways trends (such as floating pools) often appear around the same time in multiple locations (New York for instance, also unveiled a floating pool in 2007).

Badeschiff, Berlin (2004 – present)

temporary Spaces along the Spree River

Source: Denton, Jill. Urban Pioneers: Berlin city development through interim use. (Berlin: Jovis, 2007)

a floating pool in the Spree River

established institution

short-term lease

tacit acceptance/ short duration

unauthorized

top-down

city or large developer

fully funded / semi-permanent

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

PROCESS // MATRIX

Holzmarkt

bottom-up

INITIATORS – STEWARDS – OWNERS

(proposal)

Kater Holzig entrepreneur/ interim use

Bar 25 Box Park

Morchenpark prototyping event Beach Mitte Oststrand Badeschiff

Strand Bar Mitte

CATEGORIES Hybrid Entrepreneurial

Property is leased for a highly themed, but low cost profit making venture.

Design Build/ Installation Interim Use Catalyst Grassroots Organization Squatter Settlement

artist/architecture collective

grassroots/ community organization

squatter activity

unsanctioned

STATUS

sanctioned

89

CASE STUDIES // ENTREPRENEURIAL

Strandbar Mitte, Berlin (2004 – present)

Hexenkessel Ampitheater (run by the same operators as Strandbar)

the first beach bar in Berlin (now there are over thirty) Berlin’s unique history as a failed financial super power turned successful center of culture (with an abundance of vacant land), has made it particularly conducive as a testbed for temporary use experiments. There have been several recent migrations of pop-up uses, such as urban beaches. The trend that started with Strandbar Mitte, has continued eastward along the Spree River. More recent destinations include Yaam and Oststrand. Yet unlike these other venues (which will likely only be temporary), the Strandbar might be an exception that persists in the long-term future. The synergy formed between a directly adjacent amphitheater (operated by the same company) and its prominent location across from Museum Island has made it such a popular destination, the informal aesthetic might ultimately become a viable alternative to a “permanent” landscaping design.

Weather Map of Temporary Use in Berlin

Source: Urban Pioneers: Berlin city development through interim use

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Holzmarkt, Berlin Initiators: Christoph Klenzendorf and Juval Dieziger operators of Bar 25 (2003 –2010) and Kater Holzig (2011–present) Owner: BSR until the fall 2012 Holzmarkt bid

Rendering of Mediaspree masterplan

Initiators in front of the former Bar 25

Kater Holzig (across the river from Bar 25/Holzmarkt site)

CONTEXT

MEDIASPREE

Other popular temporary uses along city owned waterfront sites have been the proliferation of sprawling nightlife venues such as Bar 25. In the mid 2000’s this particular nightclub reached international acclaim as one of the top counter cultural destinations in Berlin. However, in 2010 (after seven years in operation), they were evicted by BSR (the EU waste management company) to make way for a large-scale development. But the club operators simply relocated to a site across the river, to transform an abandoned factory into an even grander, multi-level, highly themed labyrinthian entertainment complex.

The significance of this story is that the operators of the two nightclubs were able to build upon their long-standing reputation as preeminent providers of nightlife activities in Berlin, to attract a wide range of investors to into enter into a cooperative ownership agreement, and win the highest bid (with a $63 million dollar proposal) to purchase the former Bar 25 site.

The former Bar 25 parcel is just one piece of the controversial Mediaspree, 440 acre redevelopment plan. Though the billions of dollars invested here (largely from transnational corporations) will certainly boost the economy, there have been almost no public amenities brokered in return. This perceived insensitivity to local interests has triggered massive protests, which have also served as a platform for voicing discontent about rapid gentrification processes occurring throughout the city.

Mediaspree protests

beach bar founders turned big time developers 91

CASE STUDIES // ENTREPRENEURIAL PROGRAM + hotel + restaurant + music venue + theater/cinema + live/work spaces

PROPOSAL

+ start-up incubator + student housing + kidszone + park and gardens + urban farming

Contextualized within the larger political landscape, the Holzmarkt proposal (by the Bar 25 founders) for a period of time, became the symbolic frontline for what was widely perceived as a battle to preserve Berlin’s cultural identity. By bolstering the impression the Holzmarkt was a project created by and for the local community, the organizers were able to harness political support and attract investors. High-income generating programs such as a hotel were required to The Holzmarkt is an urban field of tension. In the that combines garden and habitat. Nature and northern area, the rightwith for urbanthe development agriculture, as well as a public proposals. boardwalk on the economically compete other development However, the will be used innovatively. Sustainable design and Spree are further links between north and south. flexible use as well as free optional areas will set organizers’ larger agenda was to respond to the desires emerging out of existing new standards. The S-Bahn bridge dominates Successful strategies and content from already the ensemble. The arches will be opened. The completed projects are combined with the boardwalk connects the north withto thecultural southern expertise of aalong strong partner to the hybrid, which social networks (accustomed uses the waterfront), to include a part of the 18,000m² area, which unites Holz uses the existing planning legislation quantitatively (Timber) and the Markt (Market) in the true sense and qualitatively. mix a programs outside investment would not otherwise produce. of the word. This forms a counterpoint to the

2020 Holzmarkt

massive urban development in the north. Village, club, restaurant, theaters are mostly built of natural materials and are embedded in a public park

A place to work, relax, study and live - a start-up center, habitat, market place and tourist magnet in one.

Plattform für Kreative

Holzmarktstrasse

Rendering of Eckwerk (small business incubator)

Village

Mörchenpark

Club

Restaurant

Hotel

Eckwerk

Concept plan 2020

The overall complex is organized around the concept of a village, with references to the historical use of the site as a Timber Market (Holzmarket in German). They propose low-income student housing, a fabrication lab adjacent to live/work spaces, urban agriculture, cultural and entertainment offerings, and a public park.

6

Section

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

ve Model

zmarkt is also reflected in the e committed to the principles democratic economy activity. ety, founded by the initiators o retain especially the creative nterests. It also provides the shape and participate for nd supporters. The Holzmarkt ociety enables transparency nt of the city of Berlin. In a sustainable financing model estors are attracted. With the e cooperative structure, we and scope for reaction for pment and financing in order ions.

MORCHENPARK

COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP

Eckwerk

Morchen (fairy tale) park and garden concept illustration

3

The cooperative financing model is open for anyone to take partial ownership in the overall project (with shares beginning at 25,000 euros).

The initiators also set up a platform for incorporating citizen input during the visioning process for the public spaces, with the Morchenpark Festival held in summer 2012. Held in situ, the event was intended to raise awareness about the project, and serve as an opportunity to test the kind of atmosphere and types of use that might ultimately be incorporated into the final design.

Source: http://www.gukeg.de/

A festival was held on the site in May 2012 to test ideas for the park

93

HYBRID

Almere retrofit, Netherlands Designers/planners: DUS architects (hired by the city) Consultation/social design process: 2011 – ongoing Expected completion: 2020 For more information see http://www.dusarchitects.com

Storefront hosting the participation process

Plan of Almere, Netherlands

The city of Almere in the Netherlands was masterplanned in the 70’s and 80’s, and is already experiencing growing pains. Yet instead of following a purely top-down process, the city has hired an Amsterdam architecture firm DUS, to supervise Do It Yourself upgrades residents might like to make, such as an added bedroom, transformation of residential to commercial use, or aesthetic improvements.

Working through a consultation process with the residents, they put together several “stylebooks” that provide a wide range of basic design concepts and templates, as well as necessary zoning, permitting, and contact information for area architects and contractors. An online platform has also been developed to track all the upgrades and serve as an open-source platform to further the exchange of ideas.

DUS has also utilized a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches for mapping, programming, and design consulting in collaboration with the local planning agency for the development of a landscape masterplan.

Supervisors of D.I.Y. process

Bottom-up design doesn’t necessarily have to bubble up through grassroots processes – it can also be enabled, or even initiated at higher institutional levels. The following projects suggest possibilities for productively facilitating citizen input in ways that might reduce bureaucracy, project costs, and even lead to creative design results, more closely aligned with the needs of the end users.

Consultation Images from Stylebook

established institution

short-term lease

tacit acceptance/ short duration

unauthorized

top-down

city or large developer

Almere retrofit (DUS)

New Addington (Assemble)

fully funded / semi-permanent

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

PROCESS // MATRIX

bottom-up

INITIATORS – STEWARDS – OWNERS

Holzmarkt (proposal) Kater Holzig entrepreneur/ interim use

Morchenpark prototyping event

CATEGORIES

Hybrid

Professionals hired by a city agency or developer to supervise DIY interventions, or through outreach or curated events filter user feedback to inform semipermanent interventions.

Entrepreneurial community outreach artist/architecture collective

Design Build/ Installation

Folly for a Flyover (Assemble)

Interim Use

Park Fiction

programmed by community

grassroots/ community organization

Grassroots Organization Squatter Settlement

prototyping events

curated prototyping event

Catalyst

squatter activity

unsanctioned

STATUS

sanctioned

95

N

PARADE

CASE STUDIES // HYBRID

New Addington, UK Designers/planners: Assemble (hired by the city) Design/event planning: 2011–2012, completed summer 2012

New Addington was built in 1939 as a new town experiment based upon !"#$%&'#()&*+,#-*%.)#/"0123 garden city principles. However, the actual reality was not able to match the original utopian visions. Much of the original design was never completed with the outbreak of WWII, and the town’s disconnection from surrounding areas and poor access to social services has contributed to its long decline.

PUBLIC SPACE PROTOTYPING Upon the recommendation of a community organization, Pathfinders, the city hired Assemble to revitalize the public spaces. The project brief included physical improvements to the town square, and then a series of events to commemorate the design’s unveiling. Yet instead of following the brief, Assemble decided to reverse the process and host an event before the design was finished; as a way to learn from how people actually used the space. Most importantly, instead of imposing the types of use they thought the town needed, they revealed the vitality already present, but hidden behind closed doors.

WHAT’S ON IN NEW ADDINGTON

?

WHAT’S ON IN CENTRAL PARADE

You are invited

IN THE SQUARE

COME OUTSIDE FOR A WE E K O F EVE N TS held on

Central Parade

Carols in the Square With SingCR0nise, Dance with Grace and more!

MONDAY ACA

13TH – 18TH DECEMBER

Central Parade, 01689 843219 (Please contact ACA for times of activities)

Family Cinema Saturday 17th December Sunday 18th December

Good Samaritans Pop-in

Father Christmas

1 Salcot Cresent 01689 841176

The Snowman

New Addington Library

4'((C&D6,&B)(%(*'%&

4–5pm

Central Parade 020 8726 6900

MAN OF STEEL

•

9am–4pm 10am–2pm 9am–4pm 2–4pm 12pm

BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE PEOPLE’S CARNIVAL

Tuesday 13th – Monday 19th December New Addington is full of things to do, for young and old alike. For one week, many of the events and activities that go on around the area are coming outside and into the square.

2pm 4–7pm

TUESDAY Weight Watchers Indoor Bowls Tea Dance Dance with Grace

4–7pm 7.30pm

Snooker Chiropody (first Monday of the month) Jumble Darts Lunch Club

9am–4pm 10–11.30am 9am–4pm 2–4pm

Chatterbooks (first Monday of each month)

10–11am

St Edward’s Church

4-'5)2-6&78'"&9(:(,;()&&&&&&&&&&<=>?@AB,

New Addington Leisure Centre

H E ALTH Y LIVIN G AN D E ATING

8.9/*01&!,314565%75. +*,-./*01&2,314565%75.1

!"#$%

Snooker Food-link Jumble CHRC* Social Group, open to all Lunch Club

9am–4pm 10.30am 10am–2pm 9am–4pm 12.15pm

Sn Ke Mo Ju Lu

4–6pm

Once Upon a Rhyme (term time only) Homework Club

6pm

Karate

6pm

Bo

4–4.45pm 4–6pm

Aquafit for kids Junior Gym 13–6yrs

4–4.45pm

Ch

MOUVA BROWN OF C.A.L.A.T. PRESENTS

Wednesday 14th December 10am

2-3pm Tuesday 13th December 6pm Friday 16th December

Images of the town square

From 13th–18th December many of the activities that go on in and around Central Parade are coming outside and into the square welcoming regulars, newcomers and passersby alike. Pick up a leaflet in one of the shops or drop by the Octagon for a full calendar. Hot drinks, heat lamps and shelter provided so come along whatever the weather!

12–2.30pm

Teenage Mothers’ Group

7–10pm

13+ Boys

7.15–9.30pm

13–

1.30–2pm 2–3pm 7pm

Baby Ballerinas Dinky Disco Monday

10-12pm 12.15pm

Parent & Child Dance Adult Dancercise

10–10.30am 10.30–11am 5pm 5.30pm 6pm

Ba Tin Ba Tap Fu

8–9.30pm

Bellringing

2.00pm

Mothers Union

8pm

Mo

4–7.30pm

Strengthening Families and Communities 10am–10pm

Op

9am–5pm Pathfinder's Drop in (approx)

Central Parade, 01689 809377

THE OUTER LONDON FUND

&%+,-$'(./%0,$1$'!$ -'%!$'),&.%0&,&($

Children’s Swimming Adults Lessons

Octagon

Goldcrest Way, 01689 843333

Yelo Dance Studios

Cake Decorating

PA R A D E PA S T O R S

4–4.45pm 9pm

Central Parade, 01689 842553

LAUN CH LUN CH TUE SDAY 1 3 TH DE CE M BE R 1 1 AM 1 . 3 0 PM

&'()'*%"#$%

!"#$%&'(%#$$)%)*$

Unit 21, Addington Business Centre Vulcan Way 0794 959 7857

St. Mary the Blessed Virgin Spout Hill, 01689 842 167

Timebridge Centre

Fieldway, 01689already 841688 Assemble aggregated a schedule of all the events that were happening in town Dancersize with YELO Dance Studio

Wednesday 14th December 6pm

Assemble, the OLF design team currently working on improvements to the Central Parade area will be there every day and look forward to meeting you to hear your thoughts about the changes you would like to see in your Town Centre.

Extra details & events released on-line on Monday 12th: www.newaddingtontoday.co.uk

Steel Gym

10am–10pm Open Gym, 16+

Salvation Army

a street festival is used to protoype permanent public space interventions.

SATURDAY

SUNDAY

10am–10pm Open Gym, 16+

Vulcan Way, 07554 535392

Hares Bank, 01689 842950

Something missing from this timetable? Please pop in to the Octagon or email newaddington@assemblestudio.co.uk.

FRIDAY

Pla Bin Ind Da

Cleves Crescent 01689 845588

Good Food Matters

MARKET OPEN AS USUAL Every Tuesday & Friday

THURSDAY

4–7pm

!"#$%&'"(&%')#*+(%'&,-* .*&/(0&122.*+'#*3

All activities free and family friendly Newcomers and beginners welcome

Gold Crest Youth Club

WEDNESDAY

12.15pm

WEDNESDAY

Dance with Grace Judo

www.newaddingtontoday.co.uk

9.30-1130am Bre &T

H E A LT H Y L I V I N G A N D E AT I N G

Good Food Matters L AU N C H L U N C H T UE S DAY 1 3 T H D E C E M B E R 11AM 1.30PM

They did extensive research to uncover all of the social clubs and informal activities happening in town, and then concentrated them in the town square for a winter market/prototyping event, that hosted everything from a senior citizens “tea dance” to a weight lifting competition for local teenagers. The primary aim was to bring a variety of users to the space to overcome the social stigmas associated with it. Many elderly residents for instance, were actually afraid to visit the Town Square because of the perceived threat posed by teenagers who frequented the space. Assemble’s method for overcoming this psychological barrier was to actually encourage teenagers and younger children to use the space even more. They for instance, mocked up temporary skate ramps to MAN OF STEEL encourage play, that not surprisingly became so popular when it was time for their removal, kids sat on them in protest.

4'((C&D6,&B)(%(*'%&

HEA LTHY LIVIN G A N D EATIN G

Good Food Matters

•

LAUN CH LUN CH TUESDAY 13TH DECEM BER 11A M 1.30PM

WHAT’S ON You are invited

WHAT’S ON IN CENTRAL PARADE

held on

Central Parade

13TH – 18TH DECEMBER

IN THE SQUARE

C O M E OUTS I D E FO R A W EEK O F EV EN TS Carols in the Square

Family Cinema Saturday 17th December

With SingCR0nise, Dance with Grace and more!

Sunday 18th December

hot drinks & ginger bread

M ACA

ALL EVENTS FREE

Father Christmas

Li t t l e S t a r s N u r s e r y

Central Parade, 01689 843219 (Please contact ACA for times of activities)

Good Samaritans Pop-in

LET’S GET MOVING

The Snowman

1 Salcot Cresent 01689 841176

TUESDAY 13TH DECEMBER 11AM & 1.15PM

BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE PEOPLE’S CARNIVAL

New Addington is full of things to do, for young and old alike. For one week, many of the events and activities that go on around the area are coming outside and into the square.

•

Tea Dance

Thursday 15th December: 11am – 1pm

!"#$%&'"(&%')#*+(%'&,-* .*&/(0&122.*+'#*3

All activities free and family friendly Newcomers and beginners welcome

New Addington Library

4'((C&D6,&B)(%(*'%&

•

MAN OF STEEL !"#$%&'"(&%')#*+(%'&,-* .*&/(0&122.*+'#*3

St Edward’s Church

4-'5)2-6&78'"&9(:(,;()&&&&&&&&&&<=>?@AB,

Cleves Crescent 01689 845588

8.9/*01&!,314565%75.

New Addington Leisure Centre Octagon Central Parade, 01689 809377

Gold Crest Youth Club

4-'5)2-6&78'"&9(:(,;()&&&&&&&&&&<=>?@AB, MOUVA BROWN OF C.A.L.A.T. PRESENTS

THE OUTER LONDON FUND

Wednesday 14th December 10am

&%+,-$'(./%0,$1$'!$ -'%!$'),&.%0&,&($

2-3pm Tuesday 13th December 6pm Friday 16th December

Dancersize with YELO Dance Studio

Wednesday 14th December 6pm

From 13th–18th December many of the activities that go on in and around Central Parade are coming outside and into the square welcoming regulars, newcomers and passersby alike. Pick up a leaflet in one of the shops or drop by the Octagon for a full calendar. Hot drinks, heat lamps and shelter provided so come along whatever the weather!

Assemble, the OLF design team currently working on improvements to the Central Parade area will be there every day and look forward to meeting you to hear your thoughts about the changes you would like to see in your Town Centre.

Extra details & events released on-line on Monday 12th: www.newaddingtontoday.co.uk

12

Goldcrest Way, 01689 843333

Yelo Dance Studios

Cake Decorating

PA R A D E PA S T O R S

4– 9p

Central Parade, 01689 842553

LAUN CH LUN CH T UESDAY 13T H D ECEM BER 11A M 1.30P M

+*,-./*01&2,314565%75.1

!"#$%&'(%#$$)%)*$

4–

!"#$%&'"(&%')#*+(%'&,-* .*&/(0&122.*+'#*3

Good Food Matters

MARKET OPEN AS USUAL Every Tuesday & Friday

9a 10

Central Parade 020 8726 6900

MAN OF STEEL

HEA LT HY LIV IN G A N D EAT IN G

4'((C&D6,&B)(%(*'%&

2p 4–

9a 2– 12

Tuesday 13th – Monday 19th December

4-'5)2-6&78'"&9(:(,;()&&&&&&&&&&<=>?@AB,

The testing phase held tremendous advantages over drawings and rhetoric (as designers the only other tools at their disposal), because they could demonstrate potentials in order to quell perceived risk among stakeholders and residents, allowing them to permanently incorporate elements that might otherwise have been impossible (such as skateramps). Though the approach was quite unconventional, it teaches a common sense lesson that for a public space to be truly successful, social design can be as vital as the physical design .

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Unit 21, Addington Business Centre Vulcan Way 0794 959 7857

1.

2– 7p

St. Mary the Blessed Virgin

8–

Spout Hill, 01689 842 167

Timebridge Centre Fieldway, 01689 841688

Steel Gym

10

Vulcan Way, 07554 535392

Salvation Army Hares Bank, 01689 842950

www.newaddingtont

assemble curated the festival around activities that already happened in town street 97

(Images courtesy of Assemble: info@assemblestudio.co.uk)

CASE STUDIES // HYBRID

Temporary stage and skateramps

testing phase

Images from winter market event

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Completed design

Temporary use directly informed the final design, altered social habits, and transformed public perceptions of the town square.

99

SOCIAL VALUE Of the selected case studies several spatial and organizational relationships emerged as key contributors to the vitality of these spaces.

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

PROGRAMATIC SYNERGY Mauerpark underscores – it is not just the right mix of programs, but

the connections between that create memorable places. Examples such as the Prinzessinnengarten further support the argument for leaving some things unplanned. Conditions might be left open for unexpected social patterns to evolve, so that a place can begin to take on a life of its own; yet also be gently guided in ways that increase its potentials for success. Mauerpark flea market for instance, located just 100 feet away from the park (rather than connected to it) might have drastically diffused the vibrancy of both uses. Their direct adjacency on the contrary, increases the overall flow of traffic and blurs the boundaries between the two typologies. The market also starts to take on some characteristics of the park; punctuated with seating and recreational opportunities throughout – people can watch performances, dine, or sit and converse with friends.

Even the narrowness of the park and hierarchy of circulation routes contributes (rather than a consistent loop). The urban experience fostered is more akin to the romantic ideals of plazas and town squares than the conventional image of a ‘park.’ By compressing these different layers of activity against a concentrated flow of pedestrian traffic – the park/market begins to behave like gas molecules under pressure – speeding up the number of collisions and exchanges, to foster enough variety of activities and serendipitous moments one can easily spend the entire day there.

Mauerpark “bearpit” karaoke

Mauerpark flea market

101

MAXIMIZING DIVERSITY

Contrary

Flying carpet and desert island lawns

One of many colorful events held at the park

to

conventional

wisdom

entrenched in professional disciplines (that design for a universal public), the Park Fiction process was able to produce public space specific to a heterogeneous group of end users.

During the cyclical festivals different ethnic groups appropriated the site by erecting their own makeshift platforms along the derelict hillside (which inadvertently functioned as a one-to-one planning studio). These D.I.Y. interventions at some point melded with the motif of palm trees on desert islands that began to appear in many of the children’s drawings, to inform the over arching concept of a park of “islands.”

The ethnic and cultural diversity of Saint Pauli contributed to the variety of ideas that came out of the participatory planning process, and has been a key component of the neighborhood’s identity, yet simultaneously formed the fault line of many underlying social tensions. Christoph Shaefer (one of the project initiators) explained how these latent conflicts spatially manifested during the Park Fiction festivals. He cited an example of religious fundamentalists from the Turkish community that appropriated an “island” adjacent to one occupied by a group of homosexuals. The two groups may have disliked each other, but the physical articulation of distinctly separate spaces actually enabled the two groups to coexist in closer contact with one another (than they would otherwise choose). This example provides a nuanced (and perhaps more realistic) reading of public space, but also suggests that the physical layout of a space can actually have

real social impacts. Shaefer speculates that the Park Fiction participatory process which brought people from very diverse backgrounds together around a common cause, may in and of itself been responsible for mending some of these schisms. He argues Park Fiction (in contrast to generic public spaces designed for abstract ‘users’) has been more widely used and successful as a social project, by maximizing differences.

In distilling principles from these case studies about ways everyday citizens can “make their mark” on a space, it is important to also consider potential dangers of community members taking on too much ownership over a project. There’s always the risk that bottomup experiments might be abused over time, i.e. particular groups staking out their own turf, and excluding others. In order to keep possible power imbalances in check, and ensure longterm social sustainability – citizen led projects also need some degree of organizational hierarchy.

The strength of this example, is of a traditionally top-down model (of a city agency with the embedded power to enforce equal access) that met bottomup influences halfway; space and social habits of the community were able to some degree co-evolve together, to allow the many voices and eccentricities of the residents to be expressed, even if it that meant metal palm trees and a flying carpet lawn.

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Park Fiction, Hamburg

Makeshift platforms at festivals were unplanned prototypes for the islands concept

Groups naturally space themselves along the “crests” of the flying carpet

Design idea contributed through the citizen participation process

Large steps allow different user groups to be a part of the same activities, but not necessarily interact directly

“Islands” emerged out of citizen appropriations to the site, and melded with contributions from the participatory process to become the guiding design concept.

103

DEGREES OF OWNERSHIP To analyze a community agriculture project like the Prinzessinnengarten as a model of public space, opens up many interesting questions. Though the land is technically owned by the city, two initiators hold a shortterm lease and coordinate the maintenance of the space with the help of more than 100 volunteers.

Presumably, these individuals who have donated their hard earned time maintaining the garden have cultivated a collective sense of “ownership” – not based on economic or legal claims – but through individual and shared experiences. Rather than a diffused sense of belonging one may feel in a city-operated park, based on an abstract association as a member of the “public” (defined by equal access to that space), or a psychological affinity from living within a certain proximity – visitors to Prinzessinnengarten have the potential to stake more specific claim to the space, relative to the amount of “sweat equity” they’ve invested. But unlike many community gardens it’s not an exclusive club. Its vitality thrives off the asymmetry of varying degrees of personal attachments people have to the space, ranging from initiators, volunteers, to guests.

Most visitors in fact, have no formal affiliation.

They may just come to enjoy the café, or to sit down and read, or engage in conversation with

friends (as they would use a park). The garden appears to work so well, because it is a quasipublic space. It strikes this delicate balance, by being open-ended (and public) enough to maintain a steady influx of visitors (providing a necessary amount of anonymity), and it is at the same time layered with dimensions that are more specific (and private). This allows visitors to feel vicariously connected to a social network that is more invested in the space than they are. The “aura” of a strong collective sentiment towards the garden is also registered in the accumulated histories of provisional structures, that is continually “performed” via the role individuals play as stewards (and part owners) of that space.

Seen through the lens of perceived ownership, this case study begs the question:

if members of a community are part of the production of a space (or only one or two degrees separated) might this infuse it with a greater vitality, by increasing their chances of utilizing, maintaining, or programming that space?

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Prinzessinnengarten, Berlin

initiator

volunteer

guest

The informal organizational structure promotes degrees of ownership, offering members of the community a variety of ways to get involved.

105

ACTIVE USE There is generally little reflection about our automatic assumptions about public space typologies, such as parks, and where they came from. Parks of course play a vital role as the “green lungs” of our cities, and as envisioned by Frederick Law Olmstead, the fresh air and tranquil setting provides relief from the congestion of the city.

Everyone intuitively understands the restorative power of the natural environment, however the role of parks as public space, is still somewhat nebulous.

In the early 19th century, squares were well understood in the United States as public space (steeped in the greek agora tradition). However the notion of green, open space for the “masses” did not yet exist. It’s easy to forget the concept of a “public” park is a relatively new invention.

(Which reminds us that it can be substantively transformed, or that it is possible for new typologies to emerge).

Public parks in the US, were almost arrived at accidentally… with the “discovery” picturesque cemeteries such as Mount Auburn (Boston) and Greenwood (New York) were becoming popular leisure destinations. In the 1840’s and 50’s Andrew Jackson Downing, a prominent horticulturist began citing these rural “pleasure grounds” in his writings as evidence of a latent demand for public gardens, and argued that similar models replicated near city centers might also be successful. In addition to celebrating the public virtues of these (at the time) rural cemeteries, he also cited the success of publicly funded gardens in Germany as precedents to bolster his argument for developing a similar model in the US. His cheerleading ultimately proved

very influential to the rise of the Parks Movement in the US and to the formation of Frederick Law Olmstead’s vision for Central Park. Olmstead, by fusing the elegance of aristocratic English gardens with a progressive social agenda, aspired to create a great “egalitarian” landscape open to the working class. Central Park was a revolutionary feat then, and still remains timeless – but it is important to underscore how the core ideal emerged out of conditions specific to the industrial revolution.

In the mid to late 19th century, much of the population of New York City was crowded into squalid, tenement housing conditions – and they labored in factories, under extremely long hours and harsh working conditions. Parks were the “pressure release value,” affording a peaceful escape from the chaos of urban life. Yet Olmstead was quite emphatic they not be used for active recreational use. He argued the visual “enjoyment of pleasing rural scenery” would be far more “reversive” and “antidotal” to the negative effects of physical toil.1 Fast-forward to today – and the nature of work and society has been dramatically refashioned… the chaos of urban street life has been somewhat calmed and rationalized, while many enjoy forty-hour workweeks and free time on the weekends – yet the pervading concept of the park remains largely unchanged. They are still understood as primarily visual spaces, for passive recreational activities, with signs posted at the entrances listing what you are not allowed to do.

Most significantly, the majority of the working class no longer labors with their bodies anymore – they sit in front of computer screens.

In light of a continually expanding class of intellectual laborers, we should question what motivates volunteers to spend their hard earned“free”time working, in a“leisure” space like the Prinzessinnengarten.

Could this desire to get one’s “hands dirty” through the process of making something with others be interpreted as a kind of “antidote” to the disembodied (and often solitary) experience of being “plugged in” to the 2-dimensional, primarily visual reality of an office environment for eight to twelve hours a day? Perhaps a more contemporary correlate to Olmstead’s restorative public gardens should be considered... we might look to emergent typologies (as Downing had done), that today instead reveal latent desires for more ACTIVE use, in order to imagine landscapes that privilege exercise and play, or even physical labor applied to solving one-toone problems?

1. Foglesong, Richard E., Planning the Capitalist City : The Colonial Era to the 1920s (Princeton: Princeton University Press,1986).

At any given moment on a weekday, there are on average forty individuals bustling around the Prinzessinnengarten (whereas the large Orienplatz park nearby remains nearly empty).

Some of these individuals are contributing to the agricultural production efforts – but many more are scattered throughout, engaged in casual conversations or working in groups around their laptops. What soon becomes evident, is that many seem to use this space as their office.

Given the increasingly mobile nature of work, not much is needed for a freelancer or group of start-up entrepreneurs, besides some shade and wifi. The garden’s popularity as a site of intellectual labor is enhanced by the synergy formed with the co-working space across the street (Betahaus). In addition to offering quality of life benefits to residents as a communitybuilding project underpinned by shared values – it has added value by bringing like-minded individuals together to help accelerate the

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

An urban farm/school/library/cafe/restaurant/workspace/performance space exchange of ideas, that can actually lead to new innovations. Another not so obvious function the space plays, is that of a school. Marco Claussen surprisingly doesn’t speak much about food production, instead he celebrates the educational virtues of gardening. He admits all the produce grown in the garden couldn’t come close to feeding all the volunteers, but it is this common thread of urban agriculture that serves as a proxy for bringing individuals together around the shared interest of learning about where their food comes from (as well as their products, and how it contributes to their carbon footprint). The space isn’t easily categorized as a garden, and it’s not quite a small business incubator, nor a proper school. It is precisely this hybrid nature that feeds the Prinzessinnengarten’s vitality – yet simultaneously this ambiguity makes it difficult to communicate what exactly such an alternative vision might offer the city or investors as a long-term project. Because its value as a public space isn’t immediately recognized in the way a park or a public square might be understood, the organizers have had to resort to grassroots efforts to stay afloat (even though it is a far greater asset to the community in its current state).

More imaginative city agencies or investors however, might take cues from such a space – in order to envision a contemporary model for a public amenity that isn’t designed as an escape from the daily grind, but as a space of arrival.

One that intentionally blurs the boundaries between public vs. private, work vs. recreation, and directly incorporates contributions from the community – as a platform for active civic engagement, hands on learning, and innovation.

play

gardening

work

classroom

107

FLEXIBILITY can permanent temporariness be sustained?

Some of the most compelling case studies

were those that engaged everyday citizens in the planning process (Park Fiction, New Addington), or enlisted volunteer labor to physically construct a space (Exyzt, Folly for a Flyover). But what happens to this elusive sense of vitality once the spaces are fixed?

Park Fiction offered a highly interactive platform for citizen engagement, but was ultimately implemented like any other design project (i.e. with construction documents, an architect’s certification, and was built by contractors), resulting in a permanent physical intervention.

Besides quirky flourishes such as the metal palm trees, it’s not obvious by looking at the final results, that it was a citizen-led project.

Though everyone knows the story, over time it will fade from memory. The New Addington town square renovation was similarly “finalized” with a permanent hardscape. Pathfinders (a local community organization) will continue to organize events on the town square, but the novelty of a newly renovated space will inevitably wear off and a different kind of apathy will set in. Members of Assemble lament there’s only so much architecture alone can accomplish, and that there are still so many problems they could address. But after construction finished, their role was no longer justified.

Images of “City Island” in Madrid, by Exyzt

Unfortunately, intangible metrics like social value doesn’t easily fit within the traditional rubric of architecture as a professional discipline. This domain is left to social workers or psychiatrists at the level of individual well being, or for economic and political agents at more macro levels through physical planning or

job creation. Assemble by contrast, occupied a unique position: with the agency to operate at both an abstract and concrete level – they were able to address social issues spatially – by instantly transforming New Addington into an exciting place to be, with a festival that revealed a hidden vitality most didn’t realize was there.

Most significantly, concentrating this dynamic mix of activities on the town common helped shift the public’s perceptions and aid their imaginations for what else might happen in that space.

If a real-time civic visioning phase is what was so special about the project, why couldn’t it persist to some degree?

Instead of beginning with the assumption a final design outcome is necessary – could some portions of a public space remain flexible to anticipate future transformations; or could a citizen engagement process be periodically re-activated to allow the space to cyclically reinvent itself? It would require quite a leap to consider process the new “content” – but it might prove very fruitful to reframe the task of the architect/planner in these scenarios: as “designers of the participatory process” or as “cultural curators.”

Image from New Addington prototyping event

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Looking to “unfinished” spaces like the Prinzessenninengarten and the Kid’s Garden, where nothing is permanently fixed, we observe a notable difference in the way people use and perceive the space. As Marco Claussen (of Prinzessenninengarten) explains:

“For a kid in the city, they have no place where they can for example, throw a stone. What people miss in a city, is places that aren’t completely designed, completely regulated, that completely define how to use it, and are open for your interaction, your exchange, or doing something yourself… and this is what I think people really like to do. But the difference here is you do something for the public… and you’re building community at the same time. “

Prinzessinnengarten flexible seating and stage layout

These spaces by virtue of their somewhat wild and unkempt aesthetic invite play – they can be scuffed and augmented. Users can feel comfortable to make these environments “their own,” leaving a history of small transformations legible in the makeshift constructions, that lend to an aura of “authenticity.” Even if an individual hasn’t directly contributed, there is the knowledge that if they wanted to volunteer, they could. However, it’s often this D.I.Y. aesthetic that owners and city officials find most disconcerting. It necessitates them relinquishing control over a space’s use and appearance (which is usually the last thing they want to do). For such an unprecedented model, any unknowns are naturally equated as additional risk. Yet as the Almere D.I.Y. supervision process led by D.U.S. Architects or the crowdfunded “urban laboratory” of het Schieblock suggest: perhaps allowing some degree of flexibility doesn’t require designers or planners loose all control over the process and quality of the final outcome. Instead, user alterations might be anticipated, and even guided to keep the aesthetic bar high, and ensure a mix of uses that work well together as a whole. It is entirely conceivable that a hybrid process might strike a balance between top-down expertise, while benefiting from bottom-up creativity and local knowledge, with the “added value” of building community through broad citizen participation.

109

Alternative Financing

Collaborative framework

The crowdfunding model adds a new dimension to D.I.Y. â&#x20AC;&#x201C; yielding future opprotunities for more pro-active modes of design practice and collaborative ventures to be initated by bottom-up constitutencies that are self-organized, and self-funded.

Diagram by Teddy Cruz Architects, project Casa Familiar

Source: Lepik, Andres and Museum of Modern. 2010. Small Scale, Big Change : New Architectures of Social Engagement. (Basel, London: Birkhäuser Springer distributor).

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

TRANSLATION TO PRACTICE Rather than an overarching single solution, the insights distilled from these case studies offer a pragmatic range of possibilities, adaptable to private investment, the public sector, grassroots organizations, or hybrid conditions. Even operating under normative design practices, some “ingredients” from these examples might be sampled as a way to enliven a mix of programs or inform a more “human scaled” consideration of details such as permeable boundary conditions, flexible seating designs, etc.

There are also ideas for phasing that first test a scheme through prototype interventions before fully investing in a project; likewise, strategies for how an underutilized site might be activated using food trucks, pop-up retail, festivals, etc. to raise its profile as part of a longer-term development strategy; to more experimental ideas for leaving a space somewhat flexible to cyclically reinvent itself in response to a community’s needs.

As the Mauerpark flea market or Prinzessenningarten cases suggest, there may even be instances where the optimal condition is for a space to remain permanently temporary. In the Mauerpark example, an informal market proves to be the constitutive element of a sequence of public spaces and retail destinations which work together as an ensemble. Reminding us it is necessary to think beyond the immediate revenue generating capacity of a particular parcel, to consider economic multiplier effects and different uses in aggregate (particularly if a developer owns multiple parcels of land in the area). Yet for any multi pronged approach, rather than seeking maximum immediate returns, a longer-term strategy is to bet on the socioeconomic integration of that community. Minimizing the displacement of long time residents is paramount to preserving the local character that colors the overall social and cultural vitality of a neighborhood. As opposed to strictly top-down approaches which can easily ignore local specificities, and see only a blank slate to deploy formulaic typologies i.e. large chain stores, single use towers, etc. – this set of case studies forward an attitude… a responsibility – to become more finely attuned at identifying local assets, the key stakeholders, the overlooked potentials, and building upon them.

111

Folly for a Flyover

Image courtesy of Assemble: info@assemblestudio.co.uk

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

CONCLUSION Though most of these projects were implemented under the rubric of short-term action – they suggest many opportunities for an iterative approach to affect long-term change. In contrast to a traditional top-down mentality, where after design authorship and construction ends and a project is considered complete – bottomup thinking prompts us to envision how social (rituals, habits, networks) and spatial relationships continue to evolve together, through patterns of use. Instead of a singular obsession with the static, physical artifact or projected economic returns – planners, designers, and investors might also take into account the kinetic, social dynamics that underpin an urban environment. Such an approach questions how the creativity, passion, and cooperation of many different actors might be harnessed toward more productive ends; how these individual desires and capacities might be generative, beyond a “yes” or “no” hurdle to be overcome during the public approvals process (after plans are already completed).

The New Addington town square retrofit, Park Fiction, and Prinzessinnengarten are a few examples where we see the process of bringing an urban intervention to fruition as the catalyst that binds people together, and sutures local identity to place. These examples underscore the physical articulation of a site as only one part of an integral strategy that fuses social and spatial agendas together. In essence: these are “community building” projects – that demonstrate shared experiences, collective memories, and the strong sentiments that accompany an increased sense of ownership as equally valid metrics of success.

locate strategies to achieve that goal. Though it might be more convoluted to bind together broad constituencies and secure funding through multiple streams, there are enough scenarios: from cooperative ownership models, community land trusts, value capture instruments, crowdfunding, artplace grants, federal subsidies, to tax abatements that suggest a vibrant and inclusive place people want to be, can be set up to financially support itself, or even make a profit.

Tying these case studies and reflections together constitutes a compelling argument for integrating social, ecological, and economic factors into a more holistic, “triple bottom line” approach to urban design.

One that doesn’t treat public participation and cultural development as a token gesture – but re-frames it as a vital component that can energize the visioning process and increase the overall success of urban interventions.

The promise of such a highly collaborative model is that it might yield potentials to facilitate a more energetic exchange of ideas, and enlist citizens as co-producers of their own urban environments – that are more just, programmatically rich, and representative of the local community than would otherwise be generated.

Instead of beginning with a pre-adapted template of what market projections deem possible, these examples celebrate the prospect that the end users of a space define their own narrative, and then

113