The Design of Short-Term Spaces by Daniel Aubrey

The Design of Short-Term Spaces as a Response to Social Decay Within Cities Daniel Aubrey

Tutor: Amira Elnokaly Student No: 06094300 ARC3001M-1213

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following: My dissertation tutor Amira Elnokaly for her input and guidance throughout the course of writing this dissertation. My fellow students for taking the time to discuss my work. The staff at Wahaca Southbank for talking to me about their restaurant. Amanda for her input, support and enthusiasm.

Contents List of Illustrations ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 1 Temporarily Inhabiting Spaces ............................................................................................................... 8 1.1 FreirĂ¤ume (Free Space) Berlin........................................................................................................ 9 1.2 Guerrilla Urbanism ............................................................................................................................12 2 Designing Temporary Spaces.................................................................................................................14 2.1 Kings Cross London...........................................................................................................................15 2.2 Franks CafĂŠ ...........................................................................................................................................17 2.3 Architecture for Humanity .............................................................................................................19 Bibliography......................................................................................................................................................22

List of Illustrations Figure 1

A billboard turned swingset [Source: Tactical Urbanism 2, 2012, p.32]

Figure 2

HMV pop-up store London [Source: authors own photograph]

Figure 3

Wahaca pop-up restaurant Southbank London [Source: authors own photograph]

Figure 4

Electric Hotel, Kings Cross Station [Source: George James Photography, 2010]

Figure 5

Franks CafĂŠ Composition [Source: David Carr Smith, 2009]

Introduction The idea of retail pop-up spaces (see fig 2) being used as a response by businesses to the current economic slump, as observed by Natalie Boxall in her recent article for The Guardian (Boxall 2012), was the initial catalyst for the research that lead to this essay. If temporary spaces1 have become more viable for businesses than permanent spaces in the current economic climate then can other problems within society benefit from similar temporary strategies? Is it possible for a well-designed temporary space to benefit a community? One of the advantages temporary spaces bring to the development of an area is their inherent adaptability, cities are ever changing in that the climate around them changes, those who populate them change and many other things affecting the city change, however the actual fabric of cities (that is their architecture and their urban design) can rarely keep up with these changes due to the scale of projects that it would take to do so being too large. In a temporary urban environment, numerous small projects allow the city to meet the needs of current society on a micro scale, and more importantly allow small communities to initiate these strategies themselves.

Figure 2 – HMV pop up store in London

How has the rise in popularity of temporary designs happened? Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman argues that in the last 40-50 years we have moved from a phase of ‘solid’ modernity, a belief that it was possible to make a ‘fully rational perfect world’ and that change was only 1

For the purpose of this essay the term ‘temporary space’ refers to an architectural or urban space purposefully created for a limited period, this is because examples have been taken from both fields of practice.

temporary and part of attaining enough knowledge to construct a world that wouldn’t require changes to be made, to a ‘liquid’ phase (Bauman 2000). True to its name this liquid modernity that Bauman argues we have entered into ‘cannot keep its shape for too long’, a theory that accepts imperfection and change as ‘a permanent condition of human life’ (Bauman 2000). This global shift into ‘liquidity’ has confronted individuals with a new series of challenges, the time frame in which social forms and institutions are constructed has been dramatically shortened and the practicality of these institutions continuing to act as frames of reference for life-long plans has in turn been reduced. Many people today have been forced to adopt an almost ‘nomadic’ lifestyle in which careers and homes have a much more temporary meanings than they did 50 years ago, it could be said that as this nomadic lifestyle becomes more ingrained into society, that “temporary activities of all kinds will flourish” (Bauman 2000). In their book The Temporary City, Bishop and Williams examine this sociological theory as the basis for the current trend towards temporary activities observed in contemporary society, “such fragmented lives require individuals to be flexible and adaptable - to be constantly ready and willing to change tactics at short notice, to abandon commitments and loyalties and to pursue opportunities according to their current availability” (Bishop and Williams 2012). They postulate that in recent times the average persons model for living is changing, that many aspects of day to day life are becoming more fragmented in nature, they go on to speculate that “in such a world temporary activities of all kinds could be expected to flourish” (Bishop and Williams 2012). As was mentioned, a big part of this movement into liquidity that is said to be occurring stems from an uncertainty about the stability of political, economic and environmental conditions, the financial crisis of 2007-08 for example however, the response to this situation from city dwellers and businesses has been impressive, with individuals and communities taking it upon themselves to improve the spaces they inhabit (Bishop and Williams 2012). In these cases urban regeneration has become a vehicle for creative innovation and experimentation into temporary spaces.

This suggestion of more people taking an active role in their urban environment brings up the question of why this increase in happening. There are a number of possibilities, for example as mentioned earlier the current economic downturn has created a vacuum in government funded urban schemes, as well as several other policies devolving power that could be said to be sparking activism, particularly among those to whom long term unemployment is a real possibility. In other words what has been created is a community of

entrepreneurs, designers and so on who consider the ‘temporary economy’ as a place full of opportunity. As Temel notes “the requirements of an accelerated capitalist economy…conflict with the immobility of real estate” (Temel 2006). He goes on to stipulate that temporary use liberates “land as a means of production from the fetters of the permanent”, either as “interim uses that make it possible to utilize unproductive idle times”, or through “making everyday use temporary on principle, since the market requires that every use gives way to the next, more productive one” (Temel 2006). Temel’s points are particularly applicable to the recently popular retail form of ‘pop-up’ retail, a phenomenon that reflects not only the glut of surplus retail units in the UK but also current market trends and research that both legitimize and encourage temporary use. Trendwatching.com, a consumer trend website, highlighted the appeal of pop-up retail in one of their articles, “with a reduced need for constant securing of the basics, and goods so plentiful that the status derived from them is sometimes close to nil, the only thing that remains is consumption of the thrill, the experience, the new” (Trendwatching.com 2006), reflecting the significant cache associated with time-limited exclusivity. Whatever the primary cause, the current rise in vacancy has lead to a rise in temporary activities, allowing them to flourish in the right circumstances. Bishop describes vacancy as “a temporal and spatial vacuum between old and new users” (Bishop and Williams 2012), with this in mind developers of temporary activities select the sites that are of little interest to developers at the time. As a result of this slump in the UK property market, and the seemingly healthy relationship between those who initiate temporary-use schemes and the owners of the properties, many owners have “overcome their traditional resistance to temporary activities” (Bishop and Williams 2012), as evident in many of them initiating temporary schemes themselves.

1 Temporarily Inhabiting Spaces In order to ascertain whether the active design of temporary spaces could be beneficial to cities, it is important to first examine what the benefits of temporarily inhabiting spaces might be over a more permanent solution. Hakim Bey, an American poet and philosopher, was widely acclaimed for his essay on ‘Temporary Autonomous Zones’ (Bey 2003) (TAZs) particularly in the counterculture movement. Bey’s essay sought to promote thought on temporary spaces and as such several other acclaimed writers have written about his ideas on temporary urbanism. For Bey, the TAZ is a short-lived environment that gains significance through “freedom” from formal control, a quality he believes grants opportunities for

“alternative social possibilities” (Bey 2003). In their writings on temporary urbanism, Urban unlimited have compared the importance of TAZs to that of ‘freezones’, a historical phenomenon similar to today’s ‘creative milieus’, in providing freethinkers with a place to live and operate. They argue that the mercantile cities of Western Europe are an example of these ‘freezones’, for being “founded by settlers, far from the control of their mother countries” (Bishop and Williams 2012), and compare them to modern day examples such as the squatter movement in Berlin that has been dubbed a ‘creative milieu’. Urban Unlimited claims that these “freezones have been of particular importance for the origins of urban culture, the expansion of states, the protection of minorities and the renewal of the city. In short, they have been essential during all phases in the development of urban society” (Neuwirth 2006). Examined here are two separate urban strategies that have temporarily inhabited space in an attempt to benefit their communities.

1.1 Freiräume (Free Space) Berlin Some have used temporary habitation as a vehicle for response to the property markets inability to meet certain needs. Kohoutek and Kamleithner note, “there are numerous activities within the whole spectrum of urban uses, for which the private real estate market has only inadequate supply” (Bishop and Williams 2012). Making a similar note, Merker argues, “it is only by the tacit undervaluing of certain activities (such as say play or eating or socializing) that other activities (such as parking or driving) can thrive” (Merker 2010). For example there is always demand for projects that don’t deliver commercial returns such as community and youth projects, schemes that through necessity tend to take place on the outskirts of the mainstream property market. Also operating on these fringes are those without access to start-up capital or lease guarantees, excluding them from the commercial lettings market. Businesses within the creative industry tend towards the small, often employing less that 5 people, and since the industry is at constant risk of change through fashion and media meaning that the development of such businesses is often unpredictable. In addition creative businesses are heavily reliant on networking and face to face contact since much of the work they’re involved in is project based or freelance and this method helps to manage the inherent risks. Because of the close contact nature of the industry, businesses tend to group together in what have become known as ‘creative milieus’. In addition because a large portion of these businesses operates on a very small budget these milieus tend to occur in places where cheap space is available on flexible terms, usually within urban fringe areas. These locations have the added attraction that they are less regulated than more up market commercial areas giving the occupant more freedom to

work with. According to Charles Landry in order for a place to be defined as a creative milieu it must contain both a strong ‘soft infrastructure’ (that of social networks) and a ‘hard infrastructure’ (buildings, research facilities, meeting places and so on) that combined encourage the flow of ideas. The relevance of such milieus in the development of temporary spaces is in the apparent enthusiasm clusters of artists and entrepreneurs have for creative solutions to the regeneration of their areas, as such much research into temporary use has been conducted on these areas. Creative entrepreneurs are often among the early entrants into marginal areas, in part due to the restrictions imposed on them in the current competitive market and in some cases an ability to see potential in these areas. The early entries often take place in short-term leases and occasionally in the squatting or occupation of vacant buildings. Nowak attributes this to the idea that “artists are experts at uncovering, expressing and re-purposing the assets of place – from buildings and public spaces to community stories”, as such it can be postulated that spaces related to arts and culture are “an adaptive re-use vehicle well-suited for an uncertain market, precisely because artists value the process of remaking a space as well as a finished product” (Nowak 2010). Such ‘colonisation’ has been known to create intricate social and physical changes to neighbourhoods in a process known as ‘gentrification’. In their publication The Shadow City, the urbanism group Urban Unlimited attempted to stress the importance of ‘creative milieus’ in urban development, they concluded “formal, regulatory, ossifying, territoriallybased aspect of urban policy needs to be complemented with far greater attention to the informal, pioneering, elusive, network-based freezone issues” (Neuwirth 2006).

Urban Catalyst conducted a study into temporary urban use in Berlin in which they centre on what they dubbed ‘Space Pioneers’ (i.e. the people who temporarily colonize space in cities), suggesting that they are “evidence to a trend of greater social commitment, to more participation, to active networks and the desire to try out something new” (Urban Catalyst 2007). This phenomenon of creative industries colonizing disused parts of cities is prevalent in Berlin, where the effects of World War 2 cost the city more than 50% of its structures and post war, short sighted renewal and Autobahn projects in the 1970s and 1980s added to the number of vacant lots. Post unification Berlin saw a building boom however economic difficulties resulted in many of the new structures remaining unoccupied. As Oswalt et al note “it is no accident that temporary uses sprung up throughout the countries of central and eastern Europe after the collapse of the socialist system, since government authority only continued to operate to a limited extent” (Oswalt et al., 2009). In the early 2000s there

was an influx in members of the creative industry who were drawn to Berlin by the low cost housing and what they dubbed Freiräume or free spaces (Bishop and Williams 2012), these “Space Pioneers” (Urban Catalyst 2007) made use of the Freiräume through squatting, turning them into temporary clubs and galleries (LaFond 2010). Following the growing importance of the creative economy in the city (the sector had a turnover of over 10% of the cities GDP in 2002 (Urban Catalyst 2007)) and the lack of developers or investors looking to initiate large scale projects, the city planning establishment began to work in cooperation with civil society-based, smaller developers, as well as commissioning a number of studies of Zwischennutzungen (temporary uses) (LaFond 2010).

The Freiräume in Berlin, along with the Senate Departments (Berlins local government) tolerance for temporary uses, have allowed many communities to develop within them, some forming self sufficient urban villages, others extensions of existing communities. The RAW-Temple organisation has attracted a lot of attention due to its elongated status as being temporarily occupied (the temporary lease was obtained in 1999 though the organisation has since gained permanent occupational rights with the district authority acting as guarantor (RAW-Temple, 2012)), including being the subject of analysis by other countries to investigate the extent to which temporary-use is able to demonstrate long-term commitments to space, place and community. Currently, the RAW-Temple organisation hosts approximately 65 temporary projects (RAW-Temple, 2012). Michael Rostalski, in an interview about the RAW-Site, claimed that the pioneering temporary uses of the site “were committed to the preservation of existing buildings on the site and therefore contributed greatly to the overall sustainability of the project” (Rostalski, 2009). The RAW groups intentions when occupying the site were to do so long term, however they identified themselves as temporary users to allow for negotiations with the properties owner. The modifications to the exterior of the buildings were small to none however some significant alterations were made to some of the interiors, allowing for administrative facilities, gallery and event spaces. The landscape of the site was also altered, due to the contamination of the site, car tiers were used as planting boxes to grow a range of food. This part of the project was intended for further development in order to make the site self-sufficient however the short-term lease restricted it from developing to this level. During the summer of 2007, the owner of the land erected a fence within the property to prevent the RAW organisation from attempting to occupy sites not included in their lease. The organisation transformed this fence into a ‘green’ wall by “establishing new urban gardening initiatives

along its entire length” (Zagami, 2009), they created street furniture and planters using objects such as disused phone booths. Prominent member of the RAW-Temple group Mikado Schutt claimed this initiative to be popular with the sites surrounding community (Zagami, 2009). The RAW-Temple group initiated a variety of projects to enhance the space they temporarily occupied such as the development of the uninhabitable buildings and rainwater recycling initiatives (RAW-Temple, 2012). A survey commissioned Berlins Mayor (ASUM, 2009) indicated the RAW-Sites importance to the surrounding community; it was ranked the second most important public space after the Boxhagener Platz, a local formal park. The survey also indicated that 50% of the members of the community were on familiar terms with at least one of the temporary uses on the RAW-Site and felt they served a purpose within the neighbourhood (ASUM, 2009). In their study of the site, Urban Catalyst ascertained that a number of the temporary projects that have been implemented by RAWTemple make the deliberate choice of interacting with, and attempting to strengthen the neighbourhood, offering services and community initiatives. Benjamin Zagami hypothesised that due to the sites transient nature and the increased diversity it created within its community, a potential for tension exists (Zagami, 2009) however RAW-Temples decision to include itself in community related issues has lead to the site becoming a cultural centre, providing space and activities to the neighbourhood. The RAW-Temple groups success with the habitation and development of the RAW-Site suggests a potential for temporary uses with positive motives to assist in meeting the varied needs of a diverse community.

1.2 Guerrilla Urbanism Bishop has described the current period of urban planning and development as a “watershed”, stating that “the fragmentation of political consensus, loss of faith in ‘big government’ and, in the western economies at least, the economic downturn affecting business confidence and public expenditure amount to an almost ‘perfect storm’ in relation to the usefulness of many traditional masterplans” (Bishop and Williams 2012). He goes on to argue that the solution, found in many ‘alternative’ masterplans happening today, is a strategy that aims towards a “loosely defined end vision” (Bishop and Williams 2012) rather than a fixed plan and achieves it through a range of temporary and flexible stages. The intention of these small and flexible stages is to stimulate economic activity in the area, strengthen weaker neighbourhoods, change the areas ‘image’ and reactivate derelict sites in stages economically viable, creating a momentum that should lead to a more organic urban solution. Mike Lydon, founding principal of The Street Plans Collaborative dubbed it “tactical urbanism: short-term actions to effect long-term change” (Lydon 2011) and titled his

guidebook after that. He was quoted as saying “really, tactical urbanism is how most cities are built. Especially in developing nations…it’s step-by-step, piece-by-piece” (Berg 2012), his guidebook was written not only as an explanation of ‘tactical urbanism’ but also a list of possible ways in which communities can spark these step-by-step developments such as the annual ‘park(ing) day’ in which car parking spaces are turned into temporary parks. The ideas are made to suit different levels of ability and resources so a city council might organize a ‘pop-up town hall’ where as a neighbourhood may get together for some ‘guerrilla gardening’, allowing tactical urbanism to be employed by anyone. Lyndon has expressed that he doesn’t want the point of the guide to be missed, talking about some of the tactics in the second edition of his guide books, he states that “when you’re yarnbombing something, it’s a really cool and interesting piece of public art and it can have some social and political commentary that goes along with it, but the intent generally is not to create a longer term physical change, most of the things we include in the guide generally are aiming at doing something larger. They’re not just for the sake of doing it. And of course in a lot of ways, to make that work, you need to have whatever you’re doing to become sanctioned or supported, either with funding or with being allowed by the municipality” (Berg 2012). This is a key feature in the guides, while part of the intent is to get people to take an interest in the quality of their neighbourhoods it also strives to get them to question the way in which they work and if needs be, change it even if its with something temporary. Once its been changed, people can work out how to change it again, or to make it permanent. All of the tactics included in the Guerrilla Urbanism guide have been implemented and have found the success mentioned above, they have gone through enough iteration that they can be implemented efficiently and as a result of which can be manoeuvred through the realities of municipal governance and be made to stay. Aptly put by Lyndon, “for every one of these tactics that’s in here, you probably have several failed versions, but when you hit a nerve at the right time with the right group of people and you have enough people watching, you can really help transition these things into larger initiatives” (Berg 2012).

In an interview for The Architects Newspaper, Lyndon was asked, “how can tactical urbanism work in architecture and the formal planning process?” he responded “The planning process is not going to be replaced by tactical urbanism. Following up on comprehensive planning efforts, the neighbourhood-wide or citywide planning process can use tactical urbanism to take some of the most popular ideas and really do things quickly rather than have them wait

on the shelf for the million-dollar funding stream. Tactical urbanism is a tool for the more formal planning processâ&#x20AC;? (Klayko 2012). A flagship form of tactical urbanism is the Build a Better Block scheme that was started in Dallas. The scheme takes place of a week or weekends and involves members of the community mocking up improvements they would like to see on their block such as designated cycle lanes, pop-up businesses and street performances and events. Following its success in Dallas, the founders of the The Better Block group (Jason Roberts and Andrew Howard), have open sourced the project, providing resources, advice and consultancy to those who request it. A particular example of the projects success, and one that highlights the temporary movements as a method for establishing what works took place in Memphis where a low budget cycle-track adjacent to the pavement and protected from traffic by parked cars (The Better Block 2012). The track was meant to be in place for the weeklong project but proved so popular that it remained for 2 years, due to its popularity plans are currently in place to develop a more permanent cycle lane. The temporary nature of tactical urbanism projects such as The Better Block group allow for communities to conduct experiments into what initiatives may benefit their neighbourhood, without and lasting effects should the experiment be unsuccessful or the need to raise capital for big budget developments. In many cases, Guerrilla Urbanism exploits loopholes through which it can temporarily inhabit spaces, and then uses these spaces for experimentation, while more organised efforts such as The Better Block group could be said to have produced more fruitful results the success of Guerrilla Urbanism projects may suggest some communities need for greater freedom in which to produce grassroots projects. Large-scale developments, such as the Kings Cross Station development that will be discussed later in this essay, have also begun to utilize the method of having a loosely defined end vision achieved by a series of small steps.

2 Designing Temporary Spaces In discussing the potential of temporary design strategies it is important to question, in addition to whether the temporary occupation of space can be beneficial to the development of communities, whether temporary designs can be produces effectively. There have been numerous temporary architectural projects in recent times that have existed only in the temporary, as was mentioned earlier, the use of pop up commercial structures has seen a recent boom. The Mexican restaurant chain Wahaca recently unveiled their new location in Southbank, London, a pop up restaurant constructed from eight recycled shipping containers. The temporary structure, which Wahaca has dubbed the

“Wahaca Southbank Experiment” (Wahaca, 2012), was developed to allow the exotic restaurant to take part in Southbank’s running ‘Festival of the World’, which ran through 2012 (Vipers, 2012), the temporary structure was opted for so that it would not remain a permanent location once the festival had finished and is due to end in 2013. On visiting the site in December, the staff confirmed that the building functioned well and was comfortable to work in and since it was fully booked it seemed that the clientele shared the sentiment. The short-term structure was advantageous for Wahaca and seemed to function well as a restaurant, showing that short-term structures can work effectively. The cases examined below are of developments and organisations that have produced projects that use short term strategy in space that is at some stage in between developments that have to varying extents revitalised the surrounding communities.

Figure 3 – Wahaca pop up restaurant Southbank London

2.1 Kings Cross London The property development company Argent won the competition to develop London’s King’s Cross station site by being the only firm not to submit a detailed master plan, instead submitting principles that would guide them to the development and delivery process.

Argent qualified their entry by suggesting that due to an inherent instability in urban locations, a “rigid and detailed master plan is outdated from the start of development” (Bishop and Williams 2012). Argents solution was to develop a flexible master plan that allowed for various parts of the site, including components and buildings, to be developed in combinations of phases, thus the site is able to accommodate transitional activities and experimentation. The result is that the site is in use during the entire 18-year development period, allowing the scheme to weather multiple economic cycles. Argents early concept of ‘whole placemaking’ has been said to be crucial to the projects success, in that their strategy involved the implementation of new activities, management of public spaces and encouragement of temporary art installations, defining King’s Cross as a multifunctional location. Joint chief executive of Argent, David Partridge, summed this up by stating, “there is a diversity of different uses at its heart that makes King’s Cross a place that people want to go to” (Olcayto 2012). On several occasions Partridge has pointed to diversity and sustainability as being the keys to the success of the project. On sustainability he was quoted as saying “It’s not just about getting BREEAM excellent, or even installing a district heating system. We think that’s normal. For us, sustainability is about creating projects that live on after the development phase. You need to build in bottom-up entrepreneurial thinking in the places you create” (Olcayto 2012). This ties in with their intent to build an active site now with the goal of turning it into an active community in the future by developing not only the infrastructure but the social structure through publicly accessible activities. A prominent example of a successful temporary project taking place on the site early in its development is the Electric Hotel site specific dance and sound performance that enjoyed great success during its showing. Organized by Sadler’s Wells, Without Walls and Fuel Theatre company, the performance took place in a pop-up building depicting the ‘Electric Hotel’ while audiences witnessed the drama unfold from outside through floor to ceiling hotel windows. The audio aspect of the performance was experienced through headphones.

Figure 4 – Electric Hotel Kings Cross Station

2.2 Franks Café Cerise Road, Peckham, London, is the location of a concrete, multi-story municipal car park that had been dubbed a near-derelict eyesore by some of the locals. The buildings disuse had been accredited to it being situated in an undesirable spot within a London suburb with issues relating to crime and vandalism, as well as poor design that lead to awkward driving manoeuvres being required to use it, which resulted in floors above level 2 being frequently empty making it a prime example of the ‘fringe’ sites mentioned earlier. Subsequently in 2007 the Hannah Barry Gallery (Practice Architecture 2009) began to occupy the top 3 floors of the building to host their annual summer sculpture project, Bold Tendencies with the intention of showcasing the work of international artists with no charge to the audience. Following the projects success, the gallery group approached Practice Architecture (an architectural practice comprised at the time of 2 recent architecture graduates, Lettice Drake and Paloma Gormley) with the intention of adding a café to the top floor of the exhibition. Franks Café first opened in late June 2009 and gained a lot of press for its innovative design with regard to the projects function, fabrication and subsequent removal that were demanded by a temporary brief on a bizarre site. Practice Architecture decided that the design would need to utilize the cheapest, most immediately available an easiest to use materials/construction methods commensurate with the site and brief. The site being a multi-storey car park, the structure was designed using scaffolding boards, ratchet straps and red PVC (taken from lorry tarpaulins). The ratchet straps are looped around the car

parks entire floor plate and timber columns to provide extra height, this structure holds up the red PVC roof, in addition the bar and furniture are made from the same reclaimed material (see fig 5).

Figure 5 – Franks Café materials composition

Because of its simple structure and minimal material pallet an unskilled, volunteer workforce is able to put up the structure in just 25 days. The building was allowed to bypass the 28-day restriction stipulated in the UK Temporary Building Regulations as it was considered “so inherently temporary” that it “could be quickly dismantled and removed” (Carr-Smith 2009), as a result of which it stays open for 3 months, alongside the Bold Tendencies exhibition. The cafés website proudly boasts “panoramic views of London from the Millennium Dome, past Big Ben and the London Eye to Crystal Palace” (Practice Architecture 2009), highlighting the fact that it makes use of its ‘structural hosts’ existing positive attributes. The pre-existing structure was unattractive and disused however with Hannah Barry Galleries insight into its potential as an exhibition space and Practice Architectures intelligent design, it undergoes an annual transformation into a hugely popular space for socializing and appreciating the arts, attracting thousands of people a day.

2.3 Architecture for Humanity “We believe that where resources and expertise are scarce, innovative, sustainable and collaborative design can make a difference.” (Sinclair, 2006) Architecture for Humanity’s (AfH) slogan refers to a philosophy they employ of using well thought out design strategies to produce spaces and structures urgently required by groups and communities without the necessary resources to develop these spaces through more traditional means (Architecture for Humanity 2012). Cameron Sinclair and Kate Stohr started the group in response to the immediate need for long term shelter for refugees in Kosovo, following conflict in the region. The organisation opted for an open source business model, allowing local chapters to independently join and becoming the first to utilize Creative Commons licensing system on a physical structure. Due to the pro bono nature of the organisation, employing designers for specific projects wasn’t a viable option, as such they began hosting competitions for designers to produce projects, the most suitable of which would be implemented in the community in need.

A synergy can be drawn between Architecture for Humanities philosophy and the designing temporary spaces, it being a pragmatic methodology that often requires only a small amount of resources to implement. This synergy is furthered by the fact that many of the problems the group seeks to aid in only require temporary structures, short term housing for refugees for example. As a result of this many of the projects proposed through the group have employed temporary strategies. One such competition held by the organisation requested designers to produce solutions for mobile health clinics for use by medical experts attempting to distribute HIV/AIDS to communities in sub-Saharan Africa. The clinics would provide the doctors with temporary, sterile spaces in which to distribute the vaccine, that were light weight enough to be transported to the next village in need. One of the proposed solutions to the problem was dubbed the Kenaf Field Clinic. The proposal involved growing a field of Kenaf, an edible bamboo like plant that grows approximately 14ft a month, then when the medical staff arrives they mow the field into the required layout and place a tensile structure that could be easily transported to the location onto the plant to act as a roof for the clinic (Sinclair, 2006). This would provide the staff with the sheltered space in which they can treat the patients, and then when they leave the remaining Kenaf can be mown and eaten by the community. The elegance of this design is in its stacking of

functions, the temporary space is implied by the fact that the medical staff would be unable to maintain permanent residence within all of the communities, meaning a permanent structure (such as the ones more commonly used) would require those in need of aid to travel to the clinic and so this design not only provides a space that requires little time and resources to implement but also provides nutrition, which has been said to be just as important in combating HIV/AIDS as the medical treatments (Sinclair, 2006) adding to the structures functionality.

As well as attempting to aid in humanitarian problems internationally, Architecture for Humanity also has a strong involvement in projects that aim to combat social problems within cities. AfH has been collaborating with the Crisis at Christmas organisation annually since 1994, its contribution for 2010 was an adaptable component system designed to repurpose disused buildings as shelters for the homeless during the course of the project (Architecture for Humanity, 2010). A large portion of the proposal involved the use of simple chipboard mini structures that could be easily and quickly constructed and acted as space separators, seating, work surfaces and decorations to enhance the functionality and aesthetic appeal of the formally vacant buildings. Through a variety of design implementations the disused warehouses and open plan office sites were fitted out with sleeping and eating areas, bathrooms, kitchens and spaces for learning activities. The volunteer designers from AfH go to some of the 7 sites to help in producing the spaces and blueprints are provided for the volunteers at the others to allow the to produce the spaces as well (Architecture for Humanity, 2010). It was mentioned earlier that a synergy could be observed between the two philosophies of open source and temporary design where temporary design works to the advantage of open source projects, however from this project it can also be seen that open source works with temporary design in giving a great deal of control over how communities inhabit spaces. The instructions for the design were produces and provided to the volunteers to allow none professionals to produce temporary spaces with limited resources that aided with social issues in the surrounding communities.

Conclusion What have been investigated above are examples of development strategies in which shortterm spaces or structures have been the design of choice by those involved and that have resulted in varying degrees of social and economic re-growth in their surrounding areas. It was the writer’s hypothesis that the success of these projects was in part due to the shortterm strategies they implemented and to an extent that does seem to be the case, though the success seems to be situational. Looking at the Hannah Barry Gallery/Frank’s Café project the benefits of a lightweight short-term structure are obvious, the exhibitions only last for a short time every year and the space the project inhabits would otherwise go unused however it could be said that a more permanent but adaptable space would at this point be more beneficial to the established event, while allowing for varied use during the gallery’s absence. The most obvious benefit for the short-term design strategy is that the low requirements for funding, resources and manpower to implement make it accessible to people and projects to whom space would otherwise be unavailable. Projects like the Hannah Barry Gallery/Frank’s Café project, and many others like it, are reliant on short-term strategies for their existence. Urban Catalyst’s term “space pioneers” (Urban Catalyst 2007) seems particularly apt, when the design strategies for the construction and implementation of these structures are carefully considered it allows for the use and habitation of spaces that would otherwise remain vacant. Developments in the technology and design of lightweight short-term structures is making it possible for the running of communities through events and organisations to be controlled by members of said community. Berlins Freiraume (free or open spaces) mentioned earlier have opened the cities development to be contributed towards by charities, event organizers or the people that inhabit it resulting in organisations such as RAW-Temple producing “sustainable urban reclamation” (LaFond 2010) through Zwischennutzungen (temporary uses). It would seem that following the successful use of these locations as well as of Open Source Architecture projects such as Architecture For Humanity and OSA, that a system could be implemented that would allow communities the freedom and information resources to implement short-term projects suited to their needs at the time. Jane Jacobs wrote “Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody” (Jacobs 1961), it would seem that when problems in a city exist on a micro scale that small communities may have greater ability to view the solution and that small projects may be a greater tool in reaching it.

Bibliography Bauman, Z (2000). Liquid Modernity. Oxford: Blackwell. Bey, H (2003). T.A.Z.: The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism. 2nd ed. New York: Autonomedia. Beauregard, R. (2009). â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Shrinking Cities in the United States in Historical Perspectiveâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. in The Future of Shrinking Cities: Problems, Patterns and Strategies of Urban Transformation in Global Context. University of Carolina. Monograph. Berg, N. (2012). The Official Guide to Tactical Urbanism. Available: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/03/guide-tactical-urbanism/1387/. Last accessed 14 Dec 2012. Bishop, P and Williams, L (2012). The Temporary City. Oxon: Routledge. p21-77. Boxall, N. (2012). Are pop-up shops the answer to empty high streets?. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/jul/20/pop-up-shops-empty-high-street. Last accessed 9th Feb 2013. Carr-Smith, D. (2009). Temporary Architecture: Franks Cafe. Available: http://www.davidcarrsmith.co.uk/_D-WW_TMP-ARC_CAF1.htm. Last accessed 14 Dec 2012. European Commission. (2007). State of European Cities Report. Available: ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/.../state_exec_en.pdf. Last accessed 16th Dec 2012. Humphris, J. (2011). Guerilla Urbanism in London Sparks Social Transformation. Available: http://thisbigcity.net/guerilla-urbanism-london-sparks-social-transformation/. Last accessed 9th Feb 2013. Jacobs, J (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. Klayko, B. (2012). Talking Tactical Urbanism. Available: http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6120. Last accessed 14 Dec 2012. Lydon, M. (2011). Tactical Urbanism. Available: http://patterncities.com/archives/175. Last accessed 14 Dec 2012. LaFond, M and Merker, B (2010). Insurgent Public Space. Oxon: Routledge. p45-58. Neuwirth, R (2006). Shadow Cities: A Billion Squatters, A New Urban World. Oxon: Routledge. Nowak, J. (2010). Creative Neighborhood Development: Stratagies for Community Investment. Available: www.trfund.com/resource/downloads/creativity/creativity_neighborhood_dev.pdf. Last accessed 14 Dec 2012.

Olcayto, R. (2012). David Partridge: Diversity is key to King's Cross' success. Available: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/david-partridge-diversity-is-key-tokings-cross-success/8635356.article. Last accessed 14 Dec 2012. Oppenheim, L. (2006). Architecture For Humanity UK + Crisis Helping The Homeless This Christmas. Available: http://www.treehugger.com/culture/architecture-for-humanity-ukcrisis-helping-the-homeless-this-christmas.html. Last accessed 9th Feb 2013. Pop Up Cleveland. (2012). Temporary Use Handbook. Available: http://www.cudc.kent.edu/pop_up_city/index.html. Last accessed 9th Feb 2013. Practice Architecture. (2009). See: Franks Cafe. Available: http://www.practicearchitecture.co.uk/index.php?/franks-cafe/franks-cafe/. Last accessed 14 Dec 2012. RAW-Temple. (2012). RAW-Temple. Available: http://www.raw-tempel.de/. Last accessed 9th Feb 2013. Richard Sennett. (2006). The Open City: The Closed System and The Brittle City. Available: http://folksonomy.co/?keyword=10051. Last accessed 14 Dec 2012. Sinclair, C. (2006). Cameron Sinclair: A call for open-source architecture. Available: http://www.ted.com/talks/cameron_sinclair_on_open_source_architecture.html. Last accessed 9th Feb 2013. Sinclair, C. (2012). Architecture for Humanity. Available: http://architectureforhumanity.org/about. Last accessed 9th Feb 2013. Steel, C (2009). Hungry City. London: Vintage. p105-152. Temel, R (2006). Temporary Urban Spaces. BirkhĂ¤user Verlag. p56. Trendwatching. (2006). Transumers. Available: http://trendwatching.com/trends/transumers.htm. Last accessed 9th dec 2012. Urban Catalyst (2007). Urban Pioneers: Temporary Use and Urban Development in Berlin. Berlin: Jovis. Urban Catalyst (2003). Strategies for temporary uses â&#x20AC;&#x201C; potential for development of urban residual areas in European metropolises. Berlin: studio urban catalyst Wahaca. (2012). New Southbank Experiment. Available: http://www.wahaca.co.uk/html/1_restaurant7.html. Last accessed 9th Feb 2013. Williams, Z. (2010). Outspoken. Stylist Magazine. Issue 52, p21. Zagami, B (2009). Indeterminate Spaces: An Investigation into Temporary Uses in Berlin and the Implications for Urban Design and the High Street in the UK. London: University of Westminster.