Bryony Simcox - To Change Ourselves by Changing the City - Temporary Urbanism by Bryony Simcox

TO CHANGE OURSELVES

TO CHANGE OURSELVES BY CHANGING THE CITY A c r i t i c a l e x p l o r a t i o n i n t o Te m p o r a r y U r b a n i s m and its transformative effect

Bryony Simcox

Page 1

Abstract “Participating in making the community itself, through discrete interventions”

DOINA PETRESCU1

Stimulated by a growing global interest and increasing recorded examples of small-scale and temporary intervention, this essay questions where, when, why and how the phenomenon termed Temporary Urbanism exists, and aims to evaluate its value for people, community and the city. Temporary Urbanism is people acting within the urban realm: organising events, creating interventions and building spaces to solve problems or address issues linked to the quality of everyday life. It can be initiated, led, owned and used by individuals, collectives or institutions, and occurs in ‘cracks’ in the city (places otherwise unused, misused or disused) that bring with them their own qualities. These projects allow for unexpected and unique outcomes due to their informal, temporary and often unplanned nature, and have immeasurable social consequences for the community. Participation plays a key role within Temporary Urbanism, often leading to the collective involvement and engagement of a city’s inhabitants that in turn creates a sense of ownership. The creation of an empowered citizenry is often undervalued, but can be as important as the creation of buildings themselves. The way in which participation is integrated into the methodology of a temporary project can hugely affect the community legacy of a project. To investigate this point, I compare two schemes: ‘Caravanserai’, a ‘trading post’ creating a cultural meeting point in an East London borough, and ‘ECOBox', a community-driven hub of ‘everyday’ activities in Paris. This essay critically explores temporary interventions in the urban realm, scrutinising the approach taken and interaction of ‘actors’ within them. It celebrates the strength of truly participatory processes which lead to the strengthening of the community and in turn a better city with happier inhabitants. Temporary Urbanism is presented here as a platform for those processes and a catalyst for social change.

Doina Petrescu, Peprav. How To Make a Community As Well As The Space For It <www.peprav.net/tool/spip.php?article31> [accessed 31 December 2014] (p.5).

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

Contents: 1: Setting The Scene

p.4

WHAT IS TEMPORARY URBANISM AND WHY DOES IT OCCUR? 1.1 Introducing Temporary Urbanism 1.2 Diverse Motivations 1.3 Project Methodology 1.4 Manifestation: Varied Proposals for Varied Problems 1.5 A Critical Exploration

2: The Place of Temporary Urbanism

EXPLORING THE ADVANTAGES OF AN INDEFINITE TIMEFRAME 3.1 Freedom and Informality 3.2 Unexpected Economic Strength 3.3 Temporary as a Catalyst: Small Change, Big Impact 3.4 Iteration and Multiplicity

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

p.19

5: Building the Community

p.26

A CASE STUDY COMPARISON QUESTIONING WHO AND HOW 4.1 Introducing ‘ECOBox’ and ‘Caravanserai’ 4.2 Actors, Users, and their Interaction 4.3 The Initiator’s Approach 4.4 Agenda 4.5 Tactics Versus Strategy p.8

TEMPORARY URBANISM AS A PLATFORM FOR SOCIAL CHANGE

CITY SPACES THAT BECOME THE SETTINGS FOR URBAN INTERVENTIONS 2.1 The Drivers of Space-Making 2.2 ’Otherness’ and Indeterminate Space 2.3 Categorising the City 2.4 Micro-Dynamics 2.5 Engaging with Leftovers, Cracks and Gaps 2.6 Spatial Interstices: La Chapelle and Canning Town

3: The Time of Temporary Urbanism

4: The Friction of Ownership and Motivation

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

p.14

The Danger of Superficial Engagement Authentic Participation Learning from Mistakes The Legacy of Community Engagement

Conclusion

p.32

Bibliography

p.35

List of Illustrations

p.38

SUMMARISING THIS EXPLORATION AND ESTABLISHING ITS LIMITATIONS

1: Setting The Scene WHAT IS TEMPORARY URBANISM AND WHY DOES IT OCCUR?

Figure 1. ‘ECOBox' community garden space

1.1 Introducing Temporary Urbanism Alongside apparently ‘successful’ global architectural developments, the city’s inhabitants and those in control at a much more tangible scale are proposing close-fit, bottom-up improvements and solutions within the urban realm. Whilst conventional agencies implement homogenous architectural solutions which imply economic development, and promote the forward-thinking image of a geographical ‘hotspot’, there is evident alienation between those who design the city and those who use it. Temporary Urbanism is an alternative approach to traditional city-making; ‘distinct from largescale, commercial and spectacle-driven urban developments’2, and the practices of which exist in many different forms; from built interventions to physical occupation. The process is commonly led by innovative 2! Zanny Begg and others, The Right to The City (Sydney: The Tin Sheds Gallery, 2011) <http://emergencity.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Tinsheds_catalogue_23MarchFINAL1.pdf> [accessed 17 December 2014] p.6.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

urban planners and activists, but involves the interaction and participation of many diverse ‘actors’ including the inhabitants themselves. The outcomes of Temporary Urbanism are wide-ranging, but all relate to adding value to social, economic or urban realms. This may mean increased revenue to an area, ecological and environmental benefits, and positive mental or physical wellbeing due to lifestyle change. In order to establish a precise scale of this written exploration, I propose to cover aspects of this umbrella term that aim for or lead to ‘community-building’, and will question the relative social legacy of projects.

“The crux of social design is working with people, rather than for them” ROB IMRIE

AND

PETER HALL3

1.2 Diverse Motivations Temporary Urbanism appears for a whole host of reasons, often correlating with those who initiate it. Relatively unqualified yet passionate individuals and small groups are often prompted by a longing for ownership or desire for enjoyment in everyday life, whilst it is often a need to boost development in an under-invested area, termed ‘regeneration’, that is the trigger when higher bodies such as local councils and municipal planners initiate temporary installations. Crossing between these two poles of motivation is the wish to improve or create a sense of community, which brings individuals together, improves their interconnecting lives, and thus adds value to the city. This motivation relates to belonging, locality and ownership, and can be a driver for both the public as individuals or a collective, as well as public authorities.

1.3 Project Methodology Temporary Urbanism links to that which is ‘open-source’, ‘self-managed’, ‘DIY’, ‘user-generated’, ‘guerilla’, ‘everyday’ and ‘tactical’, and bridges gaps between activists, land owners, and local authorities. The project initiators, users, and those in control are all involved and at times overlap, in that the same person can maintain multiple roles. It is the unusual interaction of these actors that requires scrutiny and analysis. Temporary, mobile and small-scale architecture ‘has become part of the repertoire of spatial production in our cities’4. This type of design ‘suggests other ways of doing architecture’5 by challenging familiar processes through alternative methodologies, by avoiding abstract tools such as statistics and mapping or zoning, and rather focusing on subjective experiences. ‘101 Urban Salvations’ ‘acknowledges

Robert Imrie and Peter Hall, Designing and Developing Accessible Environments (New York: Spon Press, 2001), p.18.

4 Andreas 5

Lang and others, About: Temporary Mobile Everlasting <http://temporary-mobile-everlasting.com/?page_id=2> [accessed 30 December 2014].

Spatial Agency, About: Spatial Agency <www.spatialagency.net> [accessed 19 December 2014].

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

the multiplicity and variety of these experiences’6 and proposes particular, distinct solutions to address each situation in a visionary way that remains grounded in reality (Fig. 2). Temporary Urbanism often begins from what Doina Petrescu describes as the ‘ground level’, and acts as a ‘public space of proximity’ being rooted in everyday social practices and a common material space7. It also allows the people directly experiencing issues (such as lack of local cultural events, or the need for public green space) to address them. Being initiated and run by engaged stakeholders who are normally removed or ignored in design and decision-making processes introduces a level of risk and failure, but is also often a more direct and spontaneous way of working with the site and community8.

1.4 Manifestation: Varied Proposals Responding to Varied Problems The range of propositions put in place in response to the aforementioned triggers vary immensely and are too numerous to cover within this essay. Many books exploring the topic of Temporary Urbanism and related activist, bottom-up and small-scale occurrences use case studies to reinforce points made, and despite the relative recency of these phenomena, they are well-documented. Large scale examples with short timeframes range from festivals and cultural events such as street parties, music concerts and craft fairs, which contrast with minute physical interventions of varied duration as in the case of the ‘Red Swing Project’9 (cover image). Whilst some proposals are focused on an activity, such as with ‘Lane Maintenance Day’ in Denmark10 and ‘The Sunday Adventure Club’11, others fulfil needs such as that for visually stimulating green spaces or locally-produced food stocks through activities like ‘Guerrilla Gardening’ and the ‘Incredible Edible’12 network. Scott Burnham's project, ‘Reprogramming the City’, is a ‘global overview of ways in which existing urban infrastructure is being re-imagined, re-purposed and re-invented to do more in the city’13. This exhibition of wide-ranging projects gives examples of programmes which derive from individual and collective urban specialists attempting to make informed interventions, relevant to those directly using and affected by the surroundings in question. They not only demonstrate the array of reasons for the existence of Temporary Urbanism, but also the myriad distinctive solutions employed. Here, Burnham effectively catalogues various manifestations, such as ‘The Cascade’ (Fig. 3), a socially engaging public space which features trees, greenery, seating and lighting layered on top of one of Hong Kong’s functional stairways and responds to its descending form. This artificial landscape blurs the boundary between pure artistic

Figure 2. Proposals for the ‘101 Urban Salvations’ project, led by an urban planning studio at the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University

Margaret Crawford, ‘101 Urban Salvations: Proposals for Cambridge, Massachusetts’ in Everyday Urbanism, ed. by John Leighton Chase, Margaret Crawford and John Kaliski (New York: The Monacelli Press, 1999), pp. 208-215 (p.208).

Doina Petrescu, ‘Losing Control, Keeping Desire’, in Architecture and Participation, ed. by Peter Blundell Jones, Doina Petrescu, Jeremy Till (Oxon: Spon Press, 2005), pp.43-63, (p.57).

8 Andreas 9

Lang and others, About: Temporary Mobile Everlasting

The Red Swing Project, The Red Swing Project <http://www.redswingproject.org> [accessed 6 January 2015].

Jan Gehl, Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space (Washington: Island Press, 2011), p.120.

Peter Bishop and Leslie Williams, The Temporary City (London: Routledge, 2012), p.146.

Locality, What is Incredible Edible Network? (2012) <http://incredibleediblenetwork.org.uk/content/what-incredible-edible> [accessed 30 December 2014].

Scott Burnham, About: Reprogramming The City (2013) <http://reprogrammingthecity.com/about/> [accessed 30 December 2014].

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

installation and pragmatic consideration14, reinforcing Burnham’s belief that the city holds untapped ability and the potential to do more, assume a new role entirely, and perform alternative functions15.

“A design is not seen as the beginning of a linear process but as a phase in a continuous cycle of creation and recreation, use and re-use” 2012 ARCHITECTEN MISSION STATEMENT16

To add precision to this investigation, two specific case studies and their urban contexts will be analysed, demonstrating varied processes and outcomes. One of these is ‘ECOBox’, a community space led by practice aaa in Paris. This project was ‘conceived as a temporary device to be realised with zero budget and built by its users’17 and began as a modular garden formed from recycled pallets. The scheme grew to include additions such as a library, kitchen, tool bank and radio station18 to accompany collective activities; tactically challenging stereotyped habits of everyday life19. The other case study is ‘Caravanserai’, a 5-year town space on a London car park featuring enclosed booths and stalls; a meeting post to allow for commercial, social and intellectual exchanges and the setting for a school, cafe, community garden and exhibition space.

1.5 A Critical Exploration Temporary Urbanism exists in the urban realm, beginning with an issue that directly triggers an often iterative and organic process. This alternative methodology bypasses more rigid procedures and instead allows actors to interact freely. Within the wide variety of these temporary projects, many share the common outcome of uniting people with their city and bringing value to the community. In this critical exploration, the location and common breeding grounds of Temporary Urbanism will be explored, as well as its interesting relationship with temporality, the interaction of actors, and the role of participation within the approach taken. In-depth scrutiny, aided by the examples of two existing projects, will allow a conclusion of the relative legacy of these projects and their debatable successes.  Figure 3. ‘The Cascade’ installation by Edge Design institute

Ibid.

Spatial Agency, How: Appropriation: 2012 Architecten <http://www.spatialagency.net/database/how/appropriation/2012.architecten> [accessed 19 December 2014].

Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu, ‘Tactics for a Transgressive Practice’ in Architectural Design [Special Issue: The Architecture of Transgression] Volume 83, Issue 6 (November/December 2013), pp.58-65, p.60.

Ruth Morrow, ECOBox. Mobile Devices and Urban Tactics (Domus, November 2007) <www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/2007/11/14/ecobox-mobile-devices-and-urban-tactics.html> [accessed 30 Dec 2014].

UrbanInform, ECOBox - self-managed eco-urban network <http://www.urbaninform.net/home/minidoc/236/ecobox-self-managed-eco-urban-network.html> [accessed 17 December 2014].

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

2: The Place of Temporary Urbanism CITY SPACES THAT BECOME THE SETTINGS FOR URBAN INTERVENTION

Figure 4. ’Caravanserai’ location in relation to wider setting

The city is a vast landscape of built layers, an urban environment driven by current trends, shifts in the economic arena and changes in the perceived requirements of its inhabitants. Running alongside this cyclical development, there will always be pinpoints of friction within the city; spaces that are in mis-use, dis-use and under-use, as conceived by Cedric Price20. These ‘cracks’ go unattended and unnoticed the majority of the time; sitting forgotten or ignored and threatening the value, safety and image of the areas around it. However, these non-spaces and dead spaces are occasionally the focus of a quiet revolution in urban development, becoming the sites for temporary intervention. This chapter sets out to investigate how these settings in the city occur, where they are found, and how they are appropriated. 20

Lucia Vodanovic, ‘Obsolescence and Exchange in Cedric Price's Dispensable Museum’, Invisible Culture, Issue 11 (December 2007) <https://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/Issue_11/vodanovic/vodanovic.html> [accessed 31 December 2014].

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

“the overlapping of different activities and the softening of boundaries between one space and another create visually and sensually rich experiences” KAREN FRANCK

AND

QUENTIN STEVENS21

2.1 The Drivers of Space-Making The ‘production of space’ is a constant social and political process22, and the city elements which appear such as the office tower, shopping mall and residential complex are all economically driven. This financially-oriented mindset sees direct correlation between land area and potential income, resulting in ‘hard edges’ between the specific purpose-built realm and public space. Little or no consideration is given by developers and landowners for the development of designated flexible places, which would allow inhabitants to act freely and let their collective activities evolve, due to much smaller comparative financial return to commonplace private development. Capitalism and consumerism have instead produced gaps in the city, which, in the eyes of the public sector, offer too little value to warrant development. This is also the outcome of a market slump in the UK, whereby there is a tendency to invest rather than develop23. Claire Colomb describes the trend of ‘place-marketing’, originating in the 1970s, as campaigns of selling ‘cities as post-industrial centres for services, leisure and consumption’ rather than ‘more interventionist forms of economic development through public investments in infrastructure’24. This strategy adopted by politicians, local officials and the business elite required little expenditure but has resulted in many of the idle spaces that have come to be used as settings for Temporary Urbanism.

2.2 ‘Otherness’ and Indeterminate Space Another effect of the developing city is the emergence of ‘residual spaces’ as discussed by Haydn and Temel, where there is no longer a distinction between public and private25. These pockets are the focus of ‘Everyday Urbanism’ - looking ‘to the quotidian, to spaces between residential space, work space and institutions’26. Faux-vernacular building typologies have become part of a ‘magazine architecture’ that is insincerely and hastily replicated, creating predictable urban arrangements. Contrary to this vast, nationally-observed genericism sit gaps and intervals with distinctive qualities. Unique characteristics such as size, site history and surroundings give a place specificity; making it more complex but indeed more interesting to work with.

Karen A. Franck and Quentin Stevens, Loose Space: Possibility and Diversity in Urban Life (Oxon: Routledge, 2007), p.36.

Doina Petrescu, Peprav, How To Make a Community As Well As The Space For It, p.2.

Peter Bishop and Leslie Williams, p.37.

Claire Colomb, Staging the New Berlin: Place Marketing and the Politics of Urban Reinvention Post-1989 (London: Routledge, 2012), p.14.

Florian Haydn and Robert Temel, Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2006), p.76.

Ibid., p.56.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

Distinct places are heterotopic environments - directly linked to inhabitants’ desires and generating knowledge of the city at ground level27, they offer up the possibility of producing locality. Arjan Appadurai sees the production of locality as a ‘structure of feeling streaming from the social and ideological existence of a specific community’28. This reinforces the concept that specificity draws together a group of people in a particular place. One of the benefits of temporary interventions is the possibility of making distinct and personalising homogenised landscapes, which is expanded upon in the subchapter Engaging with Leftovers, Cracks and Gaps.

“Disarray and deterioration invite people to take the initiative in imagining and creating their own arrangements of space and finding alternative uses” KAREN FRANCK

AND

QUENTIN STEVENS29

In apparent contradiction to the loaded meaning of residual spaces, their neglected and underutilised nature sometimes leads them to be highly flexible in terms of use - environments that practice aaa describe as ‘terrains vagues'30 . These ‘spatial interstices’ of the city are left devoid of definition; resisting normalisation and conserving ‘the potential of the city’s undefined and unspecified elements’. The site initially identified by Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu of aaa for their 2001 ECOBox project (Fig. 5) epitomises the ‘terrains vagues' classification - two plots of land in the La Chapelle area of Paris described as an ‘urban island’ consisting of undeveloped, abandoned and uncertain space which was ideal for ‘flexible, provisional community use’31.

2.3 Categorising the City The ‘cracks’ that punctuate the surface of the city range in size and characteristic, and have come into existence as a result of different drivers. Studio Urban Catalyst have attempted to categorise residual spaces that have the potential to become ‘breeding grounds for temporary use’ through suggested typologies. The first context established is the ‘Empty or Disused Building’, which, after a feasibility study, can become the setting for events or activities or the location for income generation and small-scale business. The other three typologies devised by Urban Catalyst require more involvement and governance from structured organisation, and focus on outdoor space and the ‘public realm’. The ‘Post-Industrial Area Awaiting Future Development’ is derelict or abandoned space with an industrial heritage; the ‘Area with Existing Temporary Uses’ a place with a lively existing temporary use scene and a recent positive shift in

Figure 5. The ‘ECOBox’ wooden palette garden in an abandoned plot in La Chapelle

Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu, ‘At the Ground Level of the City’, The Right to The City (Sydney: The Tin Sheds Gallery, 2011) <http://emergencity.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Tinsheds_catalogue_23MarchFINAL1.pdf> [accessed 17 December 2014] pp.70-76, (p.70). 28

Ibid., p.76.

Karen A. Franck and Quentin Stevens, p.21.

Zanny Begg and others, p.7.

Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu, ‘At the Ground Level of the City’, p.76.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

image; and the last, the ‘City in Decline’ a crisis situation on a city-wide scale, where expected growth has failed to materialise32. It is worth noting that Urban Catalyst’s report which establishes these typologies consistently refers to bodies and organisations which could be driving forces in change - financial support from municipal breeding funds, orchestration by cultural entrepreneurs, mediation and conflict management from the local council; and, in the case of ‘City in Decline’, even radical revision of current planning processes (bringing together government, property owners, investors and temporary users). The reduced rigidity in the way in which these city spaces are put to use through Temporary Urbanism leads to increased interaction amongst those involved, and the outcome of each project very much depends on their inter-relationship.

2.4 Micro-Dynamics It is the unique economies of ‘spatial interstices’ that lend themselves to temporary use and intervention, by creating ‘new possibilities for impermanent arrangements, mobile devices and urban micro-dynamics’33. This point is reiterated by Bishop and Williams when they note that many case-studies of temporary use share similarities in location, such as the ‘Goldilocks Zone’ on the edge of successful commercial districts with high economic energy but not quite long-term economic development34. The advantages of using the city’s ‘leftovers’ is the relative freedom they bring, thus appealing to small-scale players in the urban realm who have creative initiative but not necessarily financial strength. In addition to larger sites, many places at the heart of Temporary Urbanism are modest in scale, and have precise claims, much like those established by collaborative art and architecture practice muf, in its project ‘Small Open Spaces That Are Not Parks’. This feasibility study used consultation with local residents as street-based expertise to identify traditionally overlooked but well-used spaces such as foyers, underpasses and bridges35 . Observing the everyday patterns of human activity and the places regularly used by city dwellers themselves often points towards gaps that harbour potential for development and interventions, but are currently underfunded and unnoticed.

2.5 Engaging with Leftovers, Cracks and Gaps As demonstrated by the simple graphic convention of the Nolli Plan36, it is the spaces between city’s built structures that create the urban form. Furthermore, the interaction with spaces between buildings through human activity is one of the city’s most important qualities, and this action and interaction makes gaps visible37.

Figure 6. Two temporary projects documented and displayed on stands at The Building Centre during London Festival of Architecture 2014 to promote active design

Urban Catalyst, Strategies for temporary uses – potential for development of urban residual areas in European metropolises (Studio Urban Catalyst, Berlin, September 2003), pp.18-22.

Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu, ‘At the Ground Level of the City’, p.71.

Peter Bishop and Leslie Williams, p.47.

muf, Urban Strategies: ‘Pleasure Principles <http://www.muf.co.uk/urban.htm> [accessed 31 December 2014]

Jim Tice, The Nolli Map and Urban Theory (University of Oregon: Department of Architecture, 2005) <http://nolli.uoregon.edu/urbanTheory.html> [accessed 3 January 2015].

Florian Haydn and Robert Temel, p.10.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

“Precisely the presence of other people, activities events, inspiration, and stimulation comprise one of the most important qualities of public spaces altogether”

JAN GEHL38

Public life is becoming increasingly privatised, and the gradual elimination of democratic urban space is described by Margaret Crawford as ‘a crisis that puts at risk the very ideas and institutions of democracy itself’39. If the interaction of citizens and activity between buildings is missing, boundaries between isolation and contact become sharper40. On the other hand, when opportunities to participate are presented (such as bringing everyday activities outdoors, providing spaces to initiate conversation, hosting events), life between buildings is instead enriched. In his seminal film ‘The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces’, William H. Whyte examines the behavioural patterns in the city’s public spaces and establishes simple trends such as ‘people tend to sit where there are places to sit’, and ‘people like defined spaces at a comfortable scale’. Whyte’s most interesting observation focuses on his concept of ‘Triangulation’, whereby an external stimulus is introduced and brings people together in a ‘city moment’, spontaneously invigorating a public space (Fig. 7). This social study elegantly concludes: ‘We come to these places not to escape them, but to partake in them’41, a reminder of our desire for social involvement with the city. On using gaps in the urban realm, Margaret Crawford provides an interesting response to David Harvey’s ‘The Right to The City’, a transformative attempt to remake ourselves and our city in a more powerful way than just ‘individual liberty to access urban resources’42. Harvey sees diverse urban-focused social movements occurring worldwide but claims they lack a unifying aim or enough connection to give them real impact. Crawford compares this critical viewpoint to Lefebvre’s elaboration on The Right to The City, which talks about ownership of one’s surroundings, establishing ‘the right to appropriation, meaning not only full access to existing urban spaces but also the freedom to create new kinds of urban spaces tailored to the needs of their inhabitants’. Lefebrve continues by establishing two interdependent elements: ‘The City’ (existing physical and material reality) and ‘The Urban’ (a social reality made up of concepts and relationships). This way of conceptualising the connection between tangible and metaphysical leads the discussion from where Temporary Urbanism exists, to why and how it improves not only the built environment but also its inhabitants.

Figure 7. A scene from ‘The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces’

‘Right to the City’ involves creating the “social ties, relationships to nature, lifestyles, technologies and aesthetic values we desire” MARGARET CRAWFORD43

Jan Gehl, p.13.

Margaret Crawford, ‘Blurring the Boundaries: Public Space and Private Life’ in Everyday Urbanism, ed. by John Leighton Chase, Margaret Crawford and John Kaliski (New York: The Monacelli Press, 1999), pp. 22-35, (p.23).

Jan Gehl, p.17.

William H. Whyte, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, 1998 <https://archive.org/details/SmallUrbanSpaces> [accessed 12 November 2014]

Ibid, p.33.

Margaret Crawford, ‘Rethinking “Rights”, Rethinking “Cities:” A Response to David Harvey’s “The Right to the City”’, The Right to The City (Sydney: The Tin Sheds Gallery, 2011) <http://emergencity.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ Tinsheds_catalogue_23MarchFINAL1.pdf> [accessed 17 December 2014] pp.33-37, (p.33).

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

2.6 Spatial Interstices: La Chapelle and Canning Town The two focused case studies of this essay, ECOBox and Caravanserai, are both examples of negotiated temporary uses in under-utilised or neglected city spaces. ECOBox began on a derelict site in the north Paris area of La Chapelle44, an urban island ‘stigmatised for its many urban wastelands and boarded-up houses’45, whilst Caravanserai is located in the economically deprived Canning Town in the London borough of Newham, chosen for its potentially attractive features such as good transport links, proximity to the capital and undeveloped land46 (Fig. 4). Both projects illustrate the spatial interstices where Temporary Urbanism occurs, but they also lead on to The Time of Temporary Urbanism, which looks at the consequences of non-permanency. The two schemes were organised with impermanence in mind; Caravanserai featuring demountable structures for removal after five years47 and ECOBox, now in its twelfth year and fourth location (Fig. 8), as a series of demountable and transportable units that allow for quick re-installation48, whereby space is re-instituted in each setting; each with different forms, the same principles, and new users49.

Figure 8. Diagrammatic illustration of potential ‘ECOBox’ locations and its surroundings

Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu, ‘Tactics for a Transgressive Practice’, p.60.

UrbanInform.

46 Alison

Killing and others, Urban Tactics – Temporary interventions and long term planning (Killing Architects, June 2012) <http://temporary-mobile-everlasting.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/UrbanTactics_TempInterventions+LongTermPlanning.pdf> [accessed 31 December 2014] pp.30-37, (p.30). 47

Ibid., p.35.

UrbanInform.

Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu, ‘Tactics for a Transgressive Practice’, p.60.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

3: The Time of Temporary Urbanism EXPLORING THE ADVANTAGES OF AN INDEFINITE TIMEFRAME

Figure 9. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Permanent Breakfastâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, an ongoing social project which combines public art and spatial occupation by setting up communal breakfasts in public places

Given the difference in their approaches, Temporary Urbanism complements traditional city-making by implementing solutions at a speed or size otherwise unachievable through commonplace design and planning methodology. Working at a small physical scale or with an indefinite timeframe brings with it a level of informality, which although is an attribute traditionally considered weak in the built realm, is in fact its most effective quality.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

3.1 Freedom and Informality Temporary uses are often associated with crisis or chaos50 because there is a preconception that they lack the overall clarity or vision necessary in permanent projects. Yet as articulated by Urban Catalyst, informal and formal are not contradictory, but in fact connected and dependent states51. Indeed arising from and often the result of shortages, ‘temporary activities are generally considered to signify a time crisis or failure to develop’52, often resulting in a lack of exploration into the value of these projects by those in control of the city. Between definitive uses, land can exist in an interim state, the point at which ‘meanwhile’ use comes into play. These ‘time-gap spaces’ act as breeding grounds53, and although the success and failure of urban transformation processes cannot be measured by short-term growth alone (it is hard to prove that over time, a specific intervention directly causes a change in public behaviour54), there are subtle but clearly virtuous outcomes (many long-term) of the freedom which impermanence brings.

“Temporary uses are seen as tools of empowerment: revealing the possibilities of space” HAYDN, FLORIAN

AND

TEMEL55

Despite the associated risk of projects with an unknown future, it is noted that ‘the uncertainty and openness attract and inspire’56. An indeterminate timeframe brings with it a flexibility regarding outcome and method, and challenges conventional ways of thinking through an alternative ‘trial and error’ approach57. The powerful effect of this practice is that there is room for experimentation, and the sites of urban interventions become laboratories for testing ideas, leading to unenvisaged outcomes and even lasting programmes. The freedom of transient schemes often encourages risk-taking and a processorientated methodology58, which appeals to individuals with creative or political agendas. The private development sector also sees strength in temporary uses, as ‘vehicles for experimentation and local consultation’ to bridge the gap in communication between developer and community59, as exemplified in Caravanserai.

Urban Catalyst, p.5.

Ibid., p.27.

Peter Bishop and Leslie Williams, p.19.

Urban Catalyst, p.16.

Rebecca Roberts-Hughes, City Health Check: How Design Can Save Lives and Money (RIBA Public Affairs December 2013), p.12.

Florian Haydn and Robert Temel, p.14.

Urban Catalyst, p.4.

Florian Haydn and Robert Temel, p.58.

Ibid., p 12.

Peter Bishop and Leslie Williams, p.42.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

Figure 10. Market and trading events taking place at ‘ECOBox’

3.2 Unexpected Economic Strength At times, projects are intentionally temporary because they have the consumer appeal of timelimited exclusivity60, and pop-up interventions using vacant land and property advertise their impermanence as a selling point. Notwithstanding, temporary uses don’t exclusively or primarily focus on monetary assets - they can at times use non-commercial practices to attract commercial ones61. In other cases, projects’ ‘anti-monetary characters suggest the putting forward of alternative economies’62.

“Pop-up interventions are seen as exciting because there is a cachet in the exclusivity of the experience, rather than pure consumption” PETER BISHOP63

There is a preoccupation with instancy deriving from the collapse of faith in the future and an obsession with ‘real-time’ information that is becoming increasingly relevant64. Entitled ‘Nowism’, inhabitants value living in the moment and are concerned with themes of flexibility, adaptability, and opportunism, all of which are intrinsically linked to temporary use and suited to the current unstable economic climate. Unlocking the potential of a site now is an approach that is eliciting sympathetic responses from developers to kick-start economic growth, but also resonating with emerging multidisciplinary architecture studios65. A wealth of creative but financially weak players (with limited prospects of highly-paid architectural work) value the freedom to become active participants in the shaping of their city66 that working on temporary projects brings. As well as giving people professional experience, these projects are grounded in tangible reality, a welcome antidote to computer-dominated design processes67. Working at a small, site-specific scale in a temporary way relaxes the planning process, and enables opportunities for greater risk-taking. This leads to innovation in design and social processes, such as exploring new construction methods and material qualities, or testing youth engagement programmes.

“They [temporary projects] invite strangers to suspend their conditioned habits and rethink the possibilities for the use of space” PETER BISHOP

Ibid., p.3.

Ibid., p.40.

Urban Catalyst, p.7.

63 Alison

AND

LESLEY WILLIAMS68

Killing and others, p.32.

Peter Bishop and Leslie Williams, p.68.

Ibid., p.3.

Urban Catalyst, p.4.

Peter Bishop and Leslie Williams, p.141.

Ibid., p.56.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

3.3 Temporary as a Catalyst: Small Change, Big Impact One of Temporary Urbanism’s greatest strengths is its ability to make big change in a quiet, unassuming way, by appearing as ‘harmless intervention’. The location of temporality remains a projection screen69, and the essence of a project being partially removed from its location allows for usual requirements or regulations to be pardoned. Somewhere between the ephemeral and the provisional lies the temporary, and as articulated by Haydn and Temel: ‘things that would be unbearable over the long term can still be perceived as valuable for the short term’70. This ‘urbanism light’71 focuses on minimum intervention for maximum change, and can act as a catalyst; either leading to a permanent future, or at least highlighting previously hidden needs and desires of the city’s unheard voices. Site-specificity creates the attraction of rarity, meaning temporary interventions and projects each assume their own distinctive appeal and character. Small-scale micro-strategies allow for intensification, as elaborated by Pascal Nicolas Le-Strat, who goes on to say that rather than ‘miniaturising’ matters, micrological experimentation in fact ‘loosens the hold of force relations […] in order to invest it more directly, more intensely’72. Planning in proximity for individuals’ desires has a micro-dimension that brings localisation and transforms specific spaces. This concept of reinventing entire cities from a small, precise start by pinpointing issues has been termed ‘Urban Acupuncture’, which uses ‘a targeted (small scale) approach to ‘heal’ the (large scale) malady of urban decay’73. The theory suggests ‘urban revitalisation must begin at the hyperlocal level’74, and that by making a site publicly known and accessible again, in turn its surroundings benefit too.

Figure 11. Four built interventions within the ‘Caravanserai’ scheme accommodating different activities

“We can reinvent entire regions starting from the heart of local communities and building outwards”

PHIL MYRICK75

3.4 Iteration and Multiplicity Through freeing space and making gaps visible with interventions, parts of the city are indeed (re)activated, but temporary activities are also effective in their own right and not just as experimental

Florian Haydn and Robert Temel, p.60.

Ibid., p.55.

Urban Catalyst, p.5.

Pascal Nicolas Le-Strat, Micrology/Micrologies (Paris: Le-Commun, 2007) <www.le-commun.fr/uploads/File/TextesAnglais/PNLS_Micrology.pdf> (p.4).

Kyle Miller, Urban Acupuncture: Revivifying Our Cities Through Targeted Renewal (Kyle Miller MSIS, 2011) <http://kylemillermsis.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/urban-acupuncture-revivifying-our-cities-through-targeted-renewal/> [accessed 1 January 2015]

Ibid.

F. Kaid Benfield, People Habitat: 25 Ways to Think About Greener, Healthier Cities (Washington: Island Press, 2014), p.127.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

prototypes76. Phased, small initiatives sequentially unlock a site’s potential77, and it is this iterative rather than end-state approach that represents a latent energy and parallel vision: a desire for a better future and a better present. In Bishop and Williams’ description of the ‘City as a Stage’, they observe the gradual intensification and diversification of transient public space uses, identifying drivers such as lifestyle changes, denser urban populations and changing population composition78. In this new era characterised by a rise of cultural industries, a transition from consumption to production has occurred, and not only is the way in which we interact with space changing, but ‘liquid modernity’ also requires us to be flexible and adaptable79. Temporary Urbanism suggests this mobility and multiplicity, and aims for projects to continually evolve according to new spatial opportunities, using participation as a ‘process-in-progress’80.

Figure 12. Mobile element of ‘ECOBox’ as an example of ‘urbanism light’

Peter Bishop and Leslie Williams, p.212.

Ibid., p.179.

Ibid., p.87.

Peter Bishop and Leslie Williams, p.21.

Doina Petrescu, Peprav, How To Make a Community As Well As The Space For It, p.6.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

4: The Friction of Ownership and Motivation A CASE STUDY COMPARISON QUESTIONING WHO AND HOW

Figure 13. Visualisation of the Canning Town â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Caravanseraiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

As described in Setting the Scene, this essay focusses on the processes of Temporary Urbanism and its beneficial outcome to people, city and community. Answers to the questions who was involved? and how did it occur? will be compared between two specific projects, in order to establish the correlation between these answers and how their ultimate legacies differed. To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

4.1 Introducing ‘ECOBox’ and ‘Caravanserai’ ECOBox began in 2001 as a series of self-managed projects which value a ‘flexible and reversible use of space’81. After collective consultation (Fig. 14), residents, architects and educators worked together to establish a temporary garden which was progressively extended, curated, and defined by its inclusion of users, employing the social and political notion of ‘co-production’82. Caravanserai was conceived in 2010 through a competition proposal (Fig. 13) by architects Ash Sakula, and led to a collection of structures built in collaboration with municipal bodies and local stakeholders. This urban public space on a demolition site in East London allowed space for ‘trading and upskilling activities’ while ‘functioning as a laboratory for experimental mechanisms for commerce, education and community cohesion’83.

4.2 Actors, Users, and their Interaction Due to the informal nature of Temporary Urbanism, the actors and their roles can at times overlap or lack definition. Users attracted to this approach range from system refugees, part-time activists, and people hoping to start up ventures, as well as formal institutions choosing to avoid a more traditional or permanent approach to architecture and planning84. While both case studies involve multi-disciplinary actors, the way in which they interacted differs - Caravanserai had involvement from numerous wideranging but discrete groups, whilst ECOBox featured one looser, collective body.

Figure 14. Residents, architects and students working together during ‘ECOBox’ planning

“aaa’s participative approach aims to enable the reclaiming and self-management of space by users, a process full of conflicts and contradictions that engage the responsibility of all actors.” DOINA PETRESCU

AND

CONSTANTIN PETCOU85

Caravanserai engaged with the Meanwhile London Competition, various design practices (ultimately the primary architects Ash Sakula), Newham Borough Council and smaller collectives such as artists, traders and community groups. On the other hand, ECOBox was the work of interdisciplinary practice aaa (‘atelier d’architecture autogérée’) - a unified platform of individuals that at times included students and residents and whose membership could fluctuate from five or six to hundreds86. Doina Petrescu and Constantin Petcou (architects, activists, and aaa members) identified the ECOBox site in Paris 18°87, in contrast to the

81 Atelier 82

d’Architecture Autogérée, Eco-Urban Network / ECOBox (Urban Tactics, 2008) <http://www.urbantactics.org/projects/ecobox/ecobox.html> [accessed 3 January 2015].

Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu, Tactics for a Co-produced City (Harvard University: The GSD Talks, 2014) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iREr7Xfam8> [accessed 3 January 2015].

83 Ash

Sakula, Canning Town Caravanserai: About (London: Ash Sakula, 2013) <http://caravanserai.org.uk/about-3/> [accessed 5 January 2014].

Urban Catalyst, p.11.

Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu, ‘Tactics for a Transgressive Practice’, p.64.

Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu, ‘Tactics for a Transgressive Practice’, p.61.

UrbanInform.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

more formal local authorities who chose the setting for the Caravanserai scheme, which included the London Development Agency88. Despite drawing together a wide collection of people, one of Caravanserai’s most evident failings was its limited footfall89. This compares with ECOBox and its continued and increasing involvement from the community (indicated when, upon a four-year eviction threat by local authorities, users claimed attachment to the project and persisted in negotiating a new location90). To establish the reason for this difference in how each project was received, one must look to those involved and the cohesion between them. At the Canning Town development, despite the inclusion of parties such as a local architecture school, construction apprentices, and the regeneration and planning departments, each entity came with their own agenda and approach. Whilst ECOBox eschewed formal positions and individual responsibilities, the players within the Caravanserai scheme instead had fixed roles (Fig. 15), perhaps prompting them to become passive consumers with a loss of engagement.

4.3 The Initiator’s Approach At the heart of aaa’s unique approach is what they term ‘Self-Managed’ Urbanism, whereby the architects allow themselves to relinquish control and become quiet observers. The users gradually take over the project, shifting from (passive) participants to (active) project stakeholders, which aaa founder Doina Petrescu describes as ‘betweeness’91. This is a sharing methodology to increase creativity, and despite bringing with it the risk of ‘tensions, contradictions, oppositions and failures’92, allows moments of ‘rebellious spontaneity' to be incorporated into the project by drawing upon inhabitants’ local knowledge93. aaa’s research into participatory urban actions informs founders Doina Petrescu and Constantin Petcou’s radical decision to live where they work94 - confirming the communal aspect of building and sharing an architecture which has been applauded as the root of their projects’ successes. A fluid process with mobile products such as the ongoing ECOBox project values flexibility and co-existing lifestyles95; aaa act as ‘invisible’ architects, guiding and stylising the work of the users and constantly shifting their level of

88 Alison

Figure 15. Map illustrating the ‘Caravanserai’ partners’ characteristics and skills

Killing and others, p.32.

Shankari Raj Edgar and Dan Gregory, Learning From Others: Meanwhile Land Use (London Legacy Development Corporation, 2013) <www.nudgegroup.com/site/wp-content/uploads/Learning_From_Others-Meanwhile_Land_Use.pdf> [accessed 12 December 2014] (p.31). 90

UrbanInform

Doina Petrescu, Peprav, How To Make a Community As Well As The Space For It, p.4.

Doina Petrescu, Peprav, How To Make a Community As Well As The Space For It p.4.

Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu, ‘At the Ground Level of the City’, p.75.

Ruth Morrow.

Doina Petrescu, Peprav, How To Make a Community As Well As The Space For It, p.2.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

engagement and visibility. Not only is the outcome an organisational framework as well as a spatial device96 (Fig. 16), but a continual questioning and revising of the power structure97.

“It is the role of DIY urbanists to envision these new ‘micro-utopias’ and encourage a sense of participation and power in the future of where one lives and plays.” ECOBox demonstrates ‘Everyday Urbanism’: a specific, rather than normative approach demonstrated in the modest and precise claims that the project began with - small aims that gradually grew through an evolutionary process of additional interventions. On the other hand, despite its successes, Caravanserai faced a series of setbacks that led to the final outcome being a scaled-down version of the initiators’ ambitions.

JONI TAYLOR98

Caravanserai was launched when the Meanwhile London Competition looked for a proposal and business plan as part of a government strategy to attract attention and investment to Newham99. This motivation to raise the profile of a place that was at the time badly perceived100 raises the question of whether it was an exercise in planning, or branding and marketing. The scheme was intended to be a tactical start in creating new public space101, yet the idealistic agenda and interesting architectural proposal was not matched by the robust commercial model102 or link to long-term planning that it required for the scale of its ambition. Although ECOBox similarly lacked formal procedural strategies, its strength lay in its instancy and its process-oriented methodology, as a city created in ‘real time’103 by agents who ‘do not plan, but act’104.

4.4 Agenda As described, there are a multitude of motivations that result in the application of Temporary Urbanism. In the case of ECOBox, it stemmed from a 1990s demand for artists to win back the city for its inhabitants105. The work of aaa ‘grows out of being just another citizen’, and they are interested in taking on responsibility for their local environment106 and ‘catalysing activities at the level of the whole neighbourhood’107. In contrast, it is the UK’s economies and planning changes that have contributed to

Figure 16. The ‘ECOBox’ garden and the mobile kitchen as tools for ‘Everyday Urbanism’

Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu, ‘Tactics for a Transgressive Practice’, p.64.

Ibid., p.61.

Joni Taylor, ‘DIY Urbanism—Sydney Reconsidered’, The Right to The City (Sydney: The Tin Sheds Gallery, 2011) <http://emergencity.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Tinsheds_catalogue_23MarchFINAL1.pdf> [accessed 17 December 2014] pp.47-52, (p.49).

99 Alison

Killing, p.30.

100

Ibid., p.45.

101

Shankari Raj Edgar and Dan Gregory, p.27.

102

Ibid., p.32.

103

Zanny Begg and others, p.7.

104

Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu, ‘Tactics for a Transgressive Practice’, p.61.

105

Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu, ‘At the Ground Level of the City’, p.70.

106

Ruth Morrow.

107

Doina Petrescu, Peprav, How To Make a Community As Well As The Space For It, p.4.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

more non-permanent schemes such as Caravanserai, built in part to avoid the ‘meanwhile feeling of stasis’108. In addition to the aim for a shared place for exchange, there is an apparent financial focus to Caravanserai’s agenda in its mission statement, which describes its intention to ‘create new local employment possibilities, cultivating vital cultural and economic legacies’109. The Caravanserai project focused on making a tangible space (‘a dynamic and ecologically sustainable 21st century public space’110), as a setting for users’ activities. In contrast to this physical intervention-driven approach, ECOBox seemed more concerned with creating a sense of neighbourhood, through the process of community activity itself. aaa’s project was conceptualised as a series of ‘agencies’111 and ‘urban actions’ which use creative practices and everyday life activities to reinvent public contexts112. Whilst Caravanserai aimed to boost the UK economy and improve the city’s image, ECOBox instead aimed for enhanced individual and community quality of life, prioritising creative and cultural outcomes over financial benefits. Interestingly, despite these contrasting approaches to income and finance, ECOBox not only began as an entirely free project, (starting the initial construction from modest recycled wooden elements) but also remained economically stable, whereas Caravanserai began with a much larger budget and yet was met with crippling financial issues. Here I propose a radical divide between these two examples of Temporary Urbanism: one employs tactics and the other uses strategy.

4.5 Tactics Versus Strategy Caravanserai can be documented as a series of financial and planning hurdles, each of which were matched with a strategy to resolve them. It began in its conception with a loose coalition of organisations working together, who were unable to secure funding and instead developed a business plan to generate income113. There was also an issue with site scale that led to a proposed downsized redesign and resubmission of planning documents. Aside from intended revenue attraction, the ‘enterprise’ had to capitalise on volunteer, pro bono and donation support and the land was offered from the council for free on the understanding that profits would be shared through a scheme. Eventually, through a combination of self-funding, commercial loans, community grants and unpaid work, a point of adequate investment was reached114, complimented by the support of the Meanwhile London project which attracted publicity, sponsors and expertise. The approach taken by Ash Sakula and the Meanwhile London scheme seemed to solve problems as and when they occurred, but this preoccupation with negating any immediate issues left it one year on, 108

David Taylor, New London 2013/2014 (London: NLA, 2013), p.111.

109 Alison

Killing, p.34.

110

David Taylor, p.111.

111

Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu, ‘At the Ground Level of the City’, p.74.

112

Doina Petrescu, Peprav, How To Make a Community As Well As The Space For It, p.4.

113 Alison 114

Figure 17. The ‘Caravanserai’ site one year after its initiation

Killing, p.34.

Ibid., p.30.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

post-Olympics, feeling ‘fragile’. Despite this, a post by the Temporary Mobile Everlasting collective suggests that it is this vulnerability that could actually lead the project’s success, claiming that it ‘can start to take roots and grow slowly’115. A document written to investigate the financial relationships at play (and the successes of meanwhile land use) within the example of Caravanserai states; ‘establishing the market potential, rather than the strategy adopted, ‘to build’ and to hope people would come has affected the project’s success’116. This statement somehow insinuates that there was over-optimism about what was achievable, as well a lack of understanding about who would use and participate in the project. Caravanserai is an example of the drawback of strategic approaches - they used a plan of action to achieve an overall aim, but did not make iterations or responsive changes to the intended outcome by responding to the audience and its actual needs. In contrast, ECOBox employed the approach described within urban planning circles as ‘guerilla’: ‘never a strategist, he is the classic tactician. He draws his strength from his surroundings, because he does not take the side of state power, he fights it’117. The Paris-based intervention worked at times against rules or without permission, using ‘tactics’ in order to transgress laws, roles, and professional boundaries118, unlike Caravanserai which ultimately shuffled itself around planning procedures and municipal regulations.

“The practice defines its work as ‘urban tactics’, referring to our engaged activity in the urban realm that encourages inhabitants to reappropriate vacant land in the city and transform it into self-managed space.” DOINA PETRESCU

AND

CONSTANTIN PETCOU119

aaa challenge existing limits with the aim of achieving otherwise unobtainable results on an impressive social scale, such as opening up ‘possibilities for new forms of existence’120. Other examples of the instigators’ tactical approach are their decision to register as a non-profit organisation in order to receive public funding, their cyclical testing of ‘live’ programmes and construction suggestions, and the fact that they ‘transgressed the professional regulations in order to allow users to have access to the design process’121. As in ECOBox’s ‘Tactical Urbanism’, using participation as a driver for wider social change, is a concept which the final chapter, Building the Community goes on to investigate.

115 Andreas

Lang, Caravanserai A Year On (Temporary Mobile Everlasting, 2012) <http://temporary-mobile-everlasting.com/?p=466> [accessed 30 December 2014].

116

Shankari Raj Edgar and Dan Gregory, p.31.

117

Florian Haydn and Robert Temel, p.43.

118

Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu, ‘Tactics for a Transgressive Practice’, p.61.

119

Ibid., p.60.

120

Zanny Begg and others, p.7.

121

Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu, ‘Tactics for a Transgressive Practice’, p.61.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

Figure 18. Graphic representation of the actors, users and their interaction within aaa’s ‘ECOBox’

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

5: Building the Community TEMPORARY URBANISM AS A PLATFORM FOR SOCIAL CHANGE

Figure 19. ‘ECOBox’ and its users engaging and participating through an array of activities

The informal nature of Temporary Urbanism attracts many architects to use it as a testing ground for new approaches, as with practice aaa and their use of participatory processes. This final chapter investigates participation and how it is employed in many ways - at times disguising predetermined, ‘topdown’ decisions, but at others creating lasting change in the form of ownership and collective engagement. Caravanserai and ECOBox continue as case studies in order to evaluate the legacy of community-building through participation and collective involvement. To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

“Communities consist of a multiplicity of activities that are interconnected” PETER BISHOP

AND

LESLIE WILLIAMS122

5.1 The Danger of Superficial Engagement There is a recent global explosion of interest in ‘public participation’, seen as an ‘outlet in the face of this perceived remoteness and irrelevance of central government’123. This trend towards greater social commitment aims to remove barriers to community participation, thus reducing social isolation and even easing the effects of deprivation124. However, there is evidence to suggest that planning participation may only address pre-defined issues, and the process could and should be further opened up125. Partly due to architects’ obsession with maintaining spatial control, new urban policies attempting for people to shape their own environment can become a formulaic pseudo-participation126. This has been described as a ‘thin disguise for the predetermined decisions of external power structures’127, and although ‘Creative Engagement Techniques’ claim to lead to unique outcomes in the development of future land uses128, it is hard to prove the genuine contribution of community consultation feeding into the design and planning process. Doina Petrescu stipulates that truly participatory structures take risks, as they depend on the presence of those involved129. This potential conflict is inevitable when neighbourhood stakeholders are actually engaged, rather than making convenient assumptions about the community’s needs. aaa criticises mainstream practice for its superficial engagement with social issues and sustainability concerns130, aiming instead for ECOBox to be a ‘critical take on participatory architecture’131. As Peter Meyer suggests, the real success of community-building comes when organisations are based and not just located in a community132.

5.2 Authentic Participation ‘Community-building’ is the criterion by which I am measuring the success of Temporary Urbanism, because it is through the strengthening and empowerment of a community that both the city and the

122

Peter Bishop and Leslie Williams, p.186.

123

Ibid., p.138.

124

Rebecca Roberts-Hughes, p.15.

125

Peter B. Meyer, ‘Whose scarcity? Whose abundance?’ in Architecture and Planning in Times of Scarcity: Reclaiming the Possibility of Making, ed. by Deljana Iossifova (Manchester: SoftGrid Ltd, 2014), pp.176-185 (p.184). 126

Doina Petrescu, Peprav, How To Make a Community As Well As The Space For It, p.3.

127

Ruth Morrow.

128

Shankari Raj Edgar and Dan Gregory, p.53.

129

Doina Petrescu, Peprav, How To Make a Community As Well As The Space For It, p.4.

130

Ruth Morrow.

131

Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu, ‘Tactics for a Transgressive Practice’, p.64.

132

Peter B. Meyer, p.184.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

Figure 20. A comparison of developer-driven versus neighbourhood-based development

individuals benefit. Participation is integral to temporary projects, ‘given the range of skills, capacities and capabilities required for a multi-disciplinary, multi-functional start-up enterprise to literally build itself up from the ground’133. The initiators of the ECOBox project state that architecture needs to ‘provide tools for the socio-political ecology of the contemporary city’, something which they deem impossible without the direct participation and initiative of inhabitants. The scheme is a demonstration of crucial community engagement, and so the characteristics of genuine participation will now be examined. Firstly, an essential quality of aaa’s project is ownership, as ‘personal gain often provides the only motivation for collective involvement’134. During its early stages, each member of this culturally-diverse, inner-city community could build their own gardening plot as part of a modular system, but were required to contribute to a communal path135. The participants also became stakeholders, fulfilling their right to influence how the city is managed and used136. This approach is a highly autonomous one, and the communal space acts as a ‘physical manifestation of the democratic functioning of ECOBox’137.

“What is clear, though, is that in the twenty-first century, if we want the innovation, fluidity and flexibility that temporary activities can give us, then we will need to relinquish our twenty-first century notions of control” PETER BISHOP

AND

LESLEY WILLIAM138

The project in Paris draws its strengths from the various specialisms of those involved, and employs an ‘experimental weaving of specialised knowledge and shared experience’139. This gives those involved a sense of empowerment, and rather than being opportunistic, allows others to take control over their own environment140, taking partial responsibility within a larger scheme. ‘Necessary, optional and social activities are interwoven in countless subtle ways’, and capitalising on this inter-relationship of events, aaa employ the tactic of invitation - giving people something useful but also pleasurable to do. Notably, this element of enjoyment and labour combined was also integral to Cedric Price’s schemes with his vision of ‘social emancipation’, which saw play as a means of reclaiming agency141.

133

Shankari Raj Edgar and Dan Gregory, p.58.

134

Ruth Morrow.

135

Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu, ‘At the Ground Level of the City’, p.74.

136

Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu, Tactics for a Co-produced City.

137

Ruth Morrow.

138

Peter Bishop and Leslie Williams, p.220.

139

Zanny Begg and others, p.7.

140

Spatial Agency, How: Empowerment <http://www.spatialagency.net/database/how/empowerment/> [accessed 19 December 2014].

141

Stanley Mathews, ‘The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture’, Journal of Architectural Education Volume 59 Issue 3 (2006), pp.39-48, (p.47).

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

5.3 Learning from Mistakes Despite the strengths and unexpected outcomes of participation within Temporary Urbanism, these projects are indeed hard to execute142 due to their experimental nature, idiosyncratic site demands, and the interrelationship between institution and user. The various struggles encountered at Caravanserai will be scrutinised, in order to come to a conclusion about the success of its methodology. Documentation of the Canning Town project provides evidence of the mixed results within the scheme, which supposedly succeeded in creating a unique UK space - a ‘curious, half-finished, dusty and exotic forgotten marketplace’. As well as key issues such as lack of power and water supply, the fact that the community have not fully engaged is noticeable. Rather than taking advantage of the opportunities it offered, people were described as ‘feeling their way’ and only later exploring how they could use the space to their own agendas143 (contrasting with ECOBox’s participants making use of its potential from the outset). Urban Tactics’ report concluded that maintaining benefits to the community after Caravanserai’s end will ‘almost certainly require re-provision of space for communities and small amounts of investment to support them further’144.

Figure 21. The Oasis Cafe as part of ‘Caravanserai’

Voices of the Canning Town Caravanserai is a ‘Social Impact Report’ which reflects on the limitations and benefits of the project as it nears its planned closure in 2015. The report’s authors question whether the ‘pop-up’ landscape can reach the community and truly sustain an enduring message145. Although this essay, To Change Ourselves by Changing the City, highlights Caravanserai’s failings, it is worth noting that the Voices report is a clear reminder of the project’s strengths as well as weaknesses, and the undeniable legacy (albeit smaller than potentially expected) it created.

“Projects are often delivered at stretched capacity, with a passion to leave a mark on the urban realm, but lacking the ingredients of a financially viable and underlying business model” SHANKARI RAJ EDGAR

AND

DAN GREGORY146

Although spaces within the Caravanserai were available to the community free of charge, intended to foster a sense of inclusion, one of the main challenges faced was indeed turn out147. ‘Ethnographic research among the Canning Town community suggests a lack of knowledge’ about the project148, attributed in part to poor marketing, and also due to the site’s physical boundaries creating a atmosphere of

142 Alison

Killing and others, p.44.

143 Andreas 144 Alison 145 Anna

Lang, Caravanserai A Year On.

Killing and others, p.30.

Back and Helen Sears, The Voices of Canning Town Caravanserai, A Social Impact Report (London: Caravanserai, 2014) <http://issuu.com/ctcaravanserai/docs/voices_of_the_caravanserai/0> [accessed 7 January 2015] p.3.

146

Shankari Raj Edgar and Dan Gregory, p.13.

147

Ibid., p.16.

148

Ibid., p.3.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

exclusion149. The report recognises the need for human inter-relationships in increasing footfall, concluding that ‘engagement with the community needs to be implemented sooner, targeting key residents that will encourage others to participate’150. At Canning Town there was the challenge of ‘building and sustaining relationships’ in an area of constantly changing residents151and thus a transient volunteer base. Other weaknesses included the fact that residents did not benefit from participation in the site’s construction or design152, and the failure to appeal to the local area’s retail needs, instead promoting artisan products; the demand for which ‘does not necessarily exist locally’153. In spite of the project’s downsides, Voices of the Canning Town Caravanserai accepts the difficulties it has encountered as inevitable given the limitations of its experimental character154 and ambition, and reminds the reader of the intangible effects and social impact still created as a consequence of engaging with the community at some level.

5.4 The Legacy of Community Engagement

“Although interim projects such as the Caravanserai are temporary by definition, the community groups created have the potential to be sustained and become permanent, something which is necessary to the overall success of the Caravanserai” ANNA BACK

AND

HELEN SEARS155

The social implications of genuine inhabitant participation are wide-ranging, with Temporary Urbanism schemes improving the image of a place, acting as a focal point for community activities and most significantly, building relationships between local residents, the city’s users, and even new professional networks156. These unconventional alliances often lead to mutual benefit157, as with the connection of people at Caravanserai that had formed four years into the project, creating ‘a rich exchange of talents and experiences’158.

149

Ibid., p.22.

150 Anna

Back and Helen Sears, p.22.

151

Ibid., p.10.

152

Ibid., p.12.

153

Ibid., p.20.

154 Anna 155

Back and Helen Sears, p.21.

Ibid., p.7.

156 Alison 157

Killing and others, p.45.

Urban Catalyst, p.25.

158 Anna

Back and Helen Sears, p.21.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

Fundamentally, the constructed environment must relate to its social context159, and it is proven that happier residents originate from places that foster good social connections which enhance the attractiveness of living in a city160. Despite the hurdles experienced, especially within Caravanserai, both case studies exemplify the power of sustained engagement in the community in contrast to the stereotypical ‘participation’ outlined at the start of this chapter. In both Caravanserai and ECOBox, genuine participation has initiated a sense of neighbourhood, which in turn has built a social network within the city. The aspiration of both these projects is that, beyond their lifespan, they may leave the legacy of a more cohesive future community, as a result of inhabitants’ direct engagement.

Figure 22. ‘Caravanserai’ uses the internet as a tool for communicating and informing potential participants about the facilities and events it offers

159

Florian Haydn and Robert Temel, p.48.

160

F. Kaid Benfield, p.137.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

Conclusion SUMMARISING THIS EXPLORATION AND ESTABLISHING ITS LIMITATION

To draw this written exploration to a close, the findings on Temporary Urbanism from each chapter will be reviewed. Caravanserai and ECOBox have acted as models to illustrate and investigate the qualities of Temporary Urbanism as a phenomenon, and allowed me to question the real legacy of a project which brings with it the weaknesses of being an indefinite, minimal intervention. This concluding chapter ends by establishing the boundaries of this investigation, and the limitations of a case study comparison which focuses on the intangible social benefits of participatory processes.

Figure 23. Richard Reynolds at the Elephant and Castle gardens in London, an example of the participatory phenomenon ‘Guerrilla Gardening’

Setting the Scene established Temporary Urbanism as an alternative approach to city-making, motivated by a range of triggers dependent upon the initiator. The ‘bottom-up’ methodology it employs is iterative and organic, bringing with it risks but also the flexibility of a more direct and spontaneous way of working. Temporary Urbanism allows for distinct solutions in distinct situations, focusing on subjective experiences rather than quantitative evaluation.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

The Place of Temporary Urbanism looked at the pinpoints of friction within the city as settings for these interventions. Mainstream spacial production is financially driven, but between the traditional built realm lie residual spaces which can have distinctive or flexible qualities. These heterotopic environments bring their own set of micro-dynamics and are categorised by numerous urban academics, adopting the terms ‘terrains vagues’ and ‘spatial interstices’. The chapter concluded that places between buildings are enriched when there are opportunities to engage with them, and adopting ownership of one’s surroundings signifies the freedom to create new kinds of urban spaces. The Time Of Temporary Urbanism demonstrated that although temporary is often associated with a time crisis, impermanence creates freedom and allows flexibility, experimentation, and thus, unexpected outcomes. ‘Meanwhile’ use can act as a catalyst for wider change, by responding well to immediacy and iteration, and using participation as a ‘process-in-progress’. The Friction of Ownership and Motivation compared ECOBox and Caravanserai, the first of which was a series of ‘self-managed’ projects involving a unified body of actors, and the second an urban public space competition proposal concerning numerous discrete groups. The difference in agendas was established: whilst ECOBox’s strength lay in its process-orientated methodology as a series of ‘actions’, Caravanserai took a less radical approach to urbanism and remained a semi-rigid exercise in space-making. Building the Community looked at authentic participation as an autonomous (and thus risk-taking) structure, using ownership to empower people to change their city. Caravanserai faced various struggles due to its initial over-optimism regarding scale, achievable output, and input of volunteers, and the essay scrutinised its mixed results and strategic rather than tactical approach in comparison to ECOBox. Although the two projects appear similar in terms of physical manifestation (both are temporary spaces for educating, growing food, socialising, etc), they had very different ways of bringing about participation. Caravanserai seemed preoccupied with first putting built structures in place to allow for the interaction and activity of users, whereas ECOBox employed participation and engagement to in turn create physical settings. Canning Town Caravanserai was born as an ‘alternative interpretation of the Government’s Localism agenda’161, but I suggest that it still parallels official ‘place-making’, rather than taking a truly guerrilla approach. Its organisers saw it as a ‘setting’ for genuine self-managed projects to emerge from162, but community engagement was perhaps less than expected because it was still lead by authority, and there was still an underlying imposed agenda. Newham Council’s Engagement Officer acknowledged that ‘a project has to be led by the community in order for it to be sustainable’163, but I would argue that this a truly guerrilla approach was not wholeheartedly adopted.

161 Anna

Back and Helen Sears, p.3.

162 Anna

Back and Helen Sears, p.4.

163

Ibid., p.3.

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

It must be kept in mind that these two cases are different models, in different locations involving different communities, and analysing their social impact is an attempt to ‘Measure the Immeasurable’164. Human experience is ‘powerful data’ in the face of measuring that ‘schemes have been effective through pounds and percentages’165. I would argue that the most valuable consequence of a truly participatory process is its often unseen positive social legacy. As a final conclusion of this investigation into temporary projects and their role within the urban realm, it is worth looking back to the Renaissance cities and their slow evolution, whereby ‘the city was not a goal in itself, but a tool formed by use’166. The project I cite as a powerful example of Temporary Urbanism is ECOBox, which employs a similar approach to that of the medieval city, and is described as ‘starting with use and not design’167. Projects take time to grow roots, and communities can then grow around them. Harnessing the community’s desires within a bottom-up approach as well as a long-term vision is key to success168. Most importantly though, perhaps the true vitality and transformative power of ‘The Right to the City’ can only be realised if the call for implementing it comes in the form of a demand from those currently excluded169. If this is indeed true, it is the responsibility of the architect to relinquish control, and allow us To Change Ourselves by Changing the City.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

164

Ibid., p.1.

165

Ibid., p.21.

166

Jan Gehl, p.41.

167

Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu, ‘Tactics for a Transgressive Practice’, p.64.

168

Peter Bishop and Leslie Williams, p.185

169

Plyushteva, Anna, ‘Rescuing the Right to the City’, The Right to The City (Sydney: The Tin Sheds Gallery, 2011) <http://emergencity.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Tinsheds_catalogue_23MarchFINAL1.pdf> [accessed 17 December 2014] pp.42-45, (p.44).

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

Bibliography Ash Sakula, Canning Town Caravanserai: About (London: Ash Sakula, 2013) <http://caravanserai.org.uk/about-3/> [accessed 5 January 2014] Atelier d’Architecture Autogérée, Eco-Urban Network / ECOBox (Urban Tactics, 2008) <http://www.urbantactics.org/projects/ecobox/ecobox.html> [accessed 3 January 2015] Back, Anna and Sears, Helen, The Voices of Canning Town Caravanserai, A Social Impact Report (London: Caravanserai, 2014) <http://issuu.com/ctcaravanserai/docs/ voices_of_the_caravanserai/0> [accessed 7 January 2015]

Begg, Zanny and others, The Right to The City (Sydney: The Tin Sheds Gallery, 2011) <http://emergencity.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ Tinsheds_catalogue_23MarchFINAL1.pdf> [accessed 17 December 2014]

Benfield, F. Kaid, People Habitat: 25 Ways to Think About Greener, Healthier Cities (Washington: Island Press, 2014) Bishop, Peter and Williams, Leslie, The Temporary City (London: Routledge, 2012) Burnham, Scott, About: Reprogramming The City (2013) <http://reprogrammingthecity.com/about/> [accessed 30 December 2014] Colomb, Claire, Staging the New Berlin: Place Marketing and the Politics of Urban Reinvention Post-1989 (London: Routledge, 2012) Crawford, Margaret, ‘101 Urban Salvations: Proposals for Cambridge, Massachusetts’ in Everyday Urbanism, ed. by John Leighton Chase, Margaret Crawford and John Kaliski (New York: The Monacelli Press, 1999), 208-215

Crawford, Margaret, ‘Blurring the Boundaries: Public Space and Private Life’ in Everyday Urbanism, ed. by John Leighton Chase, Margaret Crawford and John Kaliski (New York: The Monacelli Press, 1999), 22-35

Crawford, Margaret, ‘Rethinking “Rights,” Rethinking “Cities:” A Response to David Harvey’s “The Right to the City”’, The Right to The City (Sydney: The Tin Sheds Gallery, 2011) <http://emergencity.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Tinsheds_catalogue_23MarchFINAL1.pdf> [accessed 17 December 2014] 33-37

Edgar, Shankari Raj and Gregory, Dan, Learning From Others: Meanwhile Land Use (London Legacy Development Corporation, 2013) <www.nudgegroup.com/site/wp-content/ uploads/Learning_From_Others-Meanwhile_Land_Use.pdf> [accessed 12 December 2014]

Franck, Karen A. and Stevens, Quentin, Loose Space: Possibility and Diversity in Urban Life (Oxon: Routledge, 2007) Gehl, Jan, Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space (Washington: Island Press, 2011) Haydn, Florian and Temel, Robert, Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2006) Imrie, Robert and Hall, Peter, Designing and Developing Accessible Environments (New York: Spon Press, 2001) Killing, Alison, and others, Urban Tactics – Temporary interventions and long term planning (Killing Architects, June 2012) <http://temporary-mobile-everlasting.com/wp-content/ uploads/2012/06/UrbanTactics_TempInterventions+LongTermPlanning.pdf> [accessed 31 December 2014] 30-37 To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

La Farge, Annik, On The High Line: Exploring New York’s Most Original Urban Park (London - New York: Thames & Hudson, 2012) Lang, Andreas and others, About: Temporary Mobile Everlasting <http://temporary-mobile-everlasting.com/?page_id=2> [accessed 30 December 2014] Lang, Andreas, Caravanserai A Year On (Temporary Mobile Everlasting, 2012) <http://temporary-mobile-everlasting.com/?p=466> [accessed 30 December 2014] Lehtuvuori, Panu, ‘Towards Experiential Urbanism’, Critical Sociology, Volume 38, Issue 1 (January 2012), 71-78 Locality, What is Incredible Edible Network? (2012) <http://incredibleediblenetwork.org.uk/content/what-incredible-edible> [accessed 30 December 2014] Mathews, Stanley, ‘The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture’, Journal of Architectural Education Volume 59 Issue 3 (2006), 39-48 Meyer, Peter B., ‘Whose scarcity? Whose abundance?’ in Architecture and Planning in Times of Scarcity: Reclaiming the Possibility of Making, ed. by Deljana Iossifova (Manchester: SoftGrid Ltd, 2014), 176-185

Miller, Kyle, Urban Acupuncture: Revivifying Our Cities Through Targeted Renewal (Kyle Miller MSIS, 2011) <http://kylemillermsis.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/urban-acupuncturerevivifying-our-cities-through-targeted-renewal/> [accessed 1 January 2015]

Morrow, Ruth, ECOBox. Mobile Devices and Urban Tactics (Domus, November 2007) <www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/2007/11/14/ecobox-mobile-devices-and-urban-tactics.html> [accessed 30 Dec 2014]

muf, Urban Strategies: ‘Pleasure Principles’ <http://www.muf.co.uk/urban.htm> [accessed 31 December 2014] Petcou, Constantin and Petrescu, Doina, ’Tactics for a Transgressive Practice’ in Architectural Design [Special Issue: The Architecture of Transgression] Volume 83, Issue 6 (November/December 2013), 58-65

Petcou, Constantin and Petrescu, Doina, ‘At the Ground Level of the City’, The Right to The City (Sydney: The Tin Sheds Gallery, 2011) <http://emergencity.net/wp-content/ uploads/2013/03/Tinsheds_catalogue_23MarchFINAL1.pdf> [accessed 17 December 2014] 70-76

Petcou, Constantin and Petrescu, Doina, Tactics for a Co-produced City (Harvard University: The GSD Talks, 2014) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iREr7Xfam8> [accessed 3 January 2015]

Petrescu, Doina, ‘Losing Control, Keeping Desire’, in Architecture and Participation, ed. by Peter Blundell Jones, Doina Petrescu, Jeremy Till (Oxon: Spon Press, 2005), 43-63 Petrescu, Doina, Peprav. How To Make a Community As Well As The Space For It <www.peprav.net/tool/spip.php?article31> [accessed 31 December 2014] Plyushteva, Anna, ‘Rescuing the Right to the City’, The Right to The City (Sydney: The Tin Sheds Gallery, 2011) <http://emergencity.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ Tinsheds_catalogue_23MarchFINAL1.pdf> [accessed 17 December 2014] 42-45

The Red Swing Project, The Red Swing Project <http://www.redswingproject.org> [accessed 6 January 2015] Roberts-Hughes, Rebecca, City Health Check: How Design Can Save Lives and Money (RIBA Public Affairs December 2013) Skene Catling, Charlotte, ‘The Naked Truth: Architecture of Revolution’ in The Architectural Review, Volume 236, Issue 1412 (October 2014), 95-101 To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

Spatial Agency, About: Spatial Agency <www.spatialagency.net> [accessed 19 December 2014] Spatial Agency, How: Appropriation: 2012 Architecten <http://www.spatialagency.net/database/how/appropriation/2012.architecten> [accessed 19 December 2014] Spatial Agency, How: Empowerment <http://www.spatialagency.net/database/how/empowerment/> [accessed 19 December 2014] Taylor, David, New London 2013/2014. (London: NLA, 2013) Taylor, Joni, ‘DIY Urbanism—Sydney Reconsidered’, The Right to The City (Sydney: The Tin Sheds Gallery, 2011) <http://emergencity.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ Tinsheds_catalogue_23MarchFINAL1.pdf> [accessed 17 December 2014] pp.47-52

Tice, Jim, The Nolli Map and Urban Theory (University of Oregon: Department of Architecture, 2005) <http://nolli.uoregon.edu/urbanTheory.html> [accessed 3 January 2015] Urban Catalyst, Strategies for temporary uses – potential for development of urban residual areas in European metropolises (Studio Urban Catalyst, Berlin, September 2003) UrbanInform, ECOBox - self-managed eco-urban network <http://www.urbaninform.net/home/minidoc/236/ecobox-self-managed-eco-urban-network.html> [accessed 17 December 2014]

Vodanovic, Lucia, ‘Obsolescence and Exchange in Cedric Price's Dispensable Museum’, Invisible Culture, Issue 11 (December 2007) <https://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/ Issue_11/vodanovic/vodanovic.html> [accessed 31 December 2014]

Whyte, William H., The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, 1998 <https://archive.org/details/SmallUrbanSpaces> [accessed 12 November 2014]

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

List of Illustrations Cover Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6

p.1 p. 7 p. 9 p. 10 p. 13 p. 15 p. 16

‘Red Swing’ Tillery Bridge - Blake Gordon ‘ECOBox’ community garden ‘101 Urban Salvations’ ‘The Cascade’ ‘Caravanserai’ location illustration ‘ECOBox’ in location - aaa ‘FitNation’ exhibition - Bryony Simcox

Fig. 7 Fig. 8

p. 18 p. 19

‘The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces’ ‘ECOBox’ location diagram - aaa

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

p. p. p. p.

21 23 24 25

‘Permanent Breakfast’ in action ‘ECOBox’ markets and trading - aaa ‘Caravanserai’ components Mobile ‘ECOBox’ module - aaa

Fig. 13

p. 27

‘Caravanserai’ proposal - Ash Sakula

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

14 15 16 17 18

p. p. p. p. p.

28 29 31 32 34

Collective ‘ECOBox’ involvement - aaa ‘Caravanserai’ actor characteristics ‘ECOBox’ Spring 2004 - aaa ‘Caravanserai’ after a year ‘ECOBox’ user interaction map - aaa

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

19 20 21 22 23

p. p. p. p. p.

35 36 38 40 41

‘ECOBox’ activities Developer verus neighbourhood diagram ‘Caravanserai’ Oasis Cafe ‘Caravanserai’ web presence - facebook ‘Guerrilla Gardening’ - Ruth Jamieson

9 10 11 12

To Change Ourselves by Changing the CitY

<http://urbaninteraction.net/the-red-swing-project/> <http://www.urbantactics.org/projects/ecobox/ecobox.html> Everyday Urbanism (New York: The Monacelli Press, 1999) pp.211-2 <http://reprogrammingthecity.com/the-cascade/> <http://caravanserai.org.uk/about-3/> Same as Fig. 1 source Active design exhibition curated by New London Awards and displayed at The Building Centre as part of London Festival of Architecture 2014 <http://fab.cba.mit.edu/classes/4.140/people/jgeis01/week01.html> <http://basekamp.com/about/events/urban-tactics-atelier-autogérédarchitecture> <http://www.permanentbreakfast.org/?page_id=1366> Same as Fig. 8 source <http://caravanserai.org.uk/explore/> <http://www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/2007/11/14/ecobox-mobiledevices-and-urban-tactics.html> <www.nudgegroup.com/site/wp-content/uploads/Learning_From_OthersMeanwhile_Land_Use.pdf> Same as Fig. 8 source Same as Fig. 13 source Same as Fig. 8 source <http://temporary-mobile-everlasting.com/?p=466> <http://emergencity.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ Tinsheds_catalogue_23MarchFINAL1.pdf> <http://aaa.web.free.fr/pages/projects/ecobox/ECOBOX.HTM> Everyday Urbanism (New York: The Monacelli Press, 1999) p.125 <http://caravanserai.org.uk/oasis-cafe/> <https://www.facebook.com/CTCaravanserai> <http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/gallery/2012/may/23/guerrillagardening-richard-reynolds>

Bryony Simcox . Stage Three Architecture . Newcastle University . January 2015