BA Dissertation. Small Change, Big Impact. by Francesca Barbour

Small Change, Big Impact. An exploration into how collectives can bring about difference within the everyday urban environment.

Francesca Barbour 120194243 Newcastle University School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to understand and discuss the consistently changing urban environment and how we can interact with it; building on what has already been built and creating spaces that have a congruent relationship with the communities involved. Using precedents I will analyse time in the context of the built environment, community building and material innovations, exploring temporary urbanism as a tool to bring to the forefront overlooked urban everyday matters, enhancing communities.

CONTENTS PAGE 1. Introduction

3-4

2. Setting the Scene

5-6

3. It’s not the Size that Matters

7-12

4. Understanding the Impermanent

13-18

5. Material Innovations

19-22

6. Time and the Built Environment

23-25

7. Conclusion

27-28

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1: Park(ing) Day, Rebar, San Francisco, <http://api.ning.com/files/TEM92EcYGCYlhGNhFvS4xBRLDa9gdGjRhMhJRm08OeTX1Gtr6OGPp CS*TxJTWktgMGiZYbyYGgovALXpEF*VhIYRV8RwltDa/rebar_parkingday_01.jpg> 2005 Figure 2: The Union Street Urban Orchard, Wayward Plant Registry, 100 Union Street, London SE1, <http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qkvyy8ZPk3Q/TDGLkv0RuHI/AAAAAAAAGu4/SWr1PuPw9Z0/s160 0/urban+orchard+se1.jpg> 2010 Figure 3: The Fun Palace, Cedric Price, <http://slcl.ca/blog/wpY content/uploads/2010/03/ScreenYshotY2010Y02Y24YatY3.59.53YPM.png> 1960-61 Figure 4: Folly for a Flyover, Assemble Architects, Hackney Wick London, <http://3.bp.blogspot.com/X6_1Dp4FP_o/Tw9Vj5YUmdI/AAAAAAAABuo/yXIwmiNgFtE/s1600 /Folly+for+a+Flyover%252C+by+Assemble+CIC+%2528photographer+Lewis+Jones%2529.jpg> 2011 Figure 5: Table!Tennis!Table,!Union!Street!Urban!Orchard,!Wayward!Plant!Registry,!London.! <http://urbanomnibus.net/redux/wpYcontent/uploads/2010/08/flkr_pingpong_Jack999.jpg>! Figure 6: ‘Folly’!Bricks,!Folly!for!a!Flyover,!Assemble,!London.!<http://1.bp.blogspot.com/Y ibEeHNhlywo/TfSYXGkCB4I/AAAAAAAAD1o/u5xDG_OObzc/s1600/PICT0722.JPG> Figure 7: Columbia Road Flower Market, Columbia Road, East London, <http://media.timeout.com/images/101567839/image.jpg> 2010

INTRODUCTION There are individuals and collectives that do not believe they can bring about difference in the modern urban environment. This essay explores how temporary initiatives draw on the richness of everyday experience and how something that lasts for a fleeting moment can lead to long-term sustainable development. I will be looking at the impact of these interventions, with regards to both physical and perceptional change. Ensuing a broad investigation into the history and ethos of Temporary Urbanism, and its meaning in modern day culture; I will take a more critical stance on the measurement of success, relative to the breadth of impact temporary initiatives can generate. Consequently I will discuss our understanding of ‘temporary’; there is a nonchalant way in which permanent infrastructures are demolished nowadays in the urban environment, and yet a temporary initiative is often still classed as unsuccessful when it fails to find permanent footholds in society. Does the impermanent have a voice of its own? Moving on from this, I will examine material innovations within temporary initiatives, considering the physical marks and scarcity involved in both the construction and dismantling, remarking also on the recycling and up-cycling of materials. Can we still learn to use the materials we know in new ways? Finally I will concentrate on time and the built environment and can the ethos of impermanence help us to settle into the folds of the existing metropolis? ! Urban Planning is rapidly changing, as Patsy Healey puzzles over “how to manage our co-existence in shared spaces.”1 We are constantly searching for ways to grasp the new dynamics of urban life. The world adapts in time so why not our infrastructures too? Architectural briefs are now based around environmental and political demands, and temporary urbanism is at the forefront. It is problematic for a permanent building project to address a current issue, as planning can take years. Temporary initiatives on the other hand can act here and now, addressing the current environmental and political problems in the localised area, without all the same restraints. Will people continue to work in a temporary way, when the economy is secure enough to take care of their now tried and tested businesses? We must look critically at whether temporary urbanism can have its own footholds in society, or is it an undesired alternative to permanent solutions? As I will discuss it has its advantages and disadvantages, can we find security in the legacies, which are or are not created? How can we judge its success? Throughout this essay I will be looking at the human scale and at how temporary urbanism can serve as a tool to bring to the front overlooked urban everyday matters. Small-scale change can lead to a very big, positive impact, addressing urbanism from the bottom up. This exploration sets out to show how small collectives can still make a difference in our society. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1!Healey,!Collaborative+Planning:+shaping+places+in+fragmented+societies.+(Palgrave! Macmillan,!2006)!p.3.! !

"The lack of resources is no longer an excuse not to act. The idea that action should only be taken after all the answers and the resources have been found is a sure recipe for paralysis. The planning of a city is a process that allows for corrections; it is supremely arrogant to believe that planning can be done only after every possible variable has been controlled."2 Jamie Lerner

Architect, Urbanist, former mayor of Curitiba, Brazil

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2!Lerner.!Quoted!in!Lydon,!Tactical+Urbanism+â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Short+Term+Action,+Long+Term+ Changeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;+(accessed!3rd!October!2014)!p.3.! + !

SETTING THE SCENE Current urban environments around the world have an exigent need for redevelopment and revitilisation in order to serve the needs of a changing population. Many feel their voices cannot be heard over unremitting disputes over policy and economics; yet there is ample evidence that these concerns have proven invalid. Temporary urbanism has provided a path through which communities, through small collectives and individuals, can bring about change within the everyday urban environment, with small-scale interventions having big impacts. Time plays a vast role in the built environment; in a metropolis we experience infrastructures with various lifespans. Skylines have always been and will always be changing, whether with natural evolution, new builds or renovations. At its origins, urban planning searched to create shared public spaces, where people could live and work together in a healthy environment. Taking London as an example, the plans for the city have frequently not been followed through. In 1944, Professor Patrick Abercrombie proposed ‘The Greater London Plan’, referencing the Garden City movement; Abercrombie outlined the importance of bringing green space into the metropolis. He propounded that land used as allotments during the war and bomb-damaged areas presented a unique opportunity for a network of open, public spaces that could contribute to the quality of life and wellbeing for an exhausted public. He recommended that for every thousand-city inhabitants, there should be at least four acres of open space available. “This Plan is an attempt to make use of the opportunity. It is hoped that it may make some contribution to the future state of this country and to enable it to settle down to a life of peace.”3 With now over eight million London inhabitants, these standards have not become reality. However, temporary urbanism has presented an opportunity, to make use of the ‘unexpected’ spaces we find today, derelict factories and gas stations now form design precedents. We have the opportunity to build an existence amid existing buildings. “The built environment is no longer the goal, but the starting point.”4 The act of building temporary structures is not a new phenomenon. More recently in Britain we have seen a precedent of post-war housing, built as a rapid resolution to a lack of homes; some communities were forced to live in an underground station due to German bombings. The Government invested in a prototype, temporary, steel bungalow, which became known as the ‘Portal Bungalow’. These ‘prefab’ homes were rarely built with the intended steel, due !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3!Sir!Abercrombie,!Greater+London+Plan+1944.+(London!:!H.M.S.O.!1945)!p.1. 4!Oswalt,!Overmeyer!and!Misselwitz,!Urban+Catalyst:+the+power+of+temporary+use.+ (S.I.!Dom!Pub!2013)!p.15.! !

to supply shortages after the war; instead they were more often constructed from timber, aluminium and concrete. Whilst these ’prefabs’ have raised a lot of controversy, their success should not be measured by today’s standards, but by those of the time when service men coming home wanted somewhere to start a family and children needed beds. The houses were only intended to last fifteen years, yet in 2011, 187 of them remained occupied. With regards to current day impermanent interventions, it is the functions that have caught our eyes; from pop-up shops and café’s to spray painted pedestrian crossings and cycle routes. Serving the needs of the time, not those of the future. Berlin, after the fall of the wall was at the forefront of this revolution, opening its arms to the young generation as the city allowed for an improvised, inexpensive lifestyle. “Berlin is the laboratory for the business of temporary use. Berlin has space.”5 High vacancy rates, derelict lands and slow economic development, were all seen as blatant flaws in the diminishing city. Yet it was these waning features that became the city’s most valuable resources. In Berlin it became not the functional islands of the city that were important, but the disused gaps between them. The Berlin example has generated an awareness of ‘gaps’ in other metropolis around the world, spawning a new revitalised approach to urban planning. In order to consider temporary initiatives, close attention must be paid to the prevailing infrastructures and space. Temporary practice is often portrayed as a ‘disturbance’, but in reality it can serve as a catalyst of urban and location development, reawakening spaces and ideas that haven’t been visible and heard in a long while. Persuasively, a temporary initiative can be far less of a disturbance than an enduring one as it will not last forever. Patsy Healy is concerned by how we empathise with the threats to people and species across the globe.6 Globalisation has awakened our awareness of what is happening on the other side of the planet, yet we have limited control over everything. Temporary urbanism can work on a community scale to try and make a difference, but the real challenge is the larger scale, the global scale. How can something that interacts on the human scale reach a wider audience? How far can the word of mouth go? Arguably with modern media, it could reach the world. What is it about a certain initiative that catches the eye of the press? Can something temporary take precedence over celebrities and politicians? Can the voice of small collectives truly be heard?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5!Denton,!Urban+Pioneers:+Berlin:+Stadtentwicklung+durch+Zwischennutzung.+ (Berlin:!Jovis,!2007)!p.17.! 6!Healey,!Collaborative+Planning:+shaping+places+in+fragmented+societies.+ Introduction.! !

Figure 1 Park(ing) Day Rebar San Francisco 2005

Figure 2 The Union Street Urban Orchard Wayward Plant Registry 100 Union Street, London 2010

IT’S NOT THE SIZE THAT MATTERS Small change, big impact? The brevity of impact is not inevitably dependent on the scale of a project or the level of participation involved. More people will see something substantial, but will it be as valued? People have been driven to working both sanctioned and unsanctioned to get everyday issues noticed, fighting for things that will improve the quality of our everyday lives in the urban environment. As Jan Gehl notes, “Cities are designed on many years of experience and intuitive feeling for human senses and scale.”7 Yet as Gehl continues to comment, at some point in city planning the interaction between life and space was neglected. We must use the broadest sense to consider public space and life; it cannot only involve interaction in café’s and at street events, but also extend to the most habitual daily proceedings. For example, walking, standing, sitting and listening. It is this scale of public living that temporary urbanism often interacts with, facilitating social change within the community. The interplay between our lives and spaces is fundamental to our existence. As society and politics have evolved, the cities we live in have adapted to fit. Cities are formed around how we live, and temporary urbanism can consolidate this, affirming the spaces between buildings to suit the needs of the public. Life is transient and impulsive; has a time come to reimagine the fabric of the cities we live in? There are many communities and collectives using temporary urbanism to their own advantage in order to highlight opinions of space and current issues to a broader audience; these collectives form in a range of sizes, from two people to many thousand. Carles Broto discusses the capability of good urban design to catalyse the restoration of urban areas; he posits the importance of engagement between the architect and the community. “Designing places for the use and representation of the community in all its diversity makes urban design one of the fields of architecture that generates the most heated debates and the greatest controversy.”8 An example of an initiative that began with only one small collective and became a global movevent is ‘Park(ing) Day’(Figure1). In 2005, Rebar, a San Francisco art and design studio transformed a single metered parking space into a temporary public park in an area of San Francisco that had been identified as lacking in public open space. Rebar realised that by paying the meter of a parking space, you are in effect leasing urban space on a temporary basis. The !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 7!Gehl!and!Svarre,!How+to+Study+Public+Life.+(Washington,!DC!:!Island!Press!2013)! p.3. 8!Broto,!Urban+Spaces:+Design+and+Innovation.+(Barcelona!:!Links!Books!2013)!p.7.! ! !

project aimed to explore the possibilities of a short-term lease and to investigate the values of urban public space. The original ‘park’, as photographed in Figure 1, only stood in place for two hours at which point the grass, bench and tree were packed away and the space swept to leave it as it was found. This small-scale intervention could have ended, going unnoticed other than by passers by during those two hours. However, due to one single iconic photo, the idea travelled worldwide via the internet. Does this make it any more successful? With requests being received for replications in other cities. Rebar decided not to claim the project as solely their own, but to promote it as an “open-source” project, creating a 'how-to' manual to empower people to create their own similar 'parks'. Consequently ‘PARK(ing) Day’ was born’ an annual, global event, “providing temporary public open space… one parking spot at a time.”9 The event is fostering change; it seems evident from this case study that very short term temporary structures can drive change in built locations that can last for years. However we must question how far this change and impact goes. Car parks are a common infrastructure in the urban environment as I have experienced in England, they are still often under used. Manors car park in Newcastle, by way of example, is only open from 8AM until 10PM and the space is therefore consistently underused every day. There are so many examples like this, which the PARK(ing) Day phenomena could, but has yet to reach; so can it be considered successful? Since becoming a global event, the project has adapted and remixed to suit a variety of social issues in diverse urban contexts, becoming a popular precedent for community building. By making it an ‘open-source’ project it can reflect the specific needs and issues of the participants. This has led to a wide variety of projects ranging from free health clinics, planted temporary urban farms, political seminars and bike repair shops. However, reading forums and blogs concerning the organisation of PARK(ing) Day initiatives, not everything is as it seems. Rebar’s original project seemed simple and seamless, simply putting some coins into a meter and erecting the park. However for a scheme in Walnut Creek, USA, there were several issues with insurance logistics. In Nashville there were 30 spaces transformed into these small ‘pocket parks’, however the majority were organised by design centers and architect practices, and thus the derived community building value is maybe less. Rebar themselves have stated that they want to shift the discussion and narrative created by PARK(ing) Day towards the quality of public space and not the quantity of parks created. With regards to time, PARK(ing) Day is notable even now in its development; one day out of a year potentially changes the opinions of space for many communities. The community is certainly involved as it is their space that is affected, however it is ambiguous as to their active !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 9!Rebar,!Parking+Day.+<http://parkingday.org/aboutYparkingYday/>!! !

10!

participation in the building of these parks. How do we therefore know if they serve the community needs? In a different example, following the London Festival of Architecture in 2010, the site of 100 Union Street in SE1 was converted into an urban orchard and community garden (Figure2). In contrast to the PARK(ing) Day project, the Union Street Urban Orchard relied on a larger collective. Designed by the Wayward Plant Registry, an organisation involved in the concept of plant adoption, the Orchard was built in collaboration with The Architecture Foundation, Bankside Open Spaces Trust and ProjectARKs alongside, the help of some one hundred volunteers. Wayward describe their interventions as projects of social exchange and botanical desire. Their ventures take a unique approach to landscape architecture by initiating a narrative to the site and environment. Their landscapes tell stories, bringing together people through nature with the end result aiming to be a project legacy. The garden aimed to regenerate a disused site in Bankside and created a space for meeting and exchanging between local residents and visitors. The initiative approached a more localised issue in comparison to Rebar’s project, and yet the collective involved was much larger and more community based. The Orchard hosted a series of workshops and discussions, encouraging biodiversity and urban food growing. There were also examples of film screenings, musical performances and local community meetings. The intervention was initiated in June, before being dismantled in September. Contributors likened the construction of the Orchard to that of a playground and, in the same spirit, the dismantling, with a ‘make and take’ festival being organised. Partakers in the initiative and members of the community bought into the narrative that it told, and they do not appear to challenge whether the project created a community legacy. Hearing from contributors to the project, one can gauge the depth of the narrative created. For Thomas Kendell, an assistant project manager of the scheme, the Orchard focused on children in this area of south London. Kendell, having grown up on a farm where he was able to roam freely, developed awareness for the scary, un-safe aspects of London’s streets, particularly for young children; he focused on creating a safe and imaginative aspect to the Orchard, using this narrative to encourage children to enjoy open, green spaces. The Orchard became a community space, used by people of all ages; for many it is evident that their philosophy to disused space was changed forever. “I was somewhere wonderful in the world, that wasn’t an urban environment.”10

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 10!Woodhouse,!Orchard!Collaborator,!Project!ARK! <http://vimeo.com/27654932>!! !

11!

When looked at individually, the Orchard project was successful, as many of the community got to enjoy not only the finished product but also the construction and deconstruction experience. Some may question the longevity of the project despite the trees were moved to other community spaces. Will the garden and its benefits be truly remembered? In the case of PARK(ing) Day, the longevity of the initiative is evident through its now global status, however the same cannot yet be said for the Orchard; does this make it any less successful? Both projects set out to address issues in a localised area, yet Rebar’s initiative reached far beyond its immediate community. However, as Rebar themselves emphasise, it is quality, not quantity that matters. It is evidently difficult to define the success of a project. However, as both these examples illustrate, it is the human scale-metric that is important when judging success, whether this is explored at a local or a global level. Temporary urbanism is not necessarily assisting city planning, but in the ‘meanwhile’ it is addressing the important challenges of public space in the urban environment. Peter Bishop and Lesley Williams comment that, “No city can evolve beyond a basic state without valuing its public realm.”11

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 11!Bishop!and!Williams,!The+Temporary+City.+p.97! !

12!

Figure 3 The Fun Palace Cedric Price 1960-61

Figure 4 Folly for a Flyover Assemble Hackney Wick, London 2011

UNDERSTANDING THE IMPERMANENT “Cities are a complex overlay of buildings and activities that are, in one way or another, temporary, why have urbanists been so focused on permanence.”12 The term ‘temporary’ is difficult to understand. We do not know whether a built asset will be temporary until it ceases to exist; but does existence refer to its physical or its perceptional form? Everything in this world has a certain lifetime; we are all temporary. How can we understand what is and what is not temporary? This is an ongoing challenge to temporary urbanists as people frequently judge the success of a project in terms of the permanent footholds it achieves in society. Bishop and Williams argue that ‘the temporary’ has its own potential and should not be regarded as a lesser alternate to 'the permanent'. It is an innovative way to explore the urban realm and can generate greater effect than something permanent. “They fill in the gaps and enliven the urban experience.”13 Cedric Price makes the valid point that architecture must create “new appetites, new hungers-not solve problems, architecture is too slow to solve problems.”14 This stance shows some rationality: how can something solid and physical change an existing condition? The problems in society are also about the here and now, but it is difficult for architecture to react so promptly. This critical stance opens a path for temporary urbanists, allowing them to use innovative methods to create a change in societies, recognising that their solutions offer more immediate solutions. Cedric Price is a renowned architect of the 20th century. Very few of his visions were actually built; however his lateral approach to architecture and time-based urban interventions has ensured that his work has continuing influence on contemporary architects. Price posited that architecture should be “enabling, liberating and life-enhancing”15, he desired that his designs would enable people to think the unthinkable. Price believed that with the help of new technology, the public could have unprecedented control over their environment, leading to designs based solely on a response to the needs of the users. During 1960-61, Price established himself with his proposal for ‘The Fun Palace’ (Figure3). Virtually every part of the structure was variable. In relation to temporary urbanism, Price believed that buildings should be based around our everyday needs; recognising that these needs were always changing he !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 12!Bishop!and!Williams,!The+Temporary+City.+p.3.! 13!Bishop!and!Williams,!The+Temporary+City.+p.7.! 14!Price,!Re:!CP,!ed.!by!HansYUlrich!Obrist!(Basel:!Birkhäuser,!2003).!p.!57.! 15!Design!Museum,!Cedric!Price.!(accessed!15th!November!2014) ! !

15!

postured that a building could not be a set structure. He saw security in the impermanent as it can suit our desires more effectively. Nothing Price ever envisioned was intended to be permanent; this creates continued debate as to whether or not some of his designs should be demolished. This was demonstrated when he put his ideas into practice with the 1971 InterAction Centre in Kentish Town. The building is made up of an open framework into which modular, pre-fabricated elements can be inserted and removed. Price designed the shelter with a twenty-year life span, accompanying it with a detailed dismantling manual. Price was insistent about the lifetime of his designs; so can they still be understood as temporary given that they have actually yet to be dismantled? Price wanted to facilitate change in a changing world, yet some of his radical designs became monuments that have become difficult to tear down. This correlates to several temporary urbanism initiatives that have since become perceived as permanent. For example, the Eiffel Tower in Paris, which has now far exceeded its anticipated temporary lifetime. Can we ever class such buildings as temporary? The question is raised of what does the ‘temporary’ enable or what the ‘permanent’ does not? Temporary projects are often less complex in terms of planning and construction and yet frequently more inventive. More attention can be applied to the narrative and concepts behind the endeavor rather than the restrictions that may come with a permanent infrastructure. Regardless of the problems and questions raised by temporary initiatives, the freedom they bring is difficult to argue with. The temporary enables social agendas. Assemble Architects are a small design and architecture collective based in London. Key to Assemble's ethics is addressing the question of disconnection between the public and the spaces that they live in. Having volunteered on one of their projects it is evident how they seek to actively involve the public in both the creation of, and subsequent participation in their projects, expanding their collective and assisting in the realisation of their work. Talking to Fran Edgerley, an initial member of Assemble’s team, she remarks on how the practice evolved from something the team did for fun, to their main form of employment. This corresponds to Cedric Price’s ethos, with fun and enjoyment commanding their endeavors. Folly for a Flyover (Figure4) was a temporary project in Hackney. Assemble wanted to highlight the potential of a disused motorway undercroft, a common piece of infrastructure in urban and rural locations. Over the course of nine weeks, this once overlooked space was transformed into a community facility for both local residents and visitors, receiving over 40,000 visitors during its life. The design constituted a building ‘trapped’ under the motorway, its roof rising above the structure, becoming visible to the traffic above. Folly for a Flyover accommodated cinemas, performances and plays by night and a café, workshops, events and boat trips by day. !

16!

Following the success of the Folly, the London Legacy Development Corporation invested in providing a permanent infrastructure which has allowed the site to continue as an events and cultural public space. This raises an important question when understanding ‘temporary’ design: is it intended to be permanent when conceived? Assemble’s work was intended to be impermanent, and at the end of its time it was dismantled and the site left as it was found. Fran comments: “It was a temporary project, initiated and conceived of by Assemble, that was one element of a long-term master plan for the area.”16 The temporary nature of the Folly had enabled it to be as it was, with a makeshift structure and community-based ethos; the playfulness of the temporary infrastructure was core to the use. The communities were actively involved in the construction and consequently it became theirs to play with. What can the permanent not enable that the temporary can? When reading about the Folly, the London Legacy Department retained the functional qualities of the project with their permanent infrastructure; to this end, the Folly was a success. However, as no one has apparently been appointed with responsibility for the site’s management or promotion subsequently Fran comments that to her it “seems like a wasted opportunity.”17 It is evident that neither scale, nor budgets are of significant relevance when addressing the urban environment. As stated previously, it is the habitual events of our day that are important. It is the people. “It really shows that people are the most important thing to invest in, for otherwise capital investment is useless.”18 Peter Bishop and Lesley Williams postulate that nothing is temporary until it has been proved to be so, and as R. Ternel comments, “The temporary also has its own qualities and should not be viewed as merely a substitute for the fully adequate.”19 Bishop and Williams claim that the notion of permanence brings with it a sense of security and a barrier against risk. We strive for permanent homes, permanent solutions, enduring love… however everything in our lives is always changing. Going back to Cedric Prices’ views, surely we should see more security in impermanence, as it will fit our day to day needs more successfully. Many temporary initiatives, notwithstanding how long they last or how prosperous they become, have a considerable effect on future developments, creating a form of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 16!Edgerley,!Assemble!Architects,!Personal!Correspondence!by!Francesca! Barbour,!03/01/2015!! 17!Edgerley,!Assemble!Architects,!Personal!Correspondence! 18!Edgerley,!Assemble!Architects,!Personal!Correspondence! 19!Ternel,!‘The!Temporary!City’!in!Haydn!and!Ternel,!Temporary!Spaces,!p55! !

17!

sustainable development. Although it may be hard to see where the temporary ends and the permanent begins, we can identify with the change that has occurred. When we are feeling uncomfortable or unsafe in life we do not want to have to wait three years for a solution to be built. As with post-war housing, temporary initiatives enable us to find security in something here and now, to encourage community building in a current environment and to find solutions regardless of time. It is not necessary to understand the temporary, but to understand what it can facilitate. In certain cases a lack of funding or confidence could be the cause of choosing temporary over permanent. It could be just for the ‘meanwhile’. However it is challenging to argue that the impermanent doesn’t have its own place or occasion. Drawing a comparison between something temporary and something permanent is difficult as they serve entirely dissimilar purposes. Pop-up architecture became popular in Germany after the war, due to high vacancy rates, derelict lands and slow economic development. Similarly it flourished during the recent recession in the United Kingdom. Now that the economy is improving it is of interest that the pop-up culture shows few signs of slowing down demonstrating the sense of security that comes with understanding what the impermanent can allow for. “Promoting temporary uses therefore represents a strategy for urban transformation.”20

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 20!Denton,!Urban+Pioneers:+Berlin:+Stadtentwicklung+durch+Zwischennutzung.+p.29! !

18!

MATERIAL INNOVATIONS What are the constraints on material innovation? Can we still discover how to use materials in new ways? As a result of continuing concerns for the environment we have to reconsider the materiality of our built environment, and temporary urbanism creates a playground for these considerations. Recycling and up-cycling present various challenges, yet the result can be something innovative and interesting. Material use and environmental impact can have huge effects on the people participating, as Patsey Healy examines, “the way in which social and biospheric relation interweave.”21 Everything has a carbon footprint, and leaves some kind of a mark on the environment. This raises a big concern for some temporary initiatives, with regards to materiality. Rebar makes clear that they believe no mark should be left on the environment as shown in the PARK(ing) Day project, where the space was swept clean at the end of their ‘lease’. Materiality and the scarcity of material, is fundamental to temporary urbanism. Often working on small budgets, what can be recycled and what must be bought? When we talk about sustainability, we must also define an objective target. It is hard to achieve optimum sustainability given the human intervention in the objective setting process. Scarcity, on the other hand, recognises that there is a point and a limit. Jeremy Till led a research project, exploring the relationship between scarcity and creativity in the context of the built environment. Till investigated how scarcity might affect an architect's creativity and how design led actions could improve the urban environment in the future.22 The customary response to scarcity of materials is to use less in the production and lifecycle of a project. Instead, Till proposes that we redefine its meaning, and as Cedric Price propositions, ask; Do we need to build the building at all? Or can we change the parameters of the brief? Carles Broto, when discussing urban design propounds it to be, “Sensitive to the delicate balance between the solids and voids in the urban fabric.”23 Temporary urbanists are often building on what has already been built, or in spaces between existing structures. There has been a perception of temporary interventions being a ‘disturbance’ in the existing public realm, instead of the intended purpose of being a catalyst for urban and site development. For this reason, attention to detail regarding materials before and after a project is of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 21!Healey,!Collaborative+Planning:+shaping+places+in+fragmented+societies.+p.5.! 22!Till,!Lossifova,!Sengupta!and!Cheung,!Scarcity+is…!(Funded!by!HERA,!2010Y 2013)!<Scarcity.is>!(accessed!20th!November!2014) 23!Broto,!Urban+Spaces:+Design+and+Innovation.+p.7.!! !

19!

utmost importance. Disregarding the after effects of an intervention will only distract participants from the main goal and narrative, undoing the change that has been achieved. In the instance of the Orchard, from the outset the environment was the key narrative. Care was taken with material selection. For example, a table tennis table was made out of a skip (Figure 5), and recycled wooden pallets forming a large amount of the building material. This observed method of re-using materials creates a level of recognition and understanding for viewers of all ages, seeing something used in a completely different and innovative way. This can inspire ideas from your own imagination. Material choices reinforce the community Figure 5! aspect of the Orchard. Several of the plants featured in the Orchard were contributed as part of an adoption scheme where people donated unwanted plants. In fact, one of the only elements bought specifically for the scheme, were the trees that were chosen by Peter Graal, from the Bankside Open Spaces Trust. People were invited to the ‘make and take’ festival, putting the recognition highlighted into use. The opportunity to ‘adopt’ the plants was also given. A drawing had to be prepared of the new homes for the plants, highlighting them as living things, needing no less care and attention as might be considered if adopting an animal. These levels of consideration highlight the narrative of the Orchard continuing even as the physical elements come down. The community was so heavily involved in both the production and the dismantling of this venture, that any disturbance was perceived and welcomed in a positive manner. Access for all was evidently a core ethos for the project. The site was consequently used for another temporary project, demonstrating the minimal physical impact of the material innovations utilised throughout the Orchard. In reference to Assemble’s Folly for a Flyover project, their choice of materials from the outset were similar to that of the Orchard. The key material for the Folly was timber brick (Figure 6), constructed from reclaimed and donated materials. The bricks create the illusion of a standard brick wall, however in reality they are a mix of these oak, pine, yellowish opepe and reddish jarrah ‘folly’ bricks from railway sleepers, drilled with holes and strung together by wires. This Figure 6! woven technique allows for easy reuse !

20!

at the end of the project. The internal space (the café and bar) was lined with pitch pine salvaged from the recent renovation of Tate Britain, the terrazzo tiles used in the floor were free surplus from a factory moving to Leeds and even the furniture was in part made from old church pews. Unlike the Orchard, the Folly's recycled materials are almost unrecognisable from their original form, taking away the idea of recognition, however in this case the design draws its architectural influence from the surrounding Hackney Wick buildings. This creates a narrative that imagines the area's past suggesting a building trapped under the elevated motorway, its’ roof pushing up between the East and Westbound traffic above. As Jill Denton comments: “Classical planning attempts to bridge the gap between the former and future uses of a site.”24 Similarly to the Orchard, the Folly was hand-built by volunteers. However instead of the playground type approach adopted by those building the Orchard, it was assembled from a giant construction kit, being far more methodical and predesigned. The volunteers were not involved in the design process, yet a lot of detailing was done on site. When it came to disassembly, the materials used for its construction were recycled as new play and planting facilities for a local primary school. As made clear by Cedric Price, every building has an expiry date, and the dismantling process is as important as the assembling. Temporary urbanists must be aware of economic realities when designing, particularly with small collectives. These realities directly relate to the environmental impact of a design. There are huge design limitations when using recycled or scavenged materials, as these are rarely lightweight, and often not waterproof. OSB chipboard, for example, is a large waste product of building sites, however it must be properly waterproofed before it can be used and cannot be salvaged once it is wet. In the Orchard project, the flowerpots and sheds will have been limited to the size constraints of the pallets and timber. However due to the use of bricks in Assemble's Folly, the designers had many more options, as was evident in the final product. Arguably recycled material was employed in a more innovative way, as the use was restricted far less. Is it simply a question of designing through drawing or designing through making? In the example of the Folly, Assemble are a group of trained architects, who had received design based training, it seems logical that, for them, the design would be a primary consideration, with the question of materiality and scarcity being the second factor. Conversely, with the Orchard, a group consisting of landscape architects, graphic designers, illustrators, furniture designers, carpenters and scientists led the project. With this diverse input, and the desire for a whole community to be involved, materiality and ease of use rather than design and material scarcity was inevitably at the forefront of their making. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 24!Denton,!Urban+Pioneers:+Berlin:+Stadtentwicklung+durch+Zwischennutzung.+ p.102.! !

21!

In Urban Catalyst, Philipp Oswalt, Klaus Overmeyer and Philipp Misselwitz express that a temporary urbanist should have a willingness to work with existing conditions, adapting a space to their needs.25 However the question is whether it can be changed back, once the space has been adapted. Should the ‘stand in’ intervention have any physical lasting effect on the place, or only a perceptional one? An intervention can ‘touch’ an existing infrastructure or space, either building on, around, or into the structure as found, without permanently changing it. It is worth emphasising that planning restrictions and lease constraints may make it simpler, administratively, to build something temporary. Jan Gehl creates an analogy of the study of public life to that of weather forecasting. She comments that over years and years of studies, meteorologists have distinguished and refined their methods, yet the weather forecast remains inaccurate and often different depending on the meteorologist concerned. Gehl draws on this, positing: “Life is difficult to predict, we cannot make everyone happy, but we can try.”26 This analogy helps us to understand the controversies of some temporary initiatives. In the example of the Wayward group, they are initiating narratives into the landscape. The impact and ‘success’ of a project can only be measured in reference to the questions it was seeking to address in itself. For all current architecture, material innovation is a key consideration. The twentieth century High-Tech movement has seen feats in engineering and material use that previously would have been considered impossible. Regardless of architectural tastes, it would be difficult to look at modern elements of the London skyline and not be impressed by use of glass; a key example being Renzo Piano’s building, the Shard, Material use in architecture has progressed in several directions. On the one side bricks are being grown from bacteria, reminiscent of something from a science fiction movie. On the other, the material choices focus on reuse, scarcity and carbon zero building. Some may not see the up-cycling and recycling materials as innovative, however it challenges design and construction thinking to take something scrap and make it look respectable, as Assemble have demonstrated at the Folly. Not being restricted by recycled materials as well as bringing enjoyment and playfulness to a design is and remains a key challenge.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 25!Oswalt,!Overmeyer!and!Misselwitz,!Urban+Catalyst:+The+Power+of+Temporary+ Use.+! 26!Gehl!and!Svarre,!How+to+Study+Public+Life.+p.2.! !

22!

TIME AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT As highlighted throughout this paper, at the forefront of temporary urban initiatives are people. People are the key. These environments are designed and built to suit our desires and customary needs. Whilst our cities have already been built, it is the chaos that ensues within them that leaves space for temporary initiatives. The urban metropolis is highly dependent on time. Some existing infrastructures are hundreds of years old, so how can they continue to be needed? Or can they adapt? As Cedric Price would posit, do they even need to continue to exist at all? To concern ourselves with the day-to-day lives of people we are in turn concerning ourselves with time, making it a key feature of the built environment. These days, there is a cachet associated with time-limited exclusivity. Something that is only available for a short amount of time may be more desirable than something you could wait another couple months to buy. It becomes about ‘the here and the now’. Peter Bishop and Lesely Williams propound that we should: “Unlock the potential now, rather than in ten years.”27 Bishop and Williams discuss the advantages of these relatively quick and cheap resolutions for current problems. There is a hedge against risk, as there is not time to second-guess our own opinions. As Bishop and Williams comment, “We no longer believe that a state of perfection will ever be achieved.”28 This presents an argument for the benefits of something temporary; the temporary does not aim to reach a state of perfection, they argue. A project can become an event, rather than a thing. Markets for example are impressive within themselves and yet often would be discounted as a form of architecture. With methodical structures that can be assembled and disassembled in a day, they consistently draw in floods of people and custom, and often more than are attracted to a more permanent retail establishment. Chestnut Grove School in South West London for example, opens its family friendly gates to a farmers market every Saturday. The School offers an underused location, with plenty of space to fill with fresh fruit, juices, vegetables, meat, eggs and much more, encouraging the support of local, fresh produce and broader community use. This is a good example of the cachet mentioned earlier. There is more fun and excitement in this for both children and adults than the ordinary weekly shop at Tesco or Sainsbury’s and consequently an otherwise unproductive space becomes of real community value.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 27!Bishop!and!Williams,!The+Temporary+City.+p.3.! 28!Bishop!and!Williams,!The+Temporary+City.+p.21.! !

23!

Figure 7 Columbia Road Flower Market East London

Similarly to this, Columbia Road (Figure 5) in the East End of London, attracts thousands of visitors every Sunday, when the street is transformed into a haven of foliage and flowers. From homegrown bedding plants to exotic imported fruit trees, everything is up for grabs for a fraction of the price of the flower shops you find scattered around the streets of London. The air is intense with the scent of flowers and it is an experience of London’s streets that you will never forget, challenging various misconceptions. The common thread that permeates through every stall is the love of the flower market and its history, including a refusal to be dictated by the modern retail world. Columbia Road has not cost billions to build as a new skyscraper would; yet it is in the top twenty-five tourist attractions in the big capital. The market’s success has also promoted the surrounding area. It is an oasis for families, communities and enjoyment, thriving in its temporary status. In both of these precedents, the value of time is evident; they are alternative uses at an appropriate time, leading to the revitilisation of both the immediate spaces involved and the surrounding areas. A permanent project can take years to be built. Through this elapse of time, the original ideas can easily be lost, whether due to planning restrictions, budgets or new voices. A project has to pass across so many different people’s tables that as Philipp Oswalt, Klaus Overmeyer, Philipp Misselwitz postulate: “Urban planning and urban reality are generally poles apart.”29 We must question how planning can open itself up to the unplanned. We are trying to address routine activities, yet these are rarely documented on a time schedule. Temporary urbanism seems to be one of the only ways this can be achieved as has been demonstrated through the precedents previously discussed. At the Orchard project, the discontinuation and disassembly became as important as the project itself. It was the narrative and the people that were !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 29!Oswalt,!Overmeyer!and!Misselwitz,!Urban+Catalyst:+The+Power+of+Temporary+ Use.+p.2.! !

24!

key to the project, so the physical manifestation was not needed after its lifetime. However, as was shown in the Folly, opportunity can be missed. It highlighted that the people are the most important thing to invest in, emphasising the large amount of social and cultural capital needed. On the other hand there are various examples of temporary initiatives putting down roots and becoming popular attractions. Two very well known examples are the Eiffel Tower and the London Eye, both now being iconic landmarks. “Becoming permanent and professional business’s is not a deviant, but rather a desirable development.” 30 Buildings trace the thinking of the people who partake in them over time, their interactions and their immersion in the cultures of their living and working environments. A permanent home becomes particular to its inhabitants over time, adapting and familiarising itself with the present situation, similar characteristics to temporary initiatives. The permanent does have the ability to adapt. There is a suggestion that temporary initiatives can be called ‘Meanwhile Projects’. They fill in the gaps in time whilst we wait for a permanent solution. This is not necessarily to demean them, but to say they have the ability to draw from what was there before and stimulate what will be built after. It often takes a temporary initiative to enliven a site before someone realises its potential as a permanent project. This had been the aim with Assemble’s Folly. We must examine how the potential of these temporary projects can be harnessed for long-term developments, thus reducing the amount of missed opportunities. Looking back to the idea of time-limited exclusivity, there is the impending threat that this cachet may not endure. Numerous elements of temporary urbanism developed from an unstable urban environment. In Berlin, for example, temporary initiatives increased after reunification, when the city was in a state of flux. Similarly in the United Kingdom, it was during and following the recent recession that pop-up stores and temporary social projects gained popularity due to the accompanying uncertain permanence. As mentioned in regards to post-war housing, we cannot judge projects on the standards of today, but relative to those at the time they were built. “This special quality can be that the temporal limitation permits many things that would still be inconceivable in the long term.”31 As Ternel contends the possibilities shaped by temporary initiatives cannot be argued with. It can have its own place in society; permanence is evidently not the only solution. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 30!Denton,!Urban+Pioneers:+Berlin:+Stadtentwicklung+durch+Zwischennutzung.+p.23.! 31!Ternel,!‘The+Temporary+City’+in+Haydn+and+Ternel,!Temporary!Spaces,!p.55.! !

25!

26!

CONCLUSION At the beginning of this dissertation, I set out to explore how temporary initiatives can draw on the richness of everyday experience and how something that lasts for a fleeting moment can lead to long-term sustainable development. Having intended to discuss how success of temporary initiatives can be measured, it is evident that measuring their impact is subjective. You cannot compare the success of the now worldwide recognition of Park(ing) Day to the local legacy that was instigated by Union Street’s urban orchard. They are not relative. After investigating our perception of ‘temporary’, it is clear that temporary urbanism has its own place in urban settings, enabling things, which the permanent cannot. At a time when architects are diversifying in activity in a postrecession environment, it may be an appropriate method to consider due to the possibility for transformation that it offers. It is an avant-garde method of practice that suits the current urban culture. Regarding my exploration of material innovations within these temporary initiatives, it is clear that there is capacity for us to reimagine the materials we know. It is not solely how we value the impact that is important; the more successful projects have a level of recognition between the materials and the users, reunifying designing and making into one practice. Having explored time and the built environment it is unequivocal that temporary urbanism is focused on narrative and time, and consequently can only be reviewed in regard to the standards of the time and the place it was in. A small change can cause a big impact. This is certain. However, the assessment of scale is still in question. What is big? What is impact? When instigating change, you have to start small. Locality is key, and maintaining the narrative and agenda that you have set out to achieve. There are a multitude of problems to solve in the urban metropolis, yet the most notable initiatives are the ones that address only one key issue. Urban environments revolve around the people inside them, and so those people must be at the forefront of any redevelopment. Capital investment is rendered useless unless the social capital takes precedence. “Improving the livability of our towns and cities commonly starts at the street, block, or building scale.”32 We live in cities that were designed for us, now it is our turn to re-design them. Both the permanent and the impermanent have their places in the urban environment, however it is the temporary that can slot in to suit the commonplace, routine proceedings of our lives. They enliven the urban experience. A small change, can make a big impact. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 32!Lydon,!Tactical!Urbanism!‘Short+Term+Action,+Long+Term+Change’! !

27!

"What are and what would be the most successful places? How can they be discovered? According to which criteria? What are the times and rhythms of daily life which are inscribed and prescribed in these ‘successful’ spaces favorable to happiness? That is interesting.”33 Henri Lefebvre

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 33!Lefebvre,!Writings+on+Cities.+(Cambridge,!Mass,!USA:!Blackwell!Publishers,! 1996)!p.151.! !

28!

BIBLIOGRAPHY Books: Abercrombie, Sir Patrick. Greater London Plan 1944. (London : H.M.S.O. 1945) Bishop, Peter and Williams, Lesley. The Temporary City. (London: Routledge, 2012) Broto, Carles. Urban Spaces: Design and Innovation. (Barcelona : Links Books 2013) Denton, Jill. Urban Pioneers: Berlin: Stadtentwicklung durch Zwischennutzung. (Berlin, Germany: Jovis, 2007) Gehl, Jan and Svarre, Birgitte. How to Study Public Life. (Washington, DC : Island Press 2013) Healey, Patsy. Collaborative Planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006) Lefebvre, Henri. Writings on Cities. (Cambridge, Mass, USA: Blackwell Publishers, 1996) Madanipour, Ali. Whose Public Space? International case studies in urban design and development (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2010) Oswalt, Philipp and Overmeyer, Klaus and Misselwitz, Philipp. Urban Catalyst: The Power of Temporary Use. (Berlin: Dom Pub, 2013) ! Price, Cedric. The Square Book. (Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Academy, 2003) Sale, Kirkpatrick. Human Scale. (New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1980) Sennet, Richard. Craftsman. (London: Penguin Group, 2007) !

Online Resources: Lydon, Mike. Tactical Urbanism â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Short Term Action, Long Term Changeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; <http://issuu.com/streetplanscollaborative/docs/tactical_urbanism_vol_2_fin al?e=4528751/2585800> (accessed 3rd October 2014) Rebar, Parking Day. <http://parkingday.org/about-parking-day/> (accessed 4th January 2015)

29!

Till, Jeremy and Awan, Nishat and Schneider, Tatjana. Spatial Agency Cedric Price <http://www.spatialagency.net/database/price> (accessed 15th November 2014) Till, Jeremy and Lossifova, Deljana and Sengupta, Ulysses. Eric Cheung, Scarcity isâ&#x20AC;Ś (Funded by HERA, 2010-2013) <Scarcity.is> (accessed 20th November 2014) Design Museum, Cedric Price. <http://design.designmuseum.org/design/cedric-price> (accessed 15th November 2014) ! Killing Architects, Urban tactics â&#x20AC;&#x201C; temporary interventions + long term planning. (Rotterdam, Netherlands) http://www.killingarchitects.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/05/UrbanTactics_TempInterventions+LongTermPlann ing.pdf (accessed 16th November 2014) Scarcity and Creativity in the Built Environment, (Research Project funded by HERA).!<Scibe.eu> (accessed 16th November 2014) Private Correspondence: Frances Edgerley, Assemble Architects, Interview, Private Correspondence (3rd January 2015) ! !

30!