Dissertation - Olivia Irwin by IA_UNSW

Temporary interiors within contemporary ruins A sustainable urban regeneration strategy

Olivia Irwin

Bachelor of Interior Architecture (Honors) Third Year Dissertation

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Built Environment

Individual Plagiarism Declaration z5157087

Irwin

Student Number

Family Name

INTA2411

Dissertation

Course ID

Course Name

T3 2019 Session & Year

Olivia Other Names

Dissertation Title of the Assessment Task to which this Declaration applies

Sing D'Arcy / Alanya Drummond (Supervisor) Lecturer

I declare that: •

this assessment item is my own work, except where acknowledged, and has not been submitted for academic credit elsewhere;

•

all reasonable care has been taken to ensure that no other person has been able to copy this work either in paper or electronic form.

I acknowledge that the assessor of this item may, for the purpose of assessing this item: •

reproduce this assessment item and provide a copy to another member of the University; and/or,

•

communicate a copy of this assessment item to a plagiarism checking service (which may then retain a copy of the assessment item on its database for the purpose of future plagiarism checking).

I certify that I have read and understood the University rules in respect of Student Academic Misconduct.

02.12.19 Signature

Date

Plagiarism is the use another's work pretending that it is your own. More specifically, in an educational context, plagiarism is endeavouring to obtain academic credit in a course of study for work that is either not individually prepared by you or prepared by you, but for some other purpose, whether paid or unpaid. The following web sites expand more fully on the nature and consequences of plagiarism and must be read prior to submitting this declaration. http://www.lc.unsw.edu.au/onlib/plag.html http://www.be.unsw.edu.au/student-intranet/assignments-and-plagiarism/

INTA2411 Dissertation, 2019

Abstract As the global rate of urbanisation increases, land space has become more valuable than ever. Due to a rising awareness of resource limitations and the need for sustainable design practice, many cities are adopting adaptive reuse strategies. Architectural discourse tends to highlight the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings, prioritising the preservation of valuable design artefacts. However the subject of non-listed buildings that have fallen into disuse â&#x20AC;&#x201C; commonly referred to as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;contemporary ruinsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; - is less thoroughly investigated. This dissertation analyses the benefits of the adaptive reuse of contemporary ruins, focusing on the positive impact of repurposing these ordinary environments; socially, economically and environmentally. The dissertation progresses to identify appropriate interior strategies that may be applied in the revival of such vacant sites. It is argued that temporary interventions, as opposed to permanent restorations, may be a more sustainable strategy for activating abandoned floor space within high-density urban environments globally. A theoretical framework is established by correlating criteria for success in temporary interventions against those of urban regeneration and identifying their combined potential. This framework is tested through an analysis of three successful temporary interior interventions within contemporary ruins in global cities throughout the 21st Century. Through an investigative study, this dissertation offers insight into the value of this innovative sustainability strategy to address the ever changing, evolving needs of our cities and their inhabitants.

Acknowledgements I would like thank Dr Alanya Drummond for her guidance, support and critical feedback throughout the research process. Her feedback was considered, constructive and her passion and enthusiasm made it a very enjoyable process. I would also like to thank the University of NSW and the Faculty of the Built Environment for providing me with the necessary resources to undertake my research. I would like to thank Lauren Irwin for proof reading this dissertation and providing useful feedback.

List of Illustrations Figure 3.01

Exterior view of The Lido at 100 Union Street Southwark, London, 2008, EXYZT,

(Source: NIEA, 2012, Southwark Lido â&#x20AC;&#x201C; EXYZT and Sara Muzio, Curating Cities, NSW, http://eco-publicart.org/southwark-lido/)

Figure 3.02

The Lido at night hosting film and drinks for visitors at 100 Union Street Southwark, London, 2008, EXYZT, (Source: The Architecture Foundation, SouthWark Lido 9-13 July 2008, London, https://www.architecturefoundation.org.uk/programme/2008/ lfa2008/southwark-lido.)

Figure 3.03

The Lido during the day hosting picnics & a community pool at 100 Union Street Southwark, London, 2008, EXYZT, (Source: The Architecture Foundation, South-

Wark Lido 9-13 July 2008, London, https://www.architecturefoundation.org.uk/programme/2008/lfa2008/southwark-lido.) Figure 3.04

The Lido, gathering of community at 100 Union Street Southwark, London, 2008,

Figure 3.05

The Lido beach huts open to the community for relaxation and rest at 100 Union

EXYZT (Source: EXYZT 2009, Southwark Lido, http://southwarklido.wordpress.com.) Street Southwark, London, 2008, EXYZT. (Source: The Architecture Foundation,

SouthWark Lido 9-13 July 2008, London, https://www.architecturefoundation.org. uk/programme/2008/lfa2008/southwark-lido.) Figure 3.06

The Urban Orchid at 100 Union Street Southwark, 2010, Heather Ring (Source: Sol-

idspace 2019, 100 Union Street, London, United Kingdom, https://solidspace.co.uk/ projects/100-union-street-meanwhile-space/.)

Figure 3.07

Figure 3.08

Figure 3.09

Figure 3.10

Figure 3.11

The Union Physic Garden at 100 Union Street Southwark, 2011, Wayward Plant Registry (Source: Solidspace 2019, 100 Union Street, London, United Kingdom, https:// solidspace.co.uk/projects/100-union-street-meanwhile-space/.)

The ReUNION at 100 Union Street Southwark, 2012, EXYZT (Source: Solidspace

2019, 100 Union Street, London, United Kingdom, https://solidspace.co.uk/projects/100-union-street-meanwhile-space/.)

The Lake at 100 Union Street Southwark, 2014, EXYZT (Source: Solidspace 2019,

100 Union Street, London, United Kingdom, https://solidspace.co.uk/projects/100union-street-meanwhile-space/.)

Oslof Jordweg Student Housing, 2011, Te Kiefte Architects (Source: NDSM, Temporary Container Units, Amsterdam, https://www.ndsm.nl/en/location/tijdelijke-containerwoningen/ )

IJ-hallen flea market, NDSM Wharf (Source: I Amsterdam, 2019, NDSM Wharf, Amsterdam, https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/about-amsterdam/amsterdam-neighbourhoods/ndsm)

List of Illustrations (continued) Figure 3.12

Studio maker space at MANY 6160 in 2 Newman Ct, Fremantle, Western Australia, Spacemarket, (Source: Spacemarket, MANY 6160, https://www.spacemarket.com. au/many-6160.)

Figure 3.13

Gallery space at MANY 6160 in 2 Newman Ct, Fremantle, Western Australia, Spacemarket, (Source: NAVA, 2016, The rise of maker spaces in Perth, NAVA, Australia, https://visualarts.net.au/news-opinion/2016/rise-maker-spaces-perth/)

Figure 3.14

Retail space at MANY 6160 in 2 Newman Ct, Fremantle, Western Australia, Spacemarket, (Source: Spacemarket, MANY 6160, https://www.spacemarket.com.au/ many-6160.)

Figure 3.15

Rooftop bar at MANY 6160 in 2 Newman Ct, Fremantle, Western Australia, Spacemarket, (Source: Spacemarket, MANY 6160, https://www.spacemarket.com.au/ many-6160.)

Table of Contents Introduction

Chapter 1

Contemporary Ruins

Chapter 2

Temporary Interventions

Chapter 3

Case Studies

Conclusion

References

Introduction

This dissertation explores temporary intervention as a strategy to adaptively reuse

contemporary ruins within high-density urban areas.

As the density of our cities increases, planners, developers and designers are being forced

to rethink the way space is utilised. It is valuable to consider appropriate interior strategies that may be applied in the revival of the vacant spaces of our cities. Regeneration through temporary activation addresses the need to accommodate the rapidly evolving requirements of our urban communities.

Chapter 1 of this dissertation will examine the reasons to adopt adaptive reuse strategies.

It will provide a statistical overview of the environmental impact of the built environment as this aligns with the emergence of adaptive reuse strategies. This chapter will explore the social, environmental and economic significance of adaptive reuse strategies for both heritage and contemporary ruins. Given the large body of research on heritage activation, a greater emphasis will be placed on exploring the renewed value of adaptively reusing contemporary ruins in our urban environments and the possibilities they present. The necessity to activate contemporary ruins will be explored through addressing the risks associated when they are left abandoned.

Chapter 2 of this dissertation will explore temporary activation as a solution to activating

contemporary ruins. The factors that have led to the rise of temporary interventions will be analysed, to assist in understanding the origin of this phenomenon. The advantages of temporary interventions over permanent solutions will be evaluated to highlight the benefits of impermanence. This chapter will determine the opportunities that temporary intervention strategies provide, by considering situations of social, economic and environmental uncertainty they can address. Through considered analysis of existing literature, a theoretical framework will be established to determine the key components that constitute a successful temporary intervention of a contemporary ruin. 6

The final chapter will provide a case study analysis of three successful temporary

interventions. The success of these case studies will be established through demonstrating a direct correlation with the theoretical framework synthesised from Chapter 2. The case studies will be; ‘The Lido’ in London (2008), ‘Oslof Jordweg Student Housing’ in Amsterdam (2005) and ‘MANY 6160’ in Perth (2013-17). The selected case studies will be examples of 21st Century interventions that display multiple programs within the activated spaces. They have been selected from different cities to demonstrate the global nature of the phenomenon but also to show a diverse array of responses, relevant to each location. Another commonality of the case studies is that they are all examples of temporary interiors implemented within an intermediate time of development. They act as interim spatial solutions to fill not only the time gap between longer-term development plans, but the physical gaps in our cities that are waiting to be reinvigorated.

Chapter 1: Contemporary Ruins

The following chapter will explore the significance of adaptive reuse and reactivation of

existing built forms in high-density urban environments. It will discuss the types of buildings that have the potential be reactivated, with an emphasis on the renewed importance of activating contemporary ruins as a means of urban regeneration. Contemporary ruins are valuable resources that have the potential to enrich the surrounding community when activated. This activation is socially, economically and environmentally sustainable, providing opportunity to alter the way existing resources are utilised in our urban environments. Researchers of interior design and urban development, Barbara Camocini and Oxana Nosova (2017) provide an argument that explores the potential of utilising contemporary ruins through adaptive reuse strategies. For the purpose of this dissertation, the term “contemporary ruins” will be defined by Camocini and Nosova’s definition; “…a recently built structure, dating back to no more than 100 years, in which humans are no longer present but are directly involved in the reasons for its disuse and abandonment” (Camocini & Nosova 2017, p.1558). This definition refers to unfinished and abandoned buildings in urban environments and the term will be used interchangeably with the term ‘vacant’ throughout this paper. Also, throughout this dissertation the terms “activation”, “renewal” and “regeneration” will be used interchangeably in the context of vacant urban sites.

Our existing built environment is increasingly becoming recognised as a valuable resource.

Urban theorist, Jane Jacobs, articulates; “designing a dream city is easy, whereas rebuilding a living one requires imagination.” (Jacobs 1958, p.8). According to the 2009 United Nations Environment Program, the built environment contributes to 40% of total greenhouse gas emissions (UNEP 2009). There has been a shift from focussing on the construction of new, sustainable building methods, to the adaptation and reuse of the existing built environment. It has been predicted that 87% of the buildings we will need in 2050 have already been built (Kelly 2008 in Wilkinson & Remoy 2017, p.1). The unprecedented demographic growth and dramatic increase in the rate of 8

urbanisation since the 20th century in countries all over the world has seen cities expanding at a rate never before seen in history (Burdett & Sudjic 2007 in Enia & Martella 2019, p.156). This has led to a shift in the role of architectural preservation with a growing emphasis on sustainability and urban renewal (Misirlisoy, D & Günçe K 2016, p.92). This affirms the need to utilise our existing built environment as a resource for urban regeneration globally.

Adaptive reuse is defined by the Australian Government’s Department of the Environment

and Heritage as; “…a process that changes a disused or ineffective item into a new item that can be used for a different purpose.” (DEH 2004, p.3). In relation to the built environment it involves a change in function and restoration of a building following a former decommissioning condition, therefore extending its life span (Camocini & Nosova 2017, p.1560). Extending the life cycle of our buildings allows for the retention of a building’s embodied energy. “Embodied energy” is defined as; “the energy consumed by all of the processes associated with the production of building” (DEH 2004, p.4). The Australian Government’s Department of the Environment and Heritage found that new buildings were responsible for 40% of annual energy and raw material consumption, 45% of carbon dioxide production, 44% of landfill, and up to half of the total greenhouse gas emissions from industrialised countries (DEH 2004, p.4). Reusing existing building materials, however, saves approximately 95% of embodied energy that would be lost otherwise, emphasising the significance of adaptive reuse (DEH, 2004, p.4). Not only does adaptive reuse have economic and environmental benefits, it is socially sustainable as it allows for the recycling and reusing of social significance that is embodied in those materials; “Just as we might capture and recycle the embodied energy, we can capture and recycle the social energy.” (Brilliant & Kinney 2011 in Crowther 2016, p.66).

The adaptive reuse of heritage buildings is not a new phenomenon but a strategy that has

demonstrated substantial benefits, and this has been explored extensively throughout architectural 9

discourse. Socially, the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings can maintain the identity of the building, restore the heritage value of a site and prolong its existence (DEH 2004, p.4). Through repurposing a disused site of historical significance, it prolongs its value as; “one does not need to replace historically developed identities overnight by manufacturing new ones” (Ruby & Ruby 2010, p.245). Researchers of architecture and urban studies, Damla Misirlisoy and Kagan Günçe express the necessity of adaptive reuse for heritage buildings when their original function has become redundant. They discuss the significance of transferring a building’s cultural identity to future generations as a means of maintaining and conserving the building’s value (Misirlisoy & Günçe 2016, p.92). The adaptive reuse of heritage buildings does however face challenges, particularly when allocating the new function of the building. Misirlisoy and Günçe define a successful adaptation as one that “respects the existing building and its historic context and adds a contemporary layer to the heritage building rather than destroying its character” (2016, p.91). It is important the site is analysed holistically in relation to its physicality, heritage value and potential in order to decide the most appropriate adapted function (Misirlisoy & Günçe 2016, p.92).

This dissertation will focus on the less explored area of adaptively reusing contemporary

ruins in urban environments. There are many reasons as to why buildings become contemporary ruins. These include political, social and environmental factors (Misirlisoy & Günçe 2016, p.92). Such reasons that are consistent throughout literature include changing economic and industrial practices, increased cost in maintenance of a site, demographic shifts or that the site is no longer suited to its initial function (Bishop & Williams 2002, DEH 2004, Misirlisoy & Günçe 2016). The industrial restructuring that has occurred since the 1960s has been a cause of contemporary ruins, including the loss of mining, engineering and textile industries. (Bishop & Williams 2012, Misirlisoy & Günçe 2016). Another cause for contemporary ruins is the introduction of new technologies, as the need for inner city storage spaces has lost demand (Bishop & Williams 10

2012). Camocini and Nosova articulate; “…today’s people are often directly responsible for the spread of contemporary ruins, interrupting the process of construction and abandoning places that are no longer useful.” (Camocini & Nosova 2017, p.1560). Another major factor impacting the availability of contemporary ruins was the global financial crisis of 2008 that resulted in the immediate withdrawal of funds from the property market. This led to building developments being paused, abandoned or replanned (Bishop & Williams 2012, p.24). It is therefore evident that there is an increase in the prevalence of contemporary ruins globally in our urban environments which provide opportunity for activation.

Australian professor Philip Crowther, who has done extensive research into establishing

a sustainable built environment argues that as the pace of development increases and the life span of buildings decreases, there has become a need to reuse and recycle our built urban environment (Crowther 2016, p.65). Although buildings may be built to last up to 100 years, they are often demolished at an age as young as 15 years or less for new developments, in order to meet evolving consumer requirements (Durmisevic & Yeang 2009, p.134 in Crowther 2016, p.65). This emphasises the need to look for alternative strategies to keep up with evolving consumer requirements in relation to the use of urban space. The activation of contemporary ruins provides an opportunity to maximise the value of space. Researchers of architecture and urban planning, Marco Enia and Flavio Martella propose the idea of “reducing architecture”, where few yet accurate actions are undertaken to activate a site (Enia & Martella 2019, p.157). Activating sites through architectural interventions that have a minimal presence emphasises the potential to regenerate contemporary ruins (Enia and Martella 2019, p.162). Camocini and Nosova reflect on the relationship of people today with contemporary ruins, highlighting the sustained social energy within these built forms. They believe that the ruins impact individuals directly as the built forms were designed for the people of today who, in turn, contributed to the buildings abandonment 11

in the first place (Camocini & Nosova 2017, p.1560). They believe that as the people of today are often directly accountable for the spread of contemporary ruins in our recent history, the ruins are recognised by locals as part of their own history and therefore there lies an inherent connection (Camocini and Nosova 2019, p.1564). Similarly, Enia and Martella (2019) suggest that not only has adaptive reuse contributed to the development of historic cities, but in our current cities it allows architecture to build a strong connection between people and urban space (Enia & Martella 2019, p.157). Camocini and Nosova articulate; “The adaptive reuse process can thus provide an opportunity to reunite local culture with vacant structures, even though they are reinterpreted through new functions and meanings.” (2017, p.1564).

The reclamation of contemporary ruins is beneficial to our “urban health” (Enia & Martella

2019, p.159). The significance of this can be realised through exploring the associated risks with leaving these spaces unactivated. Camocini and Nosova propose that contemporary ruins have negative connotations associated with them when they are not activated. These include issues with security and spreading of depreciation through adjacent suburbs (Camocini & Nosova 2017, p.1559). According to a study regarding vacant land and urban health, a neighbourhood dominated by vacant or abandoned built forms was associated with decreased physical health, mental health and wellbeing (Garvin et al 2013, p.412). Vacant land was associated with increased crime which instilled fear in individuals who were in the area. The study also revealed that vacant land overshadowed positive aspects of the community, impacting mental health through associated stigma and anxiety (Garvin et al 2013, p.412). Correspondingly, researchers from the Australian Cities Research Network (ACRN) argue that; “Vacant and underutilised spaces convey a negative image of a city and are not conducive to social interactions, or an enjoyable urban experience” (Shaw & Sivam 2015, p.1). When vacant buildings are not utilised, they are a “wasted resource” and reduce the confidence of a community by detracting foot traffic and 12

discouraging activity (Shaw & Sivam, 2015 p.1). On the other hand, if contemporary ruins are activated, it ensures cultural, economic and social benefits for built communities, whilst promoting sustainability within the built environment (Misirlisoy & Günçe 2016, p.92). The reactivation of contemporary ruins helps to lower energy consumption, reduce material usage and pollution (Misirlisoy & Günçe 2016, p.92).

This chapter has argued that the process of adaptive reuse is a significant strategy in

improving the sustainability and longevity of our built environment. It has been identified that adaptive reuse provides social, environmental and economic benefits, contributing to the vital process of urban regeneration. Contemporary ruins have been established as important spaces to address in relation to their potential to benefit our urban communities through activation. Contemporary ruins have been recognised as a valuable resource and it has become apparent that leaving them vacant is detrimental to communities. It is therefore important to understand how contemporary ruins in high-density urban areas can be successfully activated. Temporary activation as a solution to activating contemporary ruins will be dissected in Chapter 2, along with an analysis of the drivers and conditions that have led to the rise of temporary interventions.

Chapter 2: Temporary Interventions

As demonstrated in Chapter 1, it is valuable to activate contemporary ruins within high-

density urban areas. Activating contemporary ruins has the potential to transform an area’s identity, increase the sense of safety within a community, and utilise existing resources that may have otherwise been left untouched. It has been demonstrated that it is both environmentally, economically and socially sustainable to activate vacant urban sites.

Contemporary ruins can be activated through permanent intervention, or by “interim” or

“temporary” intervention. The following chapter will argue the benefits of temporary intervention strategies as a solution to activating contemporary ruins within high-density urban environments. They can be advantageous over permanent interventions as they provide efficient, responsive and innovative solutions that are reactive to the constant change and evolution of our cities and their inhabitants. The transient nature of these interior strategies offers opportunity to address volatile economic, political and environmental situations efficiently, effectively and without the longterm implications of permanent solutions. The drivers and conditions that have led to the rise of temporary interventions will be addressed in this chapter and the significance of this phenomenon will be highlighted.

Peter Bishop and Lesley William’s reputable book, The Temporary City, addresses the

increased interest in temporary interventions in our urban areas. The text explores the origins behind temporary use in urban areas, highlighting drivers that are commonly acknowledged in existing literature. The text provides sixty-eight case studies from around the world, reflecting the global nature of this phenomenon. Due to the highly cited nature of this text, throughout this dissertation the term “temporary use” will adopt Bishop and Williams definition, “…not based on the nature of the use, or whether rent is paid, or whether a use is formal or informal, or even on the scale, endurance or longevity… but rather the intention of the user, developer or planner that the use should be temporary.” (Bishop & Williams 2012, p5). The term intervene comes from 14

Latin origin intervenire; inter – ‘between’ and venire - ‘come’ and therefore an intervention is an event occurring in the time between events. Thus, the term “temporary intervention” will be used interchangeably with the term “temporary use”, as it is reflective of an interim usage of a space.

According to Crowther, it is becoming increasingly apparent that our built environment is

no longer constructed with the same element of permanence as it has been in the past (Crowther 2016, p.64). The notion of permanence is becoming less prevalent, with an increase in the number of temporary spaces. Ruby and Ruby assert that the architectural profession, “is currently mutating from a producer of monuments to a curator of their transformation” (Ruby & Ruby 2010, p.246). This is reflective of the need to utilise existing buildings through effective strategies such as temporary activation. Bishop and Williams argue the benefit of temporary interventions as filling the gaps of our cities and enlivening the urban experience when incorporated sensitively into our urban environment (Bishop & Williams 2012, p5). Professor and researcher of urban sociology, Rossana Galdini, proposes that temporary activation is a valuable strategy when addressing challenging locations as it realises the potential for “inactive” or “obsolete” spaces to become usable resources for urban development (Galdini 2018, p.4).

There are multiple drivers and conditions that have led to the prevalence of temporary

interventions within the contemporary ruins of our urban environments. The following will explore uncertainty as a major contributing factor. Crowther acknowledges that temporary interventions are not a new social phenomenon, however their presence has become increasingly evident since the last decades of the 20th century (Crowther 2016, p.64). Temporary interventions have particularly been prevalent in disaster relief where efficient, immediate interior architecture is required to address crisis situations. Environmental uncertainty through raised awareness of climate change and natural disasters has created a need for responsive, immediate interventions in times of environmental change (Bishop & Williams 2012, p.21). An increased awareness of 15

sustainable development and need to adopt reuse strategies has seen a shift in thinking of how space is utilised to maximise existing resources (Galdini 2018, p.1). Political and economic uncertainty that manifested as a result of major global events such as the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, the end of communist rule in 1989 in Central and Eastern Europe, and the global financial crisis in 2008, has contributed to this global sense of uncertainty (Bishop & Williams 2012, p.21). Madanipour suggests that temporary use of space can be characterised by the search of opportunity within uncertainty (Madanipour 2018, p.1101).

The increased value of space is another major factor that has led to the rise of temporary

interventions. Multi-use spaces are becoming more common, where intensification of activity is encouraged to maximise the usage of space (Bishop & Williams 2012, p.28) An example of this is school playgrounds transforming into farmer’s markets, car boot sales or pop up stalls on the weekend. Bishop and Williams suggest that the growth in urban population densities, increased disposable income and changing consumer needs is reflected in the activation of public urban spaces such as markets, festivals and exhibitions (Bishop & Williams 2012, p.27). Crowther correspondingly articulates that public urban spaces are becoming increasingly; “…temporary, transient and ephemeral” (Crowther 2016, p.63). Another driver for temporary interventions is the revolution in employment, where there has been an increase in flexible working conditions. The floor space required for businesses has decreased as a result of virtual connectedness, more flexibility in the workplace and an increase in self-employment, “…work itself is evolving into a sequence of temporary projects that are diverse in range and may operate from different bases within the city” (Bishop & Williams 2012, p.27). This has contributed to the multi-use of space, as changing functions in the workplace begin to reflect changing lifestyles and working diversity. Another contributing factor is the development of new technologies which has allowed temporary interventions to thrive as they can be readily accessed. The internet and social media allows 16

for temporary events to be advertised efficiently, which is significant as these events are often transient, short in duration and require awareness to capture visitors such as a pop-up festival. (Bishop & Williams 2012, p.32).

The activation of contemporary ruins through temporary interior architecture provides

the opportunity for experimentation and creative outlet, giving rise to social innovation and experimentation. Galdini describes contemporary ruins as “urban laboratories” that allow specific parts of the city to be strategically reinvented. She suggests that temporary adaptive reuse through functions such as temporary marketplaces and gardens, “pave the way for social innovation, promoting social cohesion and environmental values” (Galdini 2018, p.2). Galdini further asserts that temporary activation of space encourages entrepreneurship and creativity (Galdini 2018, p.3). Innovative solutions for spaces can be tested, providing an opportunity to assess the potential of a space. Researchers in the field of land use planning and sustainable urban development, Hannah Shaw and Dr Alpana Sivam confirm this benefit, suggesting that temporary interventions offer an opportunity for creativity due to the limited financial risk associated. (Shaw & Sivam 2015, p.5). They argue that idea testing can range from guiding longer term decisions, to supporting small business creative projects or installations (Shaw & Sivam 2015, p.5). Camocini and Nosova further propose that a temporary intervention not only allows for the testing of new functions but also for the immediate interpretation of the needs within an area, thus being responsive to current situations (Camocini & Nosova 2017, p.1561). Enia and Martella argue that temporary interventions have an advantage over permanent interventions as they are often developed quicker, require little planning and therefore can address situations more efficiently. They allow sites to be reclaimed that otherwise would be subject to long-term vacancy. (Enia and Martella 2019, p.158). This highlights the significance of temporary intervention as being a responsive and reactive strategy to address the current needs and requirements at a point in time. 17

The opportunity of temporary interior architecture to provide changing, evolving spaces,

creates incentive and interest for individuals to return to these activated urban locations. The nature of temporary use allows individuals of a community to partake in shaping their cities, as their participation is often essential to the intervention’s success (Shaw & Sivam 2015, p.5). Bishop and Williams suggest that the increase in pop-up spatial interventions is reflective of the perpetual pursuit to provide new consumer experiences that are often heightened with timelimited exclusivity (Bishop & Williams 2012, p.24). As consumers are becoming intrigued by the indulgence of fleeting, ephemeral experiences, the usual boundaries of consumption are often challenged and blurred in temporary interventions. This can occur in interventions such as pop-up retail shops, pop-up restaurants, markets and art exhibitions that challenge existing conventions (Bishop & Williams, p.214). Bishop and Williams suggest that temporary interventions are a strategy for dealing with the constant change within our society, especially in times of economic uncertainty (Bishop & Williams 2012, p.3). The flexibility they offer; “might be part of a solution to the challenges that are facing cities as they struggle to adapt to the conditions of the twenty-first century” (Bishop & Williams 2012, p.4). Temporary activation is a planning strategy for cities as a means of urban regeneration (Galdini 2018, p.7).

In conclusion, temporary use provides opportunity for cities, planners and communities to

adapt in times of uncertainty. This opportunity allows producers to maximise assets, authorities to avoid image deterioration, entrepreneurs to test creativity, corporate bodies to gain exposure and the built environment to be renewed (Madanipour 2018, p.1101). This chapter has showcased the benefits of temporarily occupying contemporary ruins in high-density urban areas. The factors that have been established as contributing to a successful temporary use strategy have been synthesised to the four following elements to form a framework for Chapter 3’s case study analysis.

It can therefore be argued that a successful temporary intervention of a contemporary ruin:

•

Reinvigorates a community

•

Utilises unused space as a valuable resource

•

Is responsive and reactive to the current needs

•

Allows for experimentation, creative outlet and innovation

Chapter 3 will provide an analysis of three contemporary examples of successful temporary interventions within high-density urban environments corresponding with the above framework.

Chapter 3: Case Studies

The previous chapter has explored temporary intervention as a solution to activating

contemporary ruins within urban environments. Chapter 2 formulated the following framework to determine what defines a successful temporary intervention of a contemporary ruin. •

Reinvigorates a community

•

Utilises unused space as a valuable resource

•

Is responsive and reactive to the current needs

•

Allows for experimentation, creative outlet and innovation

The following chapter will analyse three case studies that present a successful temporary

intervention in accordance with the framework established in Chapter 2. Temporary intervention is prevalent globally and therefore the chosen case studies will be located in different cities. For the purpose of this dissertation, the three case studies will be 21st Century projects and will all display multiple programs within the space. The case studies provided demonstrate temporary use of space in the interim prior to a long-term development plan for their respective location.

Case Study 1: The Lido, 2008, EXYZT Architects, 100 Union St Southwark, London, England

Solid space’s site at 100 Union Street in Southwark London is an area of abandoned land

adjacent to a railway (Figure 3.01).

Figure 3.01. Exterior view of ‘The Lido’ showing the activation of an unused urban space next to a railway, 100 Union Street Southwark, London, 2008, EXYZT (Source: NIEA, 2012, Southwark Lido – EXYZT and Sara Muzio, Curating Cities, NSW, http://eco-publicart.org/southwark-lido/)

The site was used to host “meanwhile spaces” prior to the development of a self-contained

office building in 2017 (Solidspace 2019). The first activation of the site was “The Lido”. In 2008, French architects, EXYZT implemented a temporary intervention to activate this contemporary ruin as part of the London Festival of Architecture. This transient intervention reinvigorated the surrounding community by providing a venue for social interaction and gathering. The Lido consisted of beach huts, a bar, pool, chairs and a sundeck that welcomed multiple functions of picnics, post school clubs, a film club and late-night drinks (Figures 3.02, 3.03, 3.04, 3.05). The multiple uses and changing function of the space demonstrates the intervention utilising an unused space as a valuable resource.

Figure 3.02. ‘The Lido’ at night hosting film and drinks for visitors demonstrating the evolving use of the space, 100 Union Street Southwark, London, 2008, EXYZT. (Source: The Architecture Foundation, SouthWark Lido 9-13 July 2008, London, https://www.architecturefoundation.org.uk/programme/2008/lfa2008/southwark-lido.)

Figure 3.03. ‘The Lido’ during the day hosting picnics & a pool showcasing community engagement, 100 Union Street Southwark, London, 2008, EXYZT. (Source: The Architecture Foundation, SouthWark Lido 9-13 July 2008, London, https://www.architecturefoundation.org.uk/programme/2008/lfa2008/southwark-lido.)

Figure 3.04. ‘The Lido’, gath-

Figure 3.05. ‘The Lido’ beach huts open to the community for relaxation and

ering of community, 100 Union

rest demonstrating how temporary interiors can transform the use of space,

Street Southwark, London,

100 Union Street Southwark, London, 2008, EXYZT. (Source: The Architecture

2008, EXYZT (Source: EXYZT

Foundation, SouthWark Lido 9-13 July 2008, London, https://www.architec-

2009, Southwark Lido, http://

turefoundation.org.uk/programme/2008/lfa2008/southwark-lido.)

southwarklido.wordpress.com.)

The space was created in order to generate community involvement, where individuals

were actively engaged in creating and shaping their urban environment. EXYZT Architects describe architecture as a “means of opening up a space for invention, creation, improvisation, encounter, meeting, exchange and enhancing human relationships” (EXYZT 2009). This is evident in the dynamic space established that shows an innovative response to activating a contemporary ruin. The Lido was built in four weeks and open for five days providing a fleeting, vibrant social gathering that reinvigorated the area. During the Lido’s construction, passers-by were able to see into the site to establish a connection and generate interest from the community who were integral to the project (EXYZT 2009). Being responsive and reactive to the existing concerns of sustainability, majority of the materials used were rented, borrowed or recycled post use. The project stimulated discussions on the activation of public and vacant urban spaces to enliven cities. The design was intended to utilise temporary architecture as a means of exhibiting vibrancy and change in an unused urban space. On reflection of the project’s success, developer and owner of the vacant site, Roger Zogolovich comments on temporary architecture, “They create more 22

excitement, raw expression, more passion and connectedness than permanent structures” (NIEA 2012). Subsequently, the same site was activated by four other temporary use projects to maximise the value of the space prior to its long-term development plan (Figure 3.06, 3.07, 3.08, 3.09). This interim intervention strategy allowed the area to be reinvigorated, to be adaptive to changing needs and to push the boundaries of innovation and creativity.

Figure 3.06. ‘The Urban Orchid’ demonstrating commu-

Figure 3.07. ‘The Union Physic Garden’ establishing

nity engagement through an interactive pop up space,

a community gathering, 100 Union Street Southwark,

100 Union Street Southwark, 2010, Heather Ring (Source:

2011, Wayward Plant Registry (Source: Solidspace

Solidspace 2019, 100 Union Street, London, United King-

2019, 100 Union Street, London, United Kingdom,

dom, https://solidspace.co.uk/projects/100-union-street-

https://solidspace.co.uk/projects/100-union-street-

meanwhile-space/.)

Figure 3.08. ‘The ReUNION’ demonstrating a creative

Figure 3.09. ‘The Lake’; 100 Union Street’s final inter-

pop up bar/ cinema interior, 100 Union Street South-

vention prior to long term development, Southwark,

wark, 2012, EXYZT (Source: Solidspace 2019, 100 Union

2014, EXYZT (Source: Solidspace 2019, 100 Union

Street, London, United Kingdom, https://solidspace.

co.uk/projects/100-union-street-meanwhile-space/.)

Case Study 2: Oslof Jordweg Student Housing, 2005, Te Kiefte Architects, NDSM Wharf, Amsterdam, Netherlands

NDSM Wharf in Amsterdam was directly impacted by the collapse of the shipping

industries, becoming a vast expanse of vacant land during the 1980s as wharfs were relocated. As part of the regeneration of this area, the Municipality of Amsterdam North (SDAN) proposed a competition to generate creative ideas (Bishop &Williams 2012, p.176). It now hosts performances, exhibitions, festivals and has many restaurants and bars. It acts as an incubator for creative outlet and experimentation through fleeting interventions. Amongst these temporary spaces, there is an area of temporary student housing in the form of brightly coloured shipping containers (Figure 3.10).

Figure 3.10. Oslof Jordweg Student Housing demonstrating a vibrant, efficient temporary response to a limitation in student housing in Amsterdam, 2011, Te Kiefte Architects (Source: NDSM, Temporary Container Units, Amsterdam, https://www.ndsm.nl/en/location/tijdelijke-containerwoningen/ )

There are 380 containers with each container being 24 square metres, containing its own

kitchen and bathroom. The containers are intended to be temporary and will be phased out in the year 2020 in order to clear space for permanent development that is associated with NDSMâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 24

long term strategic plan (NDSM 2019). Students in Amsterdam are increasingly unable to find housing, with the market posing challenges for students. This project is responsive and reactive to this current need and was able to efficiently address the issue in a unique, cost effective way. The modular nature of the container allows for efficient assembly and disassembly when required. The colours add vibrancy to the area and present a simple design solution to a prevalent issue.

The NDSM wharf is now a complex attracting more than 150 000 visitors annually to the

monthly flea markets and diverse cultural events (Bishop & Williams 2012, p.176, Figure 3.11). This large-scale example of temporary intervention of a contemporary ruin recognises the potential to enliven our urban environments. It utilises unused space as a valuable resource, maximising the potential of a vacant contemporary ruin.

Figure 3.11. IJ-hallen flea market attracting many visitors to the fleeting, transcient stalls that enliven the interior space of the abandoned wharf, NDSM Wharf (Source: I Amsterdam, 2019, NDSM Wharf, Amsterdam, https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/about-amsterdam/amsterdam-neighbourhoods/ndsm)

Case Study 3: MANY 6160, 2013-2017, Spacemarket, Fremantle, Western Australia, Australia.

The MANY 6160 project demonstrates a successful temporary intervention that maintained

the activation of a vacant department store whilst the space was undergoing replanning. The 20 000 square metre Myer department store in Fremantle closed in 2013 and only six months after this, the MANY 6160 project was implemented (Moore 2019). The project reactivated the vacant space with studios, galleries, retail stores and event spaces (Figures 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15). The temporary intervention allowed creativity to thrive by allowing independent designers, artists or small businesses to test ideas and innovate.

Figure 3.12. Studio maker space at MANY 6160 in 2

Figure 3.13. Gallery space at MANY 6160 in 2 Newman

Newman Ct, Fremantle, Western Australia, Spacemar-

Ct, Fremantle, Western Australia, Spacemarket, (Source:

ket, (Source: Spacemarket, MANY 6160, https://www.

NAVA, 2016, The rise of maker spaces in Perth, NAVA,

spacemarket.com.au/many-6160.)

Australia, https://visualarts.net.au/news-opinion/2016/ rise-maker-spaces-perth/)

Figure 3.14. Retail space at MANY 6160 in 2 Newman

Figure 3.15. Rooftop bar at MANY 6160 in 2 Newman

Ct, Fremantle, Western Australia, Spacemarket, (Source:

Spacemarket, MANY 6160, https://www.spacemarket.

com.au/many-6160.)

The MANY 6160 intervention showcased diversity and experimentation, housing 25 artists,

over 80 retail stores, 95 workshops, 70 events, 5 music videos, 5 galleries, 2 pop-up bars, over 100 business start-ups and many other programs (Sutton 2016). This hub of idea testing and innovation not only provided a low risk environment for creative outlet but reinvigorated the area.

The temporary use of the space was considered a safe space to innovate due to the limited

financial risk. The cost for a space per week was low, averaging $134.50 and the rental contracts were short (Sutton 2016). The intervention provided economic benefits, with $11,000 per week being invested back into the local community through daily employee expenditure (Sutton 2016). The local community benefitted financially, whilst improving the businesses and community confidence within the area but also the broader Fremantle community (Sutton 2016). According to Spacemarket; â&#x20AC;&#x153;MANY 6160 was shown to have reduced vandalism, deterred local crime, and contributed a 10-fold economic benefit back into the local communityâ&#x20AC;? (Spacemarket 2019). The occupation of the space acted as a surveillance and maintenance strategy for the building by eliminating the safety issues regarding vacancy. This demonstrates the intervention as being responsive and reactive to the need to maintain a safe image in the area.

The MANY 6160 is an excellent example of a successful intervention that transformed an

area that would have otherwise been left vacant and exposed to the associated risks regarding safety. The revived space allowed for a diverse array of programs and ideas to coexist and enliven the community.

In conclusion, the case studies above have demonstrated successful examples of temporary

intervention in different urban environments within the 21st Century. Each space has successfully used space as a valuable resource, testing what can be done in contemporary ruins that are destined for long term vacancy. Table 3.0 provides a synthesis of the correlation between the theoretical framework and the explored case studies, as demonstrated in this chapter. 27

Table 3.0. Theoretical framework for a successful temporary intervention correlating to explored case studies Successful temporary

Case Study 1:

Case Study 2:

Case Study 3:

intervention factor

‘The Lido’

‘Oslof Jordweg student

‘MANY 6160’

Reinvigorates a

•

Community engagement

housing’ • Vibrant, colourful

•

Increased foot traffic

community

•

Activities; picnics, post

•

A hub for designers,

•

Part of a larger

school clubs, drinks,

complex of community

artists, small businesses

swimming

gathering at the NDSM

to share with the local

Transformed the image

Wharf

community

of the area; became a

Utilises unused space as •

local gathering Activated an area of

a valuable resource

abandoned land adjacent to a railway •

•

Activated an

•

Economic benefits to

•

local community Activated a vacant

abandoned wharf •

Utilised the space

department store •

Utilised the space prior to

Subsequently occupied

prior to long term

long term development

by 4 other temporary

development plans

plans

interventions •

Utilised the space prior to long term

Is responsive and

•

development plans Responsive to

•

Responsive to

•

Maintained safety

reactive to the current

environmental concerns;

limited student

within the area; reduced

needs

materials were reused,

housing resources in

vandalism, deterred local

Allows for

recycled, borrowed Tested various programs

Amsterdam Tested the success of

•

crime Limited financial risk

•

Coexistence of different

•

experimentation,

within the space that

this form of housing

creative outlet and

evolved throughout the

that could be relocated

programs and industries

innovation

day

to future locations

to foster idea sharing

The case studies presented have explored a diverse approach to temporary intervention,

emphasising the unpredictability and creativity that comes with innovation. Each of the case studies presented demonstrate how the temporary intervention of space can be a pivotal interim step towards long-term development. Shaw and Sivam address the significance of this phenomenon as an interim planning strategy, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Whilst temporary use should not be seen as a way of avoiding the need for long-term change, planners should view temporary use projects as a means of testing ideas and incubating start-up businesses and entrepreneurial ventures to reveal the possibilities of space and fill the gaps in the meantime.â&#x20AC;? (Shaw & Sivam 2015, p.9). As planning regulations are often formulated towards permanent use, planners would benefits from reconsidering and adjusting their way of thinking.

Conclusion

This dissertation has demonstrated that temporary intervention strategies are a solution to

activating contemporary ruins and can act as a crucial agent for urban renewal. In times of volatile economic, political and environmental circumstances, the needs of people and cities are constantly evolving and shifting. It has been recognised that a greater level of flexibility can be achieved through temporary solutions over permanent interventions.

The first chapter has demonstrated that adaptive reuse can be a socially, economically and

environmentally sustainable strategy to address urban growth and resource limitation. The less explored area of contemporary ruins has been investigated, demonstrating the potential of these spaces once activated.

The second chapter has determined the opportunities that temporary interiors present

in order to renew our urban areas. They have been demonstrated to reinvigorate communities, providing unique experiences and social engagement. They also allow for testing, innovating and trialling of ideas which is a unique way for developers, planners and designers to sample future solutions with limited associated risk. Temporary use has been proven to be a successful way of maximising the value of space as it often involves interim occupation between long term planning strategies. Also, it often constitutes multiple uses of a space, with evolving functions stimulated by consumer requirements. The success of a temporary intervention was synthesised into the following four components to form the proposed theoretical framework: reinvigorates a

community, utilises unused space as a valuable resource, is responsive and reactive to the current needs, allows for experimentation, creative outlet and innovation.

The theoretical framework above has been demonstrated as viable through Chapter 3â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

case study analysis of three successful temporary interventions of urban contemporary ruins. As examined in â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The Lidoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; case study, a vacant, disused space was enlivened, stimulating community engagement and interaction. The same location successfully adopted subsequent temporary use 30

projects that varied in program, providing evidence of experimentation and idea testing. The ‘Oslof Jordweg Student Housing’ case study provided evidence of a reactive response to the limited availability of student housing within the city of Amsterdam. The project was part of a larger temporary intervention at the NDSM Wharf that established a vibrant, collaborative community promoting innovation and collaboration. The MANY 6160 project demonstrated an Australian example of temporary use. It was proven to provide great social and economic benefits to the community, stimulating discussion of the potential of temporarily occupying vacant spaces. With thousands of retail stores closing down in the past few years, this case study presents a glimpse as to what our future department stores may look like (Peterson 2019).

As the demand for space increases, impermanent opportunities for its occupation become

more sought after. The planning of our urban environments needs to accommodate for the rapidly evolving needs of consumers; temporary interiors allow for this. We need to rethink the way our cities are planned and to intermittently fill the gaps where there are longer term plans in place for development. Bishop and Williams articulate; “We deceive ourselves in believing that the world is permanent, in reality, the only certainty is that everything changes.” (Bishop & Williams, 2012, p.11). Through a greater adoption of temporary interiors, urban environments will be better able to adapt and transform according to the current needs and requirements of society.

References Australian Government: Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2004, Adaptive Reuse, Canberra. Bishop, P & Williams, L 2012, The Temporary City, Routledge, Oxon. Brilliant, R & Kinney, D 2011, Reuse Value: Spolia and Appropriation in Art and Architecture from

Constantine to Sherrie Levine, Farnham, Ashgate.

Burdett, R & Sudjic, D 2007, The Endless City, Phaidon Press, London. Camocini, B & Nosova O 2017, ‘A second life for Contemporary Ruins. Temporary Adaptive Reuse

strategies of Interior Design to reinterpret vacant spaces’, The Design Journal, vol. 20, no.1,

pp. 1558-1565.

Crowther, P 2016, ‘Temporary Public Spaces: A Technological Paradigm’, The journal of Public

Space, vol. no.1, pp. 63-74. Durmisevic, E & Yeang, K 2009, ‘Designing for Disassembly (DfD)’, Architectural Design, vol. 79,

no.6, pp.134-137.

Enia, M & Martella, F 2019, ‘Reducing Architecture: Doing almost nothing as a city-making strategy

in 21st century architecture’, Frontiers of Architectural Research, vol. 8, pp. 154-168.

EXYZT 2009, ‘Southwark Lido’, http://southwarklido.wordpress.com (accessed November 16, 2019). Galdini, R 2018, ‘Temporary uses in Contemporary spaces. A European project in Rome’. Cities: The

International Journal of Urban Policy and Planning, vol: 96.

Garvin, E, Branas, C, Keddem, S, Sellman, J, & Cannuscio, C 2013, ‘More than just an eyesore: local

insights and solutions on vacant land and urban health’, Journal of urban health : bulletin of

the New York Academy of Medicine, vol. 90, no.3.

Jacobs, J 1958, Downtown is for People, in Bello, F, Jacobs, J, Whyte, W.H, Freedgood, S &

Seligman, D 1958, The Explosing Metropolis, Fortune Classic.

References (continued) Madanipour, A 2018, ‘Temporary use of space: Urban processes between flexibility, opportunity

and precarity’, Urban Studies, vol. 55. no.5, pp. 1093-1110.

Misirlisoy, D & Günçe K 2016, ‘Adaptive reuse strategies for heritage buildings: A holistic approach’, Sustainable cities and society, vol.26, pp. 91-98. Moore, T 2019, ‘Why the use of pop-up space is ripe for exploration’, University of Melbourne,

Melbourne, https://www.commercialrealestate.com.au/advice/why-the-use-of-pop- up-space-is-ripe-for-exploration-26336/ (Accessed November 17, 2019).

NIEA, 2012, ‘Southwark Lido – EXYZT and Sara Muzio’, Curating Cities, NSW (Accessed November

16, 2019).

Peterson, H 2019, ‘More than 9,100 stores are closing in 2019 as the retail apocalypse drags on –

here’s the full list’, Business Insider, Australia, https://www.businessinsider.com.au/stores-

closing-in-2019-list-2019-3?r=US&IR=T. (Accessed November 17, 2019).

Ruby, I & Ruby A 2010, Mine the City, in Ruby, I & Ruby, A 2010, Re-inventing Construction,

Holcim Foundation for Sustainable Construction, Zurich.

Shaw, H & Sivam A 2015, ‘A Temporary City: Temporary Use as a Tool for Urban Design in the

Creation of Convivial Urban Space’, State of Australian Cities Conference.

Solidspace 2019, ‘100 Union Street, London’, United Kingdom, https://solidspace.co.uk/

projects/100-union-street-meanwhile-space/. (Accessed November 16, 2019).

Spacemarket, ‘MANY 6160’, https://www.spacemarket.com.au/many-6160. (Accessed

November 17, 2019).

Sutton 2016, ‘MANY 6160 Social and Economic Evaluation’, Fremantle, https://freoview.files.

wordpress.com/2016/08/many6160_sutton1.pdf. (Accessed November 17, 2019).