Urban Vernacular by Cherng-Min Teong

URBAN VERNACULAR AN (ACTIVIST) AGENDA FOR TEMPORARY USE IN THE CITY

CHERNG-MIN TEONG

URBAN VERNACULAR AN (ACTIVIST) AGENDA FOR TEMPORARY USE IN THE

Cherng-Min Teong

SUPERVISOR: RICHARD COYNE ARCHITECTURAL DISSERTATION UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH 2012

ABSTRACT

The (social) production of space and the responsibilities linked, are continually changing due to the ever increasing control of public space and the decreasing input and choices inhabitants have on these areas. What right should architect, artist, inhabitant, institution have in the shaping of this space within our city? And with what agenda? This dissertation reviews the recent temporary use phenomenon that has emerged in the planning, commercial and cultural spheres of London and considers situating these interim fleeting appropriations within the larger context of temporary use, thus uncovering their agendas whilst also exploring the potentials of this â&#x20AC;&#x153;urban vernacularâ&#x20AC;?. In this study, we will first review the links between activists and temporary practice, namely through de Certeauâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s definition of tactics and will then locate this within two European case studies (both practices who proclaim to be activists) to explore the ways in which our right to the city is exercised in Lefebvrian terms. We will then contrast this to the current temporary use occurring in London through three distinct case studies and determine their particular agendas and tactics.

PREAMBLE

During the summer months of 2010, a strange merz-homage structure, a collage of doors, tables, pallets, was conceived. Named as “The Jellyfish Theatre”, it sat defiantly on a small playground space in the heart of Southwark. It was constructed over a period of 10 weeks, “lived” for four and was promptly deconstructed by the beginning of Autumn in three days. The space was returned, without a mark left on the tarmac. My involvement in this project spurred the questions: what are the roles of temporary use and structures in the city? Do they engender specific values and agencies? Are these beneficial/detrimental to the way we plan and govern the city?

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................3 Just temporary? Aims & Methodology

PART I : TACTICS 01 JUST TEMPORARY: .......................................................8 Desiring temporal tactics

The demand for impermanence

Temporary user and the Activist Tactics of the Temporary Responding globally, acting locally Networks Manipulating the system Actors

PART II : 02 LEFEBVREâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S RIGHT TO THE CITY.....................................14 03 AGENDA #01: MAKESHIFT CITY........................................18 Political protest Berlin, a history of temporary use Uncomfortable city- the quest for re-identification Reactions underground: subcultures and situational urbanism Overground politics: urban interventions at the Palast Republik CASE STUDY: FASSADENREPUBLIK- Raumlabor tactics:

04 AGENDA #02: TURNING TO THE INHABITANT........................22 Appropriation and Participation Reclaiming, empowering CASE STUDY: ECO Box- Atelier d’Architecture Autogérée tactics:

PART III 05 AGENDA #03: A CREATIVE CITY.......................................29 The desire for participation CASE STUDY: FOLLY FOR A FLYOVER: Assemble CIC Prosumers and the Creative Age Tactics: Harnessing the power of enthusiasm CASE STUDY: CARAVANSERAI CANNING TOWN: Ash Sakura Architects Tactics for a self sustaining enterprise A framework for creativity zooming out: the neo-liberal entrepreneur “Big Society”-

06 AGENDA #04: THE COMMODIFIED POP UP...........................36 Aesthetisating the Temporary CASE STUDY: BOX PARK- Waugh Thistleton Architects Tactics: Radical aesthetics Here today/ Gone tomorrow- A Transumer reality SUMMARY:

CONCLUSION .............................................................40

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig.

0.1

Fig.

1.1

Fig.

3.1

Fig.

3.1

Fig.

3.2

Fig.

3.3

Fig.

4.1

Fig.

5.1

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

4.2 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

Fig.

5.7

Fig.

6.1

http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAHoldings/ PolicyAndInternationalRelations/Policy/PublicAffairs/RIBAmanifesto.pdf

http://citymovement.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/screen-shot-2012-03-24at-9-37-06-am.png, http://www.fuenfwerken.com/index.php?inhalt=identitaet_projekte_ detail&id=1710&sprache=en

http://www.raumlabor.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/fassadenrepublik02. jpg, http://www.raumlabor.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/fassadenrepublik01. jpg http://www.raumforschung.de/lab/projekte/fassaden/fassadenentwurfblatt. pdf http://www.spatialagency.net/2010/04/28/aaa_2-01-960x482.jpg,

http://www.bustler.net/images/news/2011_curry_stone_award_07.jpg, http://www.flickr.com/photos/follyforaflyover/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/follyforaflyover/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/follyforaflyover/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/follyforaflyover/ Author

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ctcaravanserai/6966882130/sizes/l/in/ photostream/

http://www.newham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D81A63B5-10D3-4290-B77E08D5D0309812/0/RoyalDocksAVisionfortheRoyalDocks.pdf . http://www.theculturist.com/storage/Boxpark%20Shoreditch_London_2. jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1324924680032

AR N GY

mission the nel and ce a ﬁveCapital.

we also with it of the Capital e the on the

INTRODUCTION

A DEPUTY MAYOR FOR A LASTING OLYMPIC LEGACY

TRANSFORMING EMPTY SPACES INTO LOCAL SHOPS AND COMMUNITY GARDENS

RETROFITTING THE CAPITAL

We want the Mayor to appoint a Deputy Mayor for Olympic Legacy, to provide leadership and direction from City Hall, driving efforts to secure economic investment and ensuring high quality design and sustainability are embedded within the London Legacy Development Corporation’s planning controls. To ensure that development within the Olympic Park and the surrounding area is of a high design quality, we would like to see the Deputy Mayor work closely with the Mayor’s Design Advisory Panel and the London Legacy Development Corporation.

We want to see City Hall encourage greater take up of “Meanwhile Uses” across London. These enable an empty site or space to be used whilst a permanent solution is sought.

We want the next Mayor to commit to a 30% reduction in energy use of the Capital’s public buildings by 2020 in order to make London a world leader on energy performance.

An increase in “Meanwhile Uses” of empty shop sites would revitalise high streets and drive growth. Communities could also shape their neighbourhoods by turning vacant spaces into gardens, playgrounds and markets.

This can be delivered through City Hall’s existing RE:FIT retroﬁt programme. This needs to be accompanied by a robust performance monitoring mechanism to ensure that the energy reduction is delivered.

Figure 0.1 RIBA newly launched manifesto “Design a Better London” in 2012

00 INTRODUCTION

JUST TEMPORARY?

Is it just temporary? A RIBA debate last summer identified London and other European cities are experiencing a flourish in temporary uses of space1 With the number of vacant shops and houses reaching over a million in the UK2, the government, planning authorities, and other officials are looking to alternative methods to the formal planning system, and have become more respondent to the temporary, and informal (see figure 1). Meanwhile, pop-ups cinemas, cafes and gardens have sprouted across London. These interventions, installations, re-appropriations emerge and dissolve again, leaving us only with a faint recollection of events. AIMS + METHODOLOGY

Over the years temporary use and structures have moved from what was first seen only as a relief mechanism (for disasters, wars) into the everyday life. “Temporary use”, “meanwhile structures”, “interim use” are notions that have “Popped up” in the urban realm and into the cultural spheres of London over the last years. They exhibit a multiplicity of faces and intents, from activism with social agendas to pure capitalist agency. We argue that ultimately in the advent of temporary use becoming mainstream its intents have warped and twisted to suit a neo-liberalist economy and its main concerns now are focused on exchange value, entrepreneurialism moving away from the bottom up tactics to top down strategies. Temporary use, however, still possesses the very real potential for instigating social change within the city, and the history of its development illustrates its activist methodologies. What are the agendas of London temporary use? Are they similar to those of activist practices or do they differ and if so, how? How can we realise the potentials of the temporary within the city? The first part of this dissertation examines the nature of the temporary, and its practice in reappropriating urban spaces. We draw similarities between the temporary user and activist through an understanding of de Certeau’s concept of the strategist and the tactician. Part II is concerned with the agenda of exercising Lefebvre’s Rights to the City by means of appropriation and participation. Placing these theories in light of the production of urban space and temporary use, we situate these notions within two European case studies both who are activist practices. With a contextual study of the temporary re appropriation of urban spaces in Berlin, city with the “culture of the temporary”, and an examination of the intentions of Parisian architecture practice 1 A Flourish of Meanwhiles: Do ‘pop ups’ offer real long term possibilities? -RIBA Debate 28/06/2011 RIBA Portland Place 2 Empty Homes. (2011). Statistics. Available: http://emptyhomes.com/statistics-2/. Last accessed 22/04/2012.

INTRODUCTION

Atelier d’Architecture Autogérée (Self managed architecture) we consider to compare and contrast the temporary use occurring in London within these agendas. This results in the body of Part three, where three distinct current temporary uses are analysed with the framework set up in the previous chapters. The underlying question that arises throughout the discussion challenges our “right to the city” and rights of using and appropriating public space. Ultimately we conclude that the current state of temporary use in London does not fully echo the concerns of those activist practices and does not exercise the full “Right to the city”.. Instead, the case studies depict a shift of temporary use from a self initiation of the individual activist to instigation and implementation by other actors who implement strategies for capital gain. This transition into the “mainstream” compromises any holist intents of the temporary use. Its agenda manifests into satisfying the consumer, namely the prosumer and the transumer. Private agents have taken actions that follow Richard Florida’s theories of the “creative class”. Building on this thought, I argue that much of temporary use has been overtaken by the drive of advertising and commercialism, where the aesthetic of the temporary “pop up” and its associations to activism and radicalism is commodified and used for capitalist gains. Through this process, there is a loss of interest in the social potentials of temporary- and a disregard of the inhabitants right to participate and appropriate in the city.

PART I : TACTICS Part one first defines the notion of temporary use and offers explainations for its appropriation in contemporary society. We then draw the links between the temporary user and the activist, drawing similarities between them in terms of the tactics they employ.

PART I

01 JUST TEMPORARY DESIRING TEMPORAL TACTICS

THE DEMAND FOR IMPERMANENCE

Temporary use is most often associated with situations requiring immediate relief such as wars or natural disasters; they are perceived on the most part as ad-hoc, quick responses to urgent, un-everyday, unpredictable demands that that typical slower permanent solutions are unable to relieve3. Within the context of a city, temporary use of urban spaces responds to the economic, social, aesthetic, and cultural situation. Its nature in urgency, and presence in immediacy is however, is still very tangible; if the built urban fabric is created through processes of supply and demand, urban planning is understood as the supply and therefore consistent and regulated whereas temporary use is seen as the demand and consequently fluctuating, urgent and contingent.4 These “demands” result in a multiplicity of intents and thus a range of “typologies” for temporary use arise. A temporary building, defined by the UK planning system as “A building which is not intended to remain where it is erected for more than 28 days.”5 Changes of use of a building or space are considered in classes according previous use to intended use6 however this dissertation will view temporary use firstly as a unique alternative to typical building and planning with potentials that succeed beyond just change of use or duration. For clarity, we follow the definition of Haydn and Temel 7 who define it as:“those that planned from the outset to be impermanent...temporary uses are those that seek to derive unique qualities from the idea of temporality” Duration therefore, is not of prominence in this discussion but rather the conditions that the temporal affords in comparison to the permanent. Haydn and Temel believe this quality is what makes temporary use so unique and significant: “Temporary uses occupy a special place in the urban web : their small, short-lived interventions often lie under the threshold of perception and have a field of opportunities that is considerably larger than that of ‘regular’ long term uses.“8 Our cities in their current condition are said to be in a state of flux, both economically and socially. Work patterns are changing, the boundary between work and private life is blurred due to increased flexible working hours and technology. Global events shift the economy perpetually, and within this 3 See Robert Kronenberg’s book Flexible: Architecture that Responds to Change (London:Laurence King, 2007) for more examples of this type of temporary use. 4 F. Haydn, & R. Temel, Temporary Urban Spaces Concepts for the Use of City Spaces, (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2006): 73 5 Class 4 (Temporary buildings) Planning portal 22/04/12 http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/responsibilities/buildingregulations/approvalneeded/ exemptions/classiv 6 Planning Portal. (2011). Changes of Use. Available: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/ commonprojects/changeofuse/. Last accessed 22/04/2012. 7 Haydn, & Temel, Temporary Urban Spaces Concepts for the Use of City Spaces, 17 8 Ibid., 58 8

“CHOOSE what you want to do – or watch someone else doing it. Learn how to handle tools, paint, babies, machinery, or just listen to your favourite tune. Dance, talk or be lifted up to where you can see how other people make things work. Sit out over space with a drink and tune in to what’s happening elsewhere in the city. Try starting a riot or beginning a painting – or just lie back and stare at the sky.”1

Figure 1.1 Perspective, Cedric Price’s Fun Palace

world of changeability there is only a certainty of uncertainty. Zymunt Bauman labels this current state as “liquid modernity”. As opposed to what the past was “solid”, the fluid nature of society means the response of one is also to shift and stay “nomadic” In the fluid stage of modernity, the settled majority is ruled by the nomadic and exterritorial elite.9 This nomadism only suggests the opportunities the temporary may possess in responding to this lifestyle where desires change consistently.

These ideas, responding directly to desires of the users are echoed within British Architect Cedric Price’s mode of thought10. As a revolutionary architect of the 60s concerned primarily with public participation and user empowerment (as influenced by the may riots of 1968), his radical ideas criticised the slow and formal nature of the planning system and architecture itself. He argued for building and the creation of space to only serve its immediate purpose, “We are building a short term plaything in which all of us can realise the possibilities and delights that a 20th Century City environment owes us. It must last no longer than we need it.”11 His oeuvre concept project titled Fun Palace, a multi use theatre complex envisioned to be constructed from a large spanning space frame which would allow much customisation and adaptation according to use, was based on the very idea of responding only to immediate needs and desires of the users. TEMPORARY WITH AN AGENDA

Price’s Fun palace demonstrates the ability for temporary to be created as a response to change but in many ways their uses can seek to provoke change, socially, economically or culturally. In the way they are appropriated, the temporary user (one that instigates a temporary use or structure) shares aims and methods that align with those of the activist, when both target for social change. The key feature of the temporary user being likened to the activist is that both must possess an inventory of tactics to fulfil their agendas. “Tactics” here is understood in Michel de Certeau’s theories on tactical resistance and are explained in the next paragraph. In Randy Shaw’s book, The Activist’s Handbook, Shaw calls for all activists to first identify their agenda specifically which will inform their tactics based on the resources they that are available to them12 9 Z. Bauman, Liquid Modernity. (Cambridge: Polity, 2000), 13 10 �� See: C. Price, Re: CP ( Basel: Birkhäuser) 11 � bid., 3031 12 �� R. Shaw,The Activist’s Handbook: A Primer (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2001), 2 9

PART I

Through De Certeau’s understanding of strategists and tacticians, it becomes clear of the similar tactics and aims that both activists and temporary users share. Strategies are in opposition to tactics, and are objective, isolated from the environment, and assume its own place. They work in a framework that adheres to their agenda and therefore are the tools of political, economic and scientific institutions. Tactics, on the other hand, are wholly dependent on time and situation and therefore are constantly changing, They must “constantly manipulate events in order to turn them into “opportunities” and they have no place- their place is “the other’s territory.13 Tacticians being the minority, are regarded as the “weak” and must therefore “continually turn to their own ends forces alien to them”. de Certeau believes that this is a central practice of everyday life where the micro, situational actions of the everyday user, the bricoleur has to manipulate the strategists’ institutional systems to attain their goals. Both activists and temporary users are respondent to the immediate, whilst institutions such as the government and planning departments offer strategies that generalise conditions. Margret Crawford, a theorist of Everyday Urbanism builds on de Certeau’s line of thought, and terms temporary use as the “urban vernacular” which is inherently a “tactical strike” as it draws on “local improvisation”. She sees tactics in the form of everyday creativity which challenge the static notions of “proper” places within the city. 14 TACTICS OF THE TEMPORARY USER AND THE ACTIVIST

Responding globally acting locally Both activists and temporary users often focus on the micro-politics of a site, and operate on a local scale. This tactic allows them to gain a specific knowledge of the surroundings, network, and thus use these to their advantage. Shaw states that these tactics and thus grassroots groups are usually more successful in instigating and influencing change at a national level 15 Through operating locally, their approaches are situational and informal which allow a greater flexibility to change and adaptation. Peter Arlt echoes this with a comparison of the temporary user to the guerrilla: “The guerrilla draws his strength from his surroundings because he does not take the side of the state power, he fights it. The guerrilla operates locally and is thoroughly familiar with the area in which he operates, like the interim user who is not looking for just any old vacancy building, but a particular one in a specific area with a good atmosphere. .16 By nature and in a tactical sense, temporary use begins at a localised level, to draw in resources, network and create a concentrated form of action that aims to influence and provoke a larger reaction than just within its locality. Networks Urban Catalyst found in their study of temporary use in Europe, that temporary users 13 �� M. de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life (London: University of California Press, 1984), 35 14 �� J. Chase, M. Crawford, and J. Kaliski, Everyday Urbanism (New York: Monacelli Press, 1999), 12 15 �� Shaw,The Activist’s Handbook: A Primer. 3 16 �� Haydn, & Temel, Temporary Urban Spaces Concepts for the Use of City Spaces, 42

develop in what they termed “clusters” through others who have similar interests. In the battle against the opposition, the temporary user must acquire as much local support as well as knowledge and this is made possible through a network of connections which open up relational opportunities.“For most temporary users money and status are of secondary importance...Instead prime resource are social networks, It is an important source and at the same time, an important outcome of temporary activities.” 17 Manipulating the system Gaining highly specific knowledge, of both site, situation (and potentially systems surrounding), temporary users and activists become experts in the tactics of manipulation within the institution’s playing field and are seen as “urban players”18 . Temporary users are “pioneer of capitalist economics”19 just as activists are aware of mechanisms of opposition they can manipulate to their gain such as “Culture jamming”, a method taken from capitalist strategies to subvert against it. Naomi Klein asserts that a greater knowledge of the opponents will result in more successful subversions: “The most sophisticated culture jams are not stand-alone parodies but interceptionscounter-messages that hack into a corporations own method of communication to send a message starkly at odds with the one that was intended”20 ACTORS

Actors, termed by Oswalt are the other members involved in the creation of a temporary use21. They range from agents both formal and informal who initiate larger projects without too much involvement themselves (i.e they produce sponsorship, support). The owners of the land are another key set of actors, and it is the communication and relationship between temporary user, potential agent and owner that enables the initial instigation of temporary use. Policy makers and administrators make up the final large area of actors, and Oswalt et al explain they are inherently linked to temporary use due to the regulations placed of temporary use. It is up to the tactician, the temporary user to mediate between these actors and form relations with their that are beneficial to achieving successful re-appropriation that is not detrimental or compromises the social agenda.

17 �� P. Oswalt & K. Overmeyer & P. Misselwitz, Urban catalyst : strategies for temporary use (London: Springer, 2011), 5 18 � Ibid,. 4 19 �� Haydn, & Temel, Temporary Urban Spaces Concepts for the Use of City Spaces, 43 20 �� N. Klein, No Logo (London: Harper Perennial, 2005), 281 21 �� T. Schwarz & S. Rugare, Pop up City (Ohio: Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative, 2009), 10

PART II : RIGHTS BERLIN + PARIS Understanding the links between the activist and the temporary user the dissertation now looks at the agenda of social change. In a theoretical framework, the work of Henri Lefebvre’s thoughts on the production of space and the “Right to the city” will be analysed and applied to a contemporary urban context with reference to temporary use and its potential for exercising this right.

PART II

AGENDA

02 AGENDA LEFEBVRE’S RIGHT TO THE CITY

(SOCIAL) SPACE

Cedric Price’s concerns of public participation and empowerment follow the concerns of Henri Lefebvre’s and his views on the social production of urban space and the Right to the City (1968). Space itself is an encompassing concept and encircles the experiential, social and the material in its temporal entity. Lefebvre’s notion of space is of an dynamic one- one that encompasses various contingent factors which contribute to the overall experience. Lefebvre believed that (social) space is a social product which fell within a triad system of spatial processes. He defined these as perceived space, conceived space, and lived space. Perceived space is the external concrete environment that surrounds the person, conceived space is the space that is imagined and represented usually by architects, scientists. Lived space is a combination of perceived and conceived as well as the added dimension of time, where the present and situational aspects define the perception of space for an inhabitant. It is therefore “directional, situational or relational, because it is essentially qualitative, fluid and dynamic22Thus social relations are intrinsically linked to lived space which generate the everyday and experience is linked to materiality23. Pugalis and Giddings suggest that this understanding of space leads to a comprehension of spatial practices as a continuous shifting process (and not a product), contingent to time, and contexts (physical, historical and social)24 Thus the creation of space is seen as not a means to an end but ends in itself. The “right to the city” encompasses the right to participate in this trinity of spatial processes within the urban context through the practice of everyday activities.25 RIGHTS

In looking at the rights to the city, the first question is who possess these rights? Lefebvre defines this right belongs to those inhabits the city, that is, the urban dweller, citadin and the citizen26. Lefebvre believed that they possessed two entitlements: the right to appropriation and the right to participation. The right of appropriation is the right to use space in the everyday manner, through living, work, play. Appropriation is a function of lived space that is “dominated , hence passively experienced space which imagination seeks to change and appropriate “. Its 22 �� H. Lefebvre, Writing on cities, translated by E. Kofman & E. Lebas (London: Blackwell, 1996),40 23 �� H. Lefebvre, The production of space, translated by D. Nicholson-Smith (London: Blackwell, 1992),33 24 �� L. Pugalis, & B. Giddings, A renewed right to urban life: A twenty-first century engagement with Lefebvre’s initial “cry”. Architectural Theory Review, 16 (3) (2011) 281 25 �� Pugalis, & Giddings, A renewed right to urban life: A twenty-first century engagement with Lefebvre’s initial “cry” 282 26 �� H. Lefebvre, Writing on Cities, 34

use value supersedes its exchange value; as Purcell notes, urban space is to be used for creation and not consumption27- the city is seen more as an “oeuvre, closer to a work of art than to any simple material product”28 and therefore appropriation for purely exchange value (i.e commodification and capitalist tendencies), are averse to Lefebvre’s notion. In stipulating this detail, Lefebvre instantly places the resident over capital. Within the term “use”, the right of appropriation can be seen as identifying underused resources (vacant land) or re appropriating and giving new use and program to a space29 both which are inherent qualities of temporary structures and use. However, this right of use does not only consist the material, use is also seen as accomplished through “active presence”30 with a temporal quality that is relational and subjective. Public space thus, are places where uses are undefined and therefore subjected to the desires and needs of the inhabitant to be appropriate and re appropriated as necessary. Pugalis and Giddings define urban public space as central to social relations, (providing meeting points, conversation, debate) and therefore offer a place of democratic value.31 The right of participation empowers inhabitant to make and influence the decisions made on the production of urban space. These decisions vary in scales of authority, and scope (such that one could be a policy decision whereas the other could be the deciding what to do with a communal garden. Lefebvre believes this centrality of is of metaphorical and spatial sense, one where the inhabitant is at the core of the decision making, but literally has the right to occupy, use and decide upon the production of the centre of the city.32 This is not just the authorisation to make discussion but the ability to invoke difference that Pugalis and Giddings argue create a “renewed right to urban life”. This desire for opposing the existing production of space systems (that of the state, and capitalist actors) can be seen as a protest and tactic to overthrow economic dominant systems. This production of space, as mentioned above, is wholly contingent and constantly in flux, therefore rights are inherently a process and its means are as important.“The right to the city is thus an “active” process of continual struggle, negotiation and contestation”33 The tacticians of temporary use therefore, are exercising these rights, and often on land that is vacant, underused and in requirement for re appropriating. In instigating a temporary use for a space, the citadin is reclaiming its use, and participating actively 27 �� M. Purcell, “Citizenship and the right to the global city: reimagining the capitalist world order,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27(3) (2003): 564-590 28 �� H. Lefebvre, Writing on Cities, 34 29 � N. Awan, & T. Schneider, & J. Till, Spatial agency : other ways of doing architecture. (Abingdon: Routledge, 2011), 73 30 �� Pugalis, & Giddings A renewed right to urban life: A twenty-first century engagement with Lefebvre’s initial “cry” 283 31 � Ibid., 284 32 � Purcell, “Citizenship and the right to the global city: reimagining the capitalist world order,” 564590 33 �� Pugalis, & B. Giddings (2011) A renewed right to urban life: A twenty-first century engagement with Lefebvre’s initial “cry” 283

PART II

on decisions for how the space can be produced or re-produced . The concept of the Right to the City, “has real relevance for these heterogeneous urban circumstances”. 34 , redefining urban space leads to a wealth of possibilities, but also gives leadership roles to that of architects, artists, cultural activists in becoming “Key players in defining struggles and outcomes”35

34 �� Chase & Crawford & Kaliski, Everyday Urbanism, 25 35 �� Right to the city - social significance

PART II

AGENDA #01

03 MAKESHIFT CITY BERLIN: A HISTORY OF TEMPORARY USE

THE UNCOMFORTABLE CITY-

Figure 3.1 Mayor launched another identity campaign in 2008 “Sei Berlin”, “Be Berlin”

The historic events that shaped the social, economic and cultural state of Berlin are unique to the world and as a result, this city is said to have become “an urban laboratory” for “examining the residual” 36 as consequence of the actions it has taken in its many attempts to re-identify itself . During the 1920s, Berlin was the third largest city in the world. Both the war and wall left deep scars in the physical urban fabric but also in Berlin’s economic, social and political confidence. As a result of WWII, half of Berlin’s structures were destroyed and following this , planning decisions made in attempts to restructure the city saw over a fifth of buildings demolished. This left large areas of derelict vacant land which was made worse when infrastructural projects during the 70s and 80s created further unused spaces. Since then Berlin had since on numerous attempts tried to reclaim its status as a “global city”37 and nationally establish its identity. The 1989 reunification created a euphoric optimism and expectations that Berlin would be able to reclaim this status with the government forcefully driving multiple intense urban renewal schemes, creating a boom of infrastructure that unrealistically preempted a massive rise in economic and demographic growth to a population of six million38. Furthermore, in their attempts at regaining and establishing the city’s identity, in 1996 the Senate initiatead “Planwerk Innenstadt”, a planning policy which aimed at the “re urbanisation and revitalisation of the historical centre of Berlin”39. This “Kritische Rekonstruktion” idealised the aesthetics of the “European city” and hopes were that Berlin would achieve this through a lengthy restoration process of historic building and their facades so that Berlin could reclaim its former identity (and global status). It was clear a few years later, to both the nation and state, that the building boom and measures set in place for the dream of a thriving population, failed to materialise. Since 1994, the population 36 �� P. Oswalt, Berlin - The Ephemeral, Munich: 2001 11 April 2012 http://www.templace.com/think-pool/attach/download/the_ephemeraldef2.pdf ?object_ id=3164&attachment_id=3166 37 �� A. Cochrane & A. Jonas, “Re-imagining Berlin as a World City or Ordinary Place?” European Urban and Regional Studies, 6 (1999): 145-164 38 �� I. Hjelmstad & A. L. Øren, Berlin, Fragmented City April 11 2012 http://hurry-slowly.net/background/fragmented%20city.pdf 39 �� Alexanderplatz-Planwerk Innenstadt, Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment April 11 2012 http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/staedtebau-projekte/alexanderplatz/en/planungen/ planwerk_innenstadt/index.shtml

REACTIONS UNDERGOUND: SUBCULTURES AND SITUATIONAL URBANISM

At the same time after the reunification the euphoria of liberation combined with the slack in municipal authority promoted a breeding ground of subculture and new alternative lifestyles; squatting, underground techno clubs, and autonomous politics filled the vacant plots of land scattered around the city. Berlin was transformed into a “Mecca for everyone involved in art and culture’43. Phililpp Oswalt’s essay “the Ephemeral” takes particular note of the temporal nature of subculture but also the affordances of temporality itself. When speaking of the underground disco scene, UFO, Oswalt explains the inherent need for an illegal club to be constantly shifting, “Due to their transitoriness, these ephemeral activities are not tangible. Moving around is a strategy of concealment”44. This idea reflects strongly de Certeau’s idea of the tactician as their moves are always contingent to situation and time and thus constantly in flux of negotiation and appropriation. They are also seen as exercising a right to the city through their ““active” process of continual struggle, negotiation and contestation”45 Oswalt also advocates the temporary reuse of derelict unwanted buildings was a gesture of criticism and protest against the government and their failed planning strategies, “While the aesthetics of the GDR have been systematically eliminated in the official Berlin of the nineties, the club and art scene has critically appropriated them by recycling found material.46 These reappropriations of derelict buildings not only fuelled the creative society of Berlin, but the social historical context of failure of the government triggered those to use the temporary as a form of resistance. The rise of this bohemian creative culture was only possible through the abundance of vacant land and the cheap and affordable rent which set up the right conditions and opportunities for such creativity to manifest.47 As a result of this phenomena, Berlin unintentionally cultivated a “culture of the temporary” which was key in its identity as a “creative city” where re-appropriation of space was not only an expression of artistry and enterprise, but of political critique and protest. 40 �� K. Overmeyer, Urban pioneers : temporary use and urban development in Berlin (Berlin:Jovis, 2007), 28 41 �� Hjelmstad & Øren, Berlin, Fragmented City 42 �� J. Hou, Insurgent public space: guerrilla urbanism and the remaking of contemporary cities (London: Routledge, 2010), 62 43 �� Haydn, & Temel, Temporary Urban Spaces Concepts for the Use of City Spaces, 41 44 �� P. Oswalt, Berlin - The Ephemeral, 45 �� Pugalis, & Giddings A renewed right to urban life: A twenty-first century engagement with Lefebvre’s initial “cry” 283 46 �� Oswalt, Berlin - The Ephemeral, 47 �� R. Burdett, & D. Sudjic, The Endless city, (London: Phaidon Press Ltd, 2008), 266

BERLIN

has stagnated at 3.4 million40 and this alongside a slow moving economy, static building industry and vast amounts of unused vacant buildings. This deindustrialization, fall in population, economy and employment has resulted in Berlin being labelled a “shrinking city”41 These unhappy years witnessed many demonstrations resisting and protesting against the Planwerk Instadt, and the multitude of failed urban renewal schemes resulted in hundreds of occupations in West Berlin.42

PART II

AGENDA #01

CASE STUDY: FASSADENREPUBLIK- RAUMLABOR W/ PEANUTS ARCHITEKTEN OVERGROUND POLITICS: URBAN INTERVENTIONS AT PALAST DE REPUBLIK

Palast de Republik, located in the centre of Berlin served once as the cultural centre and parliament of the GDR. After the fall of the wall in 1989, there was much dispute the palace’s future which before the reunification, had been the emblematic monument of East Germany, having taken the place of former palace, Hohenzollern. As part of the State’s quest to restore the historic European city of Berlin, plans were made to demolish the current one and rebuild the facades of the former palace (Stadtschoss). The ambition was an expensive one- at 670 million Euros the operation of demolition and resurrecting the Stadtshloss would take several years. During this time the palast was venue to various temporary installations, appropriations and uses. One festival, titled “Volkpalast” or the “People’s Palace” occupied the building for one hundred days exhibiting various re-appropriations and performances. Run by Urban Catalyst, it was an interim-use that tussled with the historical and political issues surrounding the former cultural centre. For a week, of its residency, Berlin group of Architects Raumlabor in collaboration with Peanutz Architectken created a bizarre spectacle, the “Fassadenrepublik”; a “city” constructed from hundred differently designed facades submerged in the flooded ground floor of the palast, and only accessible through means of rubber dinghies: We flooded the Palast der Republik and invited the residents of Berlin to shape a republican environment for themselves and to design facades for a water city. Rubber dinghies were the only mode of transport. Anyone could get involved in designing the image of the city in a role-play that simulated the ongoing debate on architecture and urban planning. The façade academy and its topclass lecturers, the parliament, the façade workshop and the red light district all provided options to choose from.48 The tactics employed aimed to parody the current government’s planning system. The “water city”, alluding to the city of Venice brought connotations of tourism, one could float down this lagoon city, and stop at any of the twelve stops on the guide map provided. The mode of transport further highlighted the idea of theme parks or tourist attractions which illustrated clearly Raumlabor’s humous but critical comment on the Government’s planning intents being commercially driven. This superficiality was continuously illustrated through the facades themselves; with no actual building behind, these facades looked like advertisements or billboards, only offering the 48 �� Raumlabor’s statement about Fassadenrepublik 11 April 2012 http://www.raumlabor.net/?p=401

BERLIN Figure 3.2 FASSADENREPUBLIK, concept montage from Raumlabor

appearance of a city which looked promising but contained no real substance. The whole act mocked the States historic facade restoring “Planwerk Innenstadt” scheme, Raumlabor criticised this scheme was for superficial reasons relating to tourism, as opposed to a reasoned decision reflecting the voices of its nation. t Aside from this protest of the planning system, Raumlabor’s method of installation offered a critique on the right influence decisions made on the production of space of the city. For the design of the 100 facades, an international competition was held where anyone was allowed to design any facade they liked (through a given template, see figure 3.3). Thus making the statement that the critique and mockery of the government was not only taken up by the architects, but also by the inhabitants of the city, and advising for the alternative method of empowering citizens form a key part in shaping the identity of the city and reclaiming the right to choosing how to appropriate the city themselves. Ironically as mentioned before, it was through the small tactical everyday appropriations of the sub culture which has led to its current “cool”, “poor but sexy” identity. Raumlabor are a practice who formed in a protest response to the state’s frantic attempts at urban renewal and city identity restoration. Their oppositional tactics lie in the use of temporary mobile installations and structures termed “urban prototypes” that contest and negotiate spatial and social territory to critique as well as offering new ways of appropriating social views towards in particular the planning process. Fassadenentwurfsbogen

Was ist eine Fassade, was macht Sie aus? Wie sollte Sie mit den Nachbarfassaden korrespondieren? was kann man mit ihr machen? wie artikuliert sich die Grenze zwischen dem Privaten und dem Öffentlichen? Und denkt dran, in der Fassadenrepublik können alle Fassaden auch wieder verändert werden! Diesen Bogen könnt Ihr ausdrucken und euren Entwurf hineinzeichnen oder in einem lLayoutprogramm als Hintergrund verwenden.

Die Fassaden werden vorraussichtlich bespannte Holzrahmen sein. Ein Modul ist 1,5m breit und in etwa 3m hoch. (zwischen Wasseroberfläche und Unterkante Stahlträger hat es 2,70m bis Unterkante Betondecke 3,70m). Auf diese Leinwände werden eure Entwürfe aufgebracht, wenn es geht mit Farbe und Pinsel in Rastertechnik. Ausplotten wärezwar schöner aber nicht so wasserfest. 3d Elemente sind möglich, wenn sie nicht zu schwierig realisierbar sind. Immernoch gilt wer seine Fassade selber baut kann sicher gehen das sie seinen Wünschen entspricht.

Figure 3.3 Facade template for competition

PART II

AGENDA #02

04 TURNING TO THE INHABITANT APPROPRIATION + PARTICIPATION

CASE STUDY: ECOBOX- ATLIER D’ARCHITECTURE AUTOGÉRÉE

RECLAIMING + EMPOWERING

Resonating Raumlabor’s concern for the public’s involvement in the decision making process the practice Atelier d’architecture autogérée (aaa) align their actions closely to follow Lefebvre’s notion of rights through self initiating projects that the inhabitants or users surrounding gradually take control and ownership of. The ECObox project (figure 4.1), a self initiated scheme devised to plant itself on a vacant plot in La Chappell through a series of gardens constructed with recycled materials that were found and reconstructed by both the collective and the inhabitants who were “culturally diverse, low-income, and politically under-represented innercity community”49 . The aim was to gradually empower the inhabitants with the responsibility of the garden and create a situation where “any inhabitant can enter at their own level and propose a cultural, social or political project to the others.”50 The project lasted over the period of five years, where it shifted locations at the end, formed new relations with site and user, and morphed further into unexpected ways to the control of it users. The emphasis here was the freedom given to the inhabitants and community to decide what should happen and the lack of programme meant that the garden’s growth was through an open framework which enabled the project to develop in unexpected “everyday” ways. aaa are concerned primarily with the cultivation of land socially and the reinvention of the “collective space”. Based in Paris, they operate between interstitial (often problematic urban) zones and are active in instigating activism that respond to sociopolitical issues. Their view of empowering the “metropolitan inhabitant”51 lies in a greater resistance to the de-subjectivity that global capitalism imposes.52 Through a practice of “micro-politics” the local temporary seeks to resist the “homogenised and abstract city”53 and reclaim subjectivity. aaa view themselves as a collective “platform” 49 � Ecobox mobile devices and urban tactics, Domus 22/04/2012 http://www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/ecobox-mobile-devices-and-urban-tactics/ 50 �� C. Petcou and D.Petrescu ‘Au Rez de Chausee de la Ville’, in Multitudes n°20 : spring 2005, Paris 51 �� C. Petcou & D. Petrescu, Acting Space. In: Atelier d’Architerture Autogérée, URBANACT a handbook for alternative practice. (Paris: PEPRAV, 2007), 319-328 52 � D. Petrescu, ‘Losing Control, Keeping Desire’ in P. Blundell-Jones, D.Petrescu and J.Till (eds) Architecture and Participation, (London: Routledge, 2005), 53 �� Petcou & Petrescu, Acting Space, 323

INTRODUCTION/BLA BLA BLA

PARIS

Figure 4.1 ECObox project

that act as initiators, mediators, curators and or co-ordinators to encourage the inhabitants to access, take charge and reclaim unused areas around where they live. They reclaim the right to appropriation through taking over a vacant land, but then allowing the Citadins to gradually assume leadership over the project and this is as their name suggests: Studio for Self-managed Architecture. Their emphasis on the temporary and reversible nature of space emphasises the focus on the process as opposed to an end product. TACTICS

In many ways aaa act tactically in order to achieve their set out agendas. In a discussion with the Architecture Foundation, Doina Petrescu, director of aaa explained that they strategically chose to be a not-for-profit organisation to depict a persona that would assist them in networking, acquiring projects and quite importantly, acquiring funding; the collective functioned for the process rather than for any financial yield.54 Thus they illustrate the qualities of tacticians: manipulating existing systems and bureaucracy to achieve their own agendas. Through collaborating locally with both inhabitants and other artists, designers, discussion and debate was key to the descisions, design and use of the scheme. One main point of emphasis in ECObox and a key tactic of aaa’s is the acknowledgement of time as a key factor within the progression of a temporary project. “Acting spatial takes time. It is necessary to allow enough time for actively reinvesting space; to spend time on location, to meet other people, to reinvent uses of free time, to give oneself more and more time to share with others. Common desires can thus emerge from these ‘shared moments’, collective dynamics and projects to come” The utlisation of the temporary is a tactic in itself as it creates new unknown situations that are separate from the typical (permanent) use of a space which creates unexpected ideas and opportunities. “Usually, the participative process is solidified as soon as the goals are met: when a contested space is occupied, a project is built, etc. The role of 54 �� AAA speaking about their work at Legacy Plus: International Dialogue Two: atelier d’architecture autogérée, Urban Catalyst and muf Weds 3 March 2010, 7pm @ The Architecture Foundation

PART II

AGENDA #02

the temporary activities is to keep the use of space and the process of decision open.â&#x20AC;? In keeping the activities of the garden open and subject to all desires and intents of the residents and collaborators, aaa follow Lefebvresâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; notion of appropriation and participation, where the users are central to this at every stage in the lived space as opposed to through a framework of conceived space.

25 PARIS

Both these case studies practice Lefebvre’s notion of rights, through contesting the typical practices of the planning/state and re appropriating space differently. In Berlin, it was seen that the subculture naturally flourished into and continually contested the state through its re appropriations. Raumlabor’s installation can be seen as a critique of rights through mockery of the State planning authorities. ECObox’s agenda was much more involved in passively contesting the planning through seeing an alternative way of producing space, tactically utilising the temporal nature of re appropriation to enjoy a rhizomatic growth of inhabitant authorship of the project. It is clear in all examples that these have been brought on by the social, political situations surrounding and through a local act of producing space, these practices have challenged the existing planning systems in place.

PART III : LONDON

Part three moves to London, to compare and contrast the situation, context, agendas and tactics that have been explored in the previous chapters

PART III

AGENDA #03

Figure 5.2 Hand crafted wooden bricks

Figure 5.1 In Construction

Figure 5.3 Waterside

LONDON

05 A CREATIVE CITY DESIRE FOR PARTICIPATION

CASE STUDY: FOLLY FOR A FLYOVER ASSEMBLE CIC

In the summer of 2011, Assemble CIC, a young practice consisting of 15 Part I architecture students took over a vacant unused site that sat hidden underneath the A12 flyover in Hackney Wick, an area that itself sits awkwardly deindustrialised between the borough of Tower Hamlets and Hackney. Titled “Folly for a Flyover”, the re-appropriation saw the transformation of an otherwise forgotten space into a quirky social leisure space, with an outdoor waterside and cafe; a performance space was provided for daytime activities and a cinema for night screenings. The whole project was constructed in four weeks, with the help of just over 200 volunteers , sponsorship from cultural organisations55 and support from MUF/art, an architecture practice that specialised in public realm regeneration. The entire thing was made from reclaimed materials locally sourced, and the body of the construction consisted of 11,000 handcrafted timber “bricks” that were then redistributed after the end of the use to the local areas such as schools and shops/ businesses that had helped. DESIRE TO CREATE

The agenda for these young creatives, ultimately was the desire to “build something together”56. The previous year their debut into the media headlines was with another temporary project- Cineroleum a re-appropriation of a derelict petrol station in Peckam into a picture house that invited the audience to experience a street cinema experience 57 . Whereas however, Cineroleum was a self funded project on private land, Folly for a Flyover was sponsored and supported by cultural organisations. and the council where both practice and the surrounding stakeholders and media were aware of the statements being made Thus the project was project was conceived through the expertise of muf/ art architecture, who had undertaken a public realm studies of the area already. 58

55 �� CREATE funding of £40,000 56 �� Gilles Smith from Assemble, Rip it up and start again #5, The Troublemakers , (11 November 2010) [transcript] Available: http://www.ripitupandstartagain.org/download/2011/03/09/rip5.pdf Last Accessed 22/04/2012 57 �� More information on the reappropriation of the petrol station via :http://www.cineroleum.co.uk/ 58 �� Local Development Framework -Hackney Wick Area Action Plan muf had already proposed the site as a place for creatives and thus this project could be seen as generating some form of intesest for future creative industries

PART III

AGENDA #03

Working locally, the team harnessed the benefits of utilising resources at a local level. They were able to obtain materials and involve local businesses to help support the interim use; networking and collaboration was an important factor in the creation of the Folly, as this formed part of their events, as well as generated publicity. TACTICS: HARNESSING THE VOLUNTEERING PROSUMER

With 205 hands to help with the construction, there was “limitless volunteer energy”59 The response for participation of the project was tactically planned and Assemble acknowledged that without this form of free labour, the project would not have been able to be constructed it its timeframe. ‘It works on a micro social level because the payment is feeling that you’ve helped” 60 Assemble realised and utilised the desire of the public to participate and create- the tendencies of a prosumer, a consumer that actively becomes involved in the process of production 61. True prosumption means deeper and earlier engagement in the design process and products that allow customers to tinker and play around. Prosumption means the mindset changes from creating finished products to developing innovation ecosystems. Customers will expect to share in the ownership and fruits of their creation.62 Planning the response of volunteering Assemble designed the project as a “giant construction kit” with modular units set out to facilitate the ease of assembly with the help of volunteers. Though obviously encouraging public participation, the “construction kit” highlights the restrictions of creativity. Volunteers are merely offering their hands to help with the project, it cannot be said this is an exercise of Lefebvre’s rights as the right to participate entails decision making which, in this case is absent in the presence of the architect’s plan. The project differ’s from ECObox or FASSADENREPUBLIK as although public participation was sought for with Folly for a Flyover, the main focus were the events following the construction; users were treated only as consumers, with events and workshops (which ranged from puppet making to bug-hotel building, to drawing classes, to animation) as the main “folly” interaction.

59 �� R. Moore. (2011). Silence; Folly for a Flyover; 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami Memorial – review . Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/jul/10/folly-for-flyover-assemble-silence. Last accessed 22/04/2012. 60 �� E. Fieldhouse. (2011). Assembling Hackney Wick. Available: http://www.blueprintmagazine.co.uk/ index.php/everything-else/assembling-hackney-wick/. Last accessed 22/04/2012. 61 �� Haydn, & Temel, Temporary Urban Spaces Concepts for the Use of City Spaces, 14 62 �� D. Tapscott & A.D. Williams, Wikinomics – How Mass Collaboration changes everything, (London: Atlantic Books, 2008), 124

31 LONDON

PART III

Figure 5.5 Site

AGENDA #03

CASE STUDY: CANNING TOWN CARAVANSERAI ASH SAKULA ARCHITECTS

Canning Town Caravanserai (CTC) is an interim-use scheme, aimed to open at the start of the Olympics later this year and intended to last for five years63. The idea is one of three chosen through an open ideas competition by Meanwhile London in a larger regeneration scheme for the unused area. This proposal, led by Ash Sakula Architects and a team of artists, urbanists, landscape architects and more aim to transform the former two empty apartment blocks sites (figure 5.5) into a multi-use public spaces; the architect envisioning a Caravanserai, “roadside inns – where travellers could rest and recover from their journeys, supporting the flow of commerce, information, and people across a network of global trade routes”64. Essentially, the interim project seeks to provide a self sustaining area of trade, commerce and public activity that will improve the area of Newham and its communities in the longterm whilst also benefitting the audience of the Olympics this summer. Its hopes are to act as a prototype for potential social enterprise involving the community of Newham where eventually, the architects will step away from the project and leave the members of this community to take over and sustain the site themselves for the remaining years if not more (through relocation of project).65 TACTICS FOR SELF SUSTAINABILITY

The project started on site at the beginning of the Olympic year and is still in its early stages so the tactics have not yet been fully employed. A series of “Popup Tuesdays” hope to bring debate and discussion s around tactics of the programme, events and topics related to the conception of the project. Anyone is invited to join in discussion. As the Meanwhile London competition only granted free use of the land and no funding, tactics have been drawn to find ways of obtaining funding, resources. Networking is a key part of this though they have decided to accept sponsorship from more corporate companies, envisioning that the Caravanserai can operate for brands as it can for micro enterprises, though the introduction of such agents capital driven motives may compromise and restrict the actions of the project.

63 �� This meanwhile use, formed the first phase of a £3.7bn project to transform the area in partnership with construction group Bouygues Countryside, the London Thames Gateway Development corporation and Homes and Communities Agency 64 ��About Us, CTC Ltd. (2012). Available: http://caravanserai.org.uk/about-us/. Last accessed 22/04/2012 65 �� CTC Ltd, Canning Town Caravanserai, the new trading post in East London BUSINESS PLAN: MARCH 2012, Available: http://caravanserai.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CTC_ Business_Plan_sm.pdf Last accessed: 22/04/2012

Both Caravanserai and Folly For a Flyover emphasise the rise of a “Creative Age”. Both aim to generate forms of public and resident participation, however on different scales due to the size difference, program, sponsorship and duration. Regardless, both rely on the free labor of this group in order to achieve their agendas of the interim projects. This can be said is the case for almost all temporary use projects, however there is a definite understanding in both of these temporary users, of the general desire to be creative and the potentials of harnessing it. The Work Foundation, published a paper explaining the rise in creative industries66 and creativity in the UK:

LONDON

THE CREATIVE AGE

“The scale of the current demand for creativity, alongside a desire to participate in producing and creating it, is on an extraordinary and under-reported scale. ..The use of interactive websites is another tribute to the bottom-up desire of millions of British people not merely to interact, but to express themselves creatively – and in ways that are beginning to impact on culture” Indeed the desire to participate has illustrated that over 200 people helped build Folly for a Flyover, Caravanserai project aims to initiate a scheme, microcosm and with similar intentions to aaa’s ECObox, hopes to transfer ownership and authority to the inhabitants. They hope to invoke this desire to participate, but not only in the short term. The “creative age”, is a term used by Richard Florida67 and Charles Landry68 in their work on the idea that creative class professions are dominating economic growth of a city, and ideas are replacing labour. “Human talent, skills and creativity are replacing location, natural resources,undifferentiated pools of labor and market access as the central urban Figure 5.6 Potential micro entrepreneurs 66 �� ‘DCMS 13’“Creative industries” according to Work Foundation are Advertising, Architecture, Arts sign up

and antiques, Crafts, Design, Designer fashion, Film Music Performing arts, Publishing, Software and computer services, Television and radio, Video and computer games

Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Staying ahead: the economic performance of the UK’s creative industries, Crown Copyright, June 2007. Available: http://www.theworkfoundation.com/assets/ docs/publications/176_stayingahead.pdf Last accessed 22/04/2012 67 �� R. Florida, The rise of the creative class, (New York: Basic Books, 2002) 68 �� C. Landry, The creative city : a toolkit for urban innovators, (Near Stroud: Copyrightmedia, 2008),

PART III

AGENDA #03

resources.69 Landry believes that creative people cluster in areas that form “creative millieus”70, which are then in turn attract more “creative class” people to move there. Whilst it can be agreed there is definitely a rise in the desire for creativity, “The Creative City idea advocates the need for a culture of creativity to be embedded within how the urban stakeholders operate” and whilst Landry and Florida see this as a positive thing, dangers exists that compromise the rights to the city. In placing an exchange value on space, and the process of creativity (i.e production of space or social relations), social priorities are lost to capital gains. ENTREPRENEURIAL CITY

It would seem that the intentions of the actors behind Caravanserai, have grander visions for the site which pockets this interim use somewhere in the middle. The vacant land, belonging to London Design Agency (LDA) and Newham Council lies in the Royal Docks, an area that has failed to generate much interest from developers even after thirty years worth of attempted master planning. After the property recession in 2008, a new looser strategy was devised, which included aims for the LDA to form a partnership between the the mayor of Newham and the Mayor of London, where the object was to develop the Royal Docks into a “world class” area for business, investment and living, promoting “green enterprise” (figure 5.7). The “vision document” produced proposed “to revive the vitality, entrepreneurship and wealth-creation of the Royal Docks’ trading past” � The vacant sites were planned for long term development, however whilst the plans/ money for this were being established, they identified it as a site for short term economic generation . Thus a competition was published with magazine Property Week calling for inventive proposals that would promote entrepreneurship, reflect the intended “green enterprise” whilst also allow for self funding (no money was to be awarded, only the land use). It was hoped that these meanwhiles would be fully operating in time for the advent of the Olympics in order to generate further interest. The move illustrates a shift in temporary use from small individual actors that are seen as the “weak” to the institutions that implement top down strategies and frameworks and the promotion of a neo-liberal “entrepreneurial city” through temporary use: The entrepreneurial city seeks to identify market opportunities for private actors whose exploitation of these opportunities also serves the city’s public objectives. City government becomes a risk-taker and a promoter of global competitiveness for business in the city. It also enables discovery of new markets and catalyses the formation of

69 �� Landry, The creative city : a toolkit for urban innovators,, xxxiii 70 � Ibid., 133

LONDON

private-public partnerships in testing and developing new technology71 In order to transform the Royal docks a “world class” area and promote economic growth and interest in the site, the meanwhile competition was seen as a strategy to quickly invoke interest in the site (with little to no help from the government in terms of funding) whilst using the incentive of a rent free plot to allow creatives entrepreneurs to take over the site and generate this interest which would be attractive to other developers. This “Big Society” attitude, responds in reality to the market needs which (conveniently) aligns with social benefits. Ronneberger believes this “abandonment of the statist solidarity principle and the mobilisation of space as a strategic resource”72 is a key feature of the entrepreneurial city, which aligns with Harvey’s definition of the neoliberal city which values market exchange as an “ethic in itself, capable of acting as a guide to all human action, and substituting for all previously held ethical beliefs,” and “seeks to bring all human action into the domain of the market.”73 This notion negates the Lefebvrian right to the city; Caravanserai’s appropriation of space is controlled and governed by the competition requirements (having to satisfy targets of “promoting entrepreneurship” and “green enterprise”), coupled with the fact that this meanwhile use forms a small part of a larger scheme aimed at increasing the economic growth of the docks.

Green Enter prise Distri ct

Crossr ail (Pl anned)

Strate gic Emp loyme nt and L

DocklandsLight Rai lway

OtherIndustria lLand

Jubilee Line

Residenti al Are a

ChannelTunnelRail ink L

Olym pic Venues

Sie m ens (Pro posed)

Green Sp ace

Figure 5.7 Regeneration of Royal Docks Green Enterprise Districts

71 �� T.R Laskshmanan & L. Chatterjee, The entrepreneurial city in the global marketplace, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 6(3) (2006): 155-172. 72 �� Haydn, & Temel, Temporary Urban Spaces Concepts for the Use of City Spaces, 50 73 �� D. Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, (Oxford: OUP Oxford, 2007), 3

PART III

AGENDA #04

06 COMMODIFIED POP UP CASE STUDY: BOXPARK WAUGH THISTLETON ARCHITECTS

Boxpark, is the“ world’s first pop up mall”74. Six shipping containers, stacked on the edge of Bethnal Green Road are currently being occupied with a mixture of high street and independent brands. The land it sits on, Bishopsgate Goods Yard Site is one that has lay vacant ever since a fire destroyed the station in 1964. The site was then bought by property and shopping experts Hammersons and Ballymore. The proposal originates from Roger Wade, a Fashion entrepreneur, aware of the trendiness of both Shoreditch, and the temporary feel of a pop up shop made of industrial material. The entire project is aimed at fashion entrepreneurs with the possibility for hosting “creative industry outlets for example art exhibitions from local artists and showcases of local fashion talent”. TACTICS FOR RADICAL AESTHETICS§

Both Folly for a Flyover and Caravanserai illustrate the agendas and intents of a “creative age” group who through temporary use are able express their desire. Boxpark’s agenda on the other hand wishes to give this aesthetic of creativity, but for the sole purpose of capital profit. The reuse use of shipping containers, with an industrial reclaimed aesthetic and branding of the project have clear aims to appeal to the consumer’s through the aestheticisation of the temporary, proclaiming statements alluding to radicalism and strategically placing this retail hub within, Shoreditch, an established “creative milieu” which further contributes to its disguised identity of being an independent creative business. Boxpark creates the illusion of looking like the tactician, to attract consumers. Their online “manifesto” states they are a “retail revolution” with” fertile community of brands”, and that Boxpark “joins in and contributes to the community” further illustrates this branding of radicalism and activism into a consumable “experience” . In reality, the intent is to deliver an ‘early-win’ � for the long-term regeneration potential of the Goods Yard site so to emit a “strong signal” of investment. This “early-win” is clearly to generate publicity and interest purely through the “trendiness” of the area. Ultimately, the entire scheme focuses on the profits both fashion advisor Roger Wade, and developers Hammerson and Ballymore have in mind. The architect, Waugh Thistleton seems to have remained mute in this process except for the delivery of 6 six 74 � About, Boxpark 22/04/2012 http://www.boxpark.co.uk/about/

LONDON

Figure 6.2 Screen shot of Boxpark’s twitter profile

shipping containers refurbished as shops, Pugalis and Gidding criticise the architect and the sometimes passive role they take quoting Tafuri’s “technocratic ‘doctors of space’75 “ Opposing the two previous case studies, this temporary use calls for no interaction with the inhabitants through participation or appropriation, only through a strict programme of consumerist events and products that allow no room for choice except which pair of Nike trainers one should purchase. HERE TODAY/GONE TOMORROW- A TRANSUMER REALITY

As mentioned before, the temporary has become desirable in the age of what Bauman calls “Liquid modernity”. As we adopt more nomadic routines they penetrate into our consumer habits, and one transitions from the consumer, to the transumer, a desire to feel as present as possible. Trendwatchers definition: TRANSUMERS are consumers driven by experiences instead of the ‘fixed’, by entertainment, by discovery, by fighting boredom, who increasingly live a transient lifestyle, freeing themselves from the hassles of permanent ownership and possessions. The fixed is replaced by an obsession with the here and now, an ever-shorter satisfaction span, and a lust to collect as many experiences and stories as possible. Hey, the past is, well, over, and the future is uncertain, so all that remains is the present, living for the ‘now’.76

Boxpark harness this consumer desire by creating something that posses the aesthetics of the temporary and an “ad hoc” of stacked shipping containers. Suggesting a ephemeral life of one year leases for the occupiers and thus creating a constantly changing retail outlet, Boxpark are more likely to draw in those who do not want to “miss out”. With upcoming artists, designers as well as a range of “events” the pop up mall places itself in the present sphere and draws on attracting consumers via “experiences”. The use of social media is very much prevalent in its advertising, both suggesting a personality of locality (through the one voice of Twitter (figure 6.2), who is constantly proclaiming parties, events, free giveaways), whilst also demonstrating its immediate relationship with realtime.

75 Pugalis, & Giddings, A renewed right to urban life: A twenty-first century engagement with Lefebvre’s initial “cry”. Architectural Theory Review, 16 (3) (2011) 281 76 ��TRANSUMERS, Trendwatching. (2006). Available: http://www.trendwatching.com/trends/transumers.htm. Last accessed 22/04/2012.

URBAN VERNACULAR: AN (ACTIVIST) AGENDA FOR TEMPORARY USE

Temporary use has become the mainstream in both commercial and in planning. With the shift to the mainstream ,tactics are becoming less on the ground, and more strategic in their cunnings, with private actors such as BoxPark wishing only to exploit the aesthetic without attempting to invoke any of the potentials temporary use has to offer. At the same time, temporary use is also being appropriated for regeneration strategies, to promote economic growth. All these agendas are distant from the subjectivity that the rights to the city entail.

CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION PERPETUALLY CONTESTING

It is clear that temporary re appropriation of urban space is inherently multifarious; it can posses a range of agendas, from more political, socio-political aims, to cultural, to economical. From the case studies however, it is observed that the tactics of temporary use remain consistent in nature, but there is a clear differences in their agendas. The temporary user is always the tactician, operating from the weaker side and having to employ manipulation and clever understandings of the system whether it be though culture jamming (Raumlabor’s FASSADENREPUBLIK), a choice to be a non-profit organisation in order to receive appropriate fundings (aaa), locally sourcing materials due to limited funds (ECObox, Folly for a Flyover, Caravanserai). The London case study comparisons draw several conclusions about the state of temporary use in this city. Firstly their agendas do not align directly in a political sense; unlike the Berlin and Parisian example, the London case studies illustrate a society concerned with participation but as an consumer experience rather than what Lefebvre would term a “right”. This vein of consumerism, seems to run deep and manifests itself fully in Boxpark, a temporary use that blatantly takes only the superficial aesthetics of the temporary and its activist associations, as a branding and advertising tool. The contemporary society is impatient, and the desire to relinquish permanence in a “liquid modernity” is growing, especially in the form of transumerism. Secondly, the case studies that encourage public pariticipation use it tactically to achieve their means as well. It can be argued that thus, the user, volunteer does not really particpate in Lefebvre’s terms as no decision is being made of the project they are only submitting to instructions. This issue can be expanded upon as it repeats on the level of the agent and the temporary user; the Meanwhile competition stipulated certain requirements that had to be fulfilled and therefore in a sense, the Caravanserai team were complying with the larger authority. Thirdly, in Chapter six, the case studies reflected the underlying motives of the Big Society’s goal- to encourage communities to collaborate through means of their own tactics and with as little state intervention as possible. This is also, an indication that temporary use has reached the mainstream, it is acknowledged by planners, developers, retail gurus alike. Thus, the case studies have also depicted a second level to these temporary appropriations, where the agents are taking a greater interest and control in its use and these intentions fall within an entrepreneurial, neoliberalist economy, where market value dictates social values.

Ultimately, this shift of temporary use into the “mainstream” is not London bound, it is an occurring feature globally, Urban Pioneer’s documents the current temporary use in Berlin, and the senate explains the shift in the role of temporary use from activist to entrepreneur: “ Radical deindustrialisation makes way for new ‘creative’locations for ‘space entrepreneurs’... They take advantage of temporary use as a springboard for their careers.’77 All these economically driven agendas ultimately go against Lefebvre’s “right”, though the tactician is always seeking opportunity. The rise in interest over temporary use from large institutions may prove beneficial should the temporary user know how to manipulate it, thus exercising his/her right to the city. As Pugalis, & Giddings explain the is ultimately inherently temporal, with an “active presence”78 . The involvement in a temporary use/structure creates potentials for inhabitants, volunteers to produce space socially, and differently, regardless of the ownership- in this very sense these small contestations are seen as victories against the capitalist minded whilst also informing us and other of the possibilities of how we might interact with urban spaces.

77 �� Overmeyer, Urban pioneers : temporary use and urban development in Berlin ,34 78 �� Pugalis, & Giddings A renewed right to urban life: A twenty-first century engagement with Lefebvre’s initial “cry” 283

BIBLIOGRAPHY: BOOKS

Atelier d’Architerture Autogérée. URBANACT a handbook for alternative practice. Paris: PEPRAV, 2007 Awan, N. & Schneider, T. & Till, J. Spatial agency : other ways of doing architecture. Abingdon: Routledge, 2011 Bauman, Z. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity, 2000 Bishop, P. & Williams, L. Temporary city. London: Routledge, 2012 Blundell-Jones, D.Petrescu and J.Till eds Architecture and Participation. London: Routledge, 2005, Burdett, R. & Sudjic, D. The Endless city. London: Phaidon Press Ltd, 2008 Certeau, M. The Practice of Everyday Life. London: University of California Press, 1984 Chase, J. & Crawford, M. & Kaliski, J. Everyday Urbanism. New York: Monacelli Press, 1999 Florida, R. The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books, 2002 Franck, K. A. & Stevens, Q. Loose Space, Possibility and Diversity in Urban Life. Oxon: Routledge, 2007 Harvey, D. A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford: OUP Oxford, 2007 Haydn, F. & Temel, R. Temporary Urban Spaces Concepts for the Use of City Spaces. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2006 Hou, J. Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities. London: Routeledge, 2010 Hughes, J. & Sadler, S. Non-plan : essays on freedom, participation and change in modern architecture and urbanism. Oxford: Architectural Press, 2000 Klein, N. No Logo. London: Harper Perennial, 2005 Kronenberg, R. Flexible: Architecture that Responds to Change. London: Laurence King, 2007

Landry, C The creative city : a toolkit for urban innovators. Near Stroud: Comedia, 2008 Oswalt, P. & Overmeyer, K. & Misselwitz, P. Urban catalyst : strategies for temporary use. London: Springer, 2011 Price, C. Re: CP Basel: Birkhäuser,

T. Schwarz T & Rugare, S. Pop up City. Ohio: Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative, 2009, 10

Shaw, R. The Activist’s Handbook: A Primer. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2001 Silberman , M. The German Wall, Fallout in Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011 Stevens, Q. The Ludic City: Exploring the Potential of Public Spaces London: Routledge, 2007 Studio UC/ Overmeyer, K. Urban pioneers : temporary use and urban development in Berlin. Berlin: Jovis, 2007 Tapscott, D. & Williams, A.D. Wikinomics – How Mass Collaboration changes everything, London: Atlantic Books, 2008

JOURNALS AND DOCUMENTS

A plain English guide to the Localism Bill , Available: http://www.communities.gov. uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1923416.pdf Last Accessed: 22/04/2012 Application by Boxpark Limited, Design & Access Statement 2011. Available: http://planreg.towerhamlets.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Design%20&%20Access%20 Statement-638177.pdf ?extension=.pdf&id=638177&appid=&location=VOLUME5&c ontentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1 Last Accessed: 22/04/2012 Canning Town Caravanserai, the new trading opst in East London: BUSINESS PLAN MARCH 2012 Cochrane, A. & Jonas, A. “Re-imagining Berlin as a World City or Ordinary Place?” European Urban and Regional Studies, 6 1999: 145-164

CTC Ltd, Canning Town Caravanserai, the new trading post in East London BUSINESS PLAN: MARCH 2012, Available: http://caravanserai.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/03/CTC_Business_Plan_sm.pdf Last accessed: 22/04/2012 de Rijke, A. & Morgan, S. Meanwhile Structures. Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal 4 (2011), 381-387. Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Staying ahead: the economic performance of the UK’s creative industries, Crown Copyright, June 2007. Available: http://www. theworkfoundation.com/assets/docs/publications/176_stayingahead.pdf Last accessed 22/04/2012 Hjelmstad, I. & Øren, A. L. Berlin, Fragmented City http://hurry-slowly.net/ background/fragmented%20city.pdf Last accessed 22/04/2012 Johnson B. & Sir Wales, R. Royal Docks: A Vision for the Royal Docks prepared by the Mayor of London and the Mayor of Newham, London, 2010 Available: http://www. newham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D81A63B5-10D3-4290-B77E-08D5D0309812/0/ RoyalDocksAVisionfortheRoyalDocks.pdf . Last accessed 22/04/2012 Laskshmanan, T.R & Chatterjee, L. The entrepreneurial city in the global marketplace, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 63 2006: 155172. Pugalis, Lee and Giddings, Bob (2011) A renewed right to urban life: A twenty-first century engagement with Lefebvre’s initial “cry”. Architectural Theory Review, 16 (3). pp. 278-295. Purcell, M. 2003, Citizenship and the Right to the Global City: Reimagining the Capitalist World Order, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27, 3, 564-90 RIBA, A Flourish of Meanwhiles: Do ‘pop ups’ offer real long term possibilities? 28/06/2011 RIBA Portland Place Stih, R & Schnock, F. Open Space: Berlin after reunification. Online Gallery and

WEBSITES

Alexanderplatz-Planwerk Innenstadt, Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/staedtebau-projekte/alexanderplatz/en/ planungen/planwerk_innenstadt/index.shtml Class 4 (Temporary buildings) Planning portal http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/responsibilities/buildingregulations/ approvalneeded/exemptions/classiv Last accessed 22/04/2012 CTC Ltd. About Us, 2012. Available: http://caravanserai.org.uk/about-us/. Last accessed 22/04/2012 E. Fieldhouse. 2011. Assembling Hackney Wick. Available: http://www. blueprintmagazine.co.uk/index.php/everything-else/assembling-hackney-wick/ Oswalt, P. Berlin - The Ephemeral. Munich: 2001 http://www.templace.com/think-pool/attach/download/the_ephemeraldef2.pdf ?object_ id=3164&attachment_id=3166 Moore. R. 2011. Silence; Folly for a Flyover; 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami Memorial – review . Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/jul/10/folly-forflyover-assemble-silence. Last accessed 22/04/2012. Petrescu, D. 2007. How to make a community as well as the space for it. Available: http:// www.re-public.gr/en/?p=60. Last accessed 11th April 2012. Raumlabor’s statement about Fassadenrepublik http://www.raumlabor.net/?p=401 . Last accessed 22/04/2012.

TALKS + EVENTS

AAA speaking about their work at Legacy Plus: International Dialogue Two: atelier d’architecture autogérée, Urban Catalyst and muf 3 March 2010, The Architecture Foundation Assemble, Rip it up and start again #5, The Troublemakers , 11 November 2010 [transcript] Available: http://www.ripitupandstartagain.org/download/2011/03/09/ rip5.pdf Last Accessed 22/04/2012 Popup Tuesday: Popup London - Canning Town Caravanserai, 17 April 2012

CASE STUDY / AGENDA #01 FASSADENREPUBLIK, Berlin

Title

FASSADENREPUBLIK

Author

RAUMLABOR BERLIN w/ PEANUTZ ARCHITECKTEN

Location

BERLIN, PALAST DE REPUBLIK

Duration

1 WEEK

Type

TEMPORARY INSTALLATION

Agenda

PROTEST AND CRITIQUE ON GOVERNMENT PLANNING SYSTEM

Tactics

CREATE INSTALLATION TO SIMULATE THAT OF A THEME PARK/ TOURIST ATTRACTION INVITE ANYONE TO DESIGN THEIR OWN FACADES OF THE ‘WATER CITY’

Actors

AGENT: URBAN CATALYST ORGANISED FESTIVAL VOLKSPALAST

Role of Author

INSTIGATOR, CURATOR

Role of User

DESIGNERS, CONSUMERS

Effect & Legacy of project

NONE

Legacy of Site

BUILDING DEMOLISHED

CASE STUDY / AGENDA #02 ECObox, Paris

Title

ECObox

Author

ATLIER D’ARCHITECTURE AUTOGÉRÉ

Location

LA CHAPELLE, PARIS

Duration

5 YEARS

Type

“GARDENING ASSEMBLAGES” EVERYDAY ACTIVITIES

Agenda

SET UP OF ENABLING INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE GRADUALLY TAKEN OVER BY USERS AND INHABITANTS

Tactics

FLEXIBLE/ REVERSIBLE USE OF SPACE NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANISATION NETWORKING AND COLLABORATINGOPERATING AT A LOCAL AND TRANSLOCAL LEVEL

Actors

NO AGENT- SELF INITIATED

Role of Author

INSTIGATOR, MEDIATOR, CURATOR, ENABLER

Role of User

DESIGNERS,INSTIGATORS, DEBATER

Effect & Legacy of project

PROJECT WAS RELOCATED AFTER EVICTION BY STATE. INHABITANTS CAMPAIGNED FOR ANOTHER SITE

CASE STUDY / AGENDA #03 FOLLY FOR A FLYOVER, London

Title

FOLLY FOR A FLYOVER

Author

ASSEMBLE CIC

Location

A12 FLYOVER, HACKNEY WICK, LONDON

Duration

6 WEEKS

Type

POP UP EVENTS SPACE

Agenda

RE APPROPRIATE UNDERUSED SITE TO CREATE A LIVELY PUBLIC SPACE

Tactics

HARNESS ENTHUSIASM OF PARTICIPATING LOCAL SOURCES, SUPPORT FROM CULTURAL ORGANISATIONS, KNOWLEDGE FROM PUBLIC REALM ARCHITECTS

Actors

AGENT: HACKNEY COUNCIL, CREATE AWARD, BARBICAN CENTRE, MUF/ART ARCHITECTURE

Role of Author

INSTIGATOR, CURATOR, EVENT ORGANISER

Role of User

VOLUNTEERS, CONSUMERS

Effect & Legacy of project

HAND MADE BRICKS WERE DONATED TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES THAT HAD PARTICIPATED

Legacy of Site

PART OF A HACKNEY WICK CREATIVE INDUSTRIES PUBLIC REALM REGENERATION PLAN BY MUF ART/ARCHITECTURE

CASE STUDY / AGENDA #03 CANNING TOWN CARAVANSERAI, London

Title

CANNING TOWN CARAVANSERAI

Author

ASH SAKULA ARCHITECTS

Location

CANNING TOWN, LONDON

Duration

5 YEARS

Type

PUBLIC SPACE, MICRO ENTERPRISES

Agenda

SCALEABLE PROTOTYPE FOR SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL ENTERPRISE COMBINE WITH CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Tactics

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION TIMELY OPENING DURING OLYMPIC SEASON FOR PUBLICITY USE OF CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP

Actors

AGENT: MAYOR OF NEWHAM WITH MAYOR OF LONDON LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND MEANWHILE LONDON PROPERTY WEEK HELD COMPETITION

Role of Author

MEDIATOR, FACILITATOR, DESIGNER

Role of User

VOLUNTEERS, CONSUMERS, ENTREPRENEURS

Effect & Legacy of project

AMBITIONS TO RELOCATE “COMMUNITY” AFTER 5 YEARS OVER

Legacy of Site

A 3.7BN REGENERATION SCHEME

CASE STUDY / AGENDA #04 BOXPARK, London

Title

BOXPARK

Author

WAUGH THISTLETON ARCHITECTS

Location

SHOREDITCH, LONDON

Duration

5 YEARS

Type

RETAIL, POP UP SHOPS

Agenda

RETAIL

Tactics

AESTHETICS OF THE TEMPORARY SOCIAL MEDIA TO CREATE BUZZ

Actors

ROBERT WADE (RETAIL EXPERT) HAMMERSON & BALLYMORE DEVELOPERS

Role of Author

INSTIGATOR, DEVELOPER, ENTREPRENEUR

Role of User

CONSUMER

Effect & Legacy of project

SHIPPING CONTAINERS TO BE USED ANY WHERE FOR RETAIL USE

Legacy of Site

SITE TO BE DEVELOPED INTO 2,000 NEW HOMES, COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND OFFICES