Panu Lehtovuori* & Sampo Ruoppila

Panu Lehtovuori* & Sampo Ruoppila**

*Tampere University of Technology, School of Architecture; [email protected] **University of Turku, Department of Social Research; [email protected]

DRAFT, please do not quote word to word

Temporary Uses Producing Difference in Contemporary Urbanism

Paper presented at the “Transience and permanence in urban development” workshop, Sheffield 14.- 15.1.2015

Abstract

The notion of ‘difference’ – phrased by different authors as multiplicity, variety, alterity, otherness, or heterotopia – is central in our effort to theorise temporary uses. In this paper, we outline a theoretical plane to discuss temporary uses, conceptualising urban space as a tensioned and dynamic field of interlinked, simultaneous differences. Temporary uses can be viewed either as instrumental ‘tools’ of urban planning and management or as intrinsically valuable spaces and processes, often with political and emancipatory connotations. We discuss how these two ways to think about temporary uses are linked, respectively, to two socio-cultural positions and practical interests, those of the planner/developer and the activist/user. We provide also analysis how ‘difference’ is conceptualised in a selection of contemporary, in some way alternative or forward-looking planning ideas. We also address the complex relationship between temporary uses and gentrification, acknowledging the connection, but arguing for policies to save the “successful” temporary uses for difference they may provide.

I. INTRODUCTION

Spatial complexity, temporal dialectic of permanence and change and the socio-political power of space are integral elements of several established architectural and urban theories. In the early 20th century, Patrick Geddes published City Development (1904) and Cities in Evolution (1915). For Ged- des, city was an evolving organism that both carried influences from the past and involved promis- es of the future (Koponen 2006, 85). As planner, he engaged in ‘constructive and conservative sur- gery’, a careful work that aimed at improving city’s social and spatial conditions with small interventions. After WWII, Aldo Rossi presented the ‘theory of monument’ is his milestone book L'ar- chitettura della città (1966). Criticising ‘naïve functionalism’, Rossi claimed that cities are heterogeneous collages of morphological elements that change in a variety of ways and rhythms. Major buildings, streets and squares, but also recurring large events can be ‘monuments’ that drive urban change over long time periods, but that may become obsolete as well. In the US, Robert Venturi in his ‘gentle manifesto’ Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture (1966) celebrates the historic layering and non-obvious hybrids of urban architecture. Henri Lefebvre’s La Production de l’espace (1974) famously brought together a new vision about historical and socially produced space that reflects the conditions of its production and simultaneously provides seeds for change: Urban space is the ground of ‘urban revolution’. Bernard Tschumi’s early writings and projects, such as The 1

Manhattan Transcripts (1981) and design of Parc de La Villette in Paris (project 1982, realisation 1984-87) operationalize the radical thoughts of ’68 in an architectural language of event montage, superimposition and cross programming.

These exemplary writers and practitioners show how the complex and sometimes indeed contra- dictory urban space can be conceptualised lucidly and still without too violent simplification (a problem that characterised much of 20th century mainstream planning thought). They also show how the rich conceptualisation can lead to meaningful action. Today, we are again witnessing a moment of radical change in urban space and practices worldwide and a related rethinking in urban planning, design and architecture. Tactical urbanism, urban acupuncture and weak planning are some names that try to grasp the vector of change. In varying mixes and emphasis, actor- orientation, contextuality, eventuality, ephemerality, experiments, participation and open process characterise most of the new planning ideas. In some form, temporary uses figure as an important element or idea in most of the writings. But strangely, despite the relatively large interest in the topic, they remain poorly theorised. Temporary uses have been studied in the context of economic analysis (Jacobs 1969; Smith 1979; Lehtovuori & al. 2003) and in the context of political theory, especially the notion of ‘right to the city’ (Lefebvre 1968; Mitchell 2003; Hou 2010). Some authors also cross-examine these two dimensions (e.g. Andres, 2013). However, a general spatial and architectural understanding of temporary uses in the contemporary urban context is not well formulated. Specifically, temporary uses’ potential to create better or novel urban environments remains contested and partially understood.

To address the apparent gap in knowledge, we will discuss temporary or interim uses on a theoretical plane, critically and comparatively. Being fully aware of temporary uses’ many potentials (eg. Lehtovuori & al. 2003; Groth & Corijn 2005, Lehtovuori & Ruoppila 2012; Lehtovuori & al. 2014), we set out to critically scrutinise temporary uses as a (possible) key element of emerging practices of urban planning, design and management. We ask what is the role of temporary uses in the broad picture of urban planning and changing significance of places.

The notion of ‘difference’ – phrased by different authors as multiplicity, variety, alterity, otherness, or heterotopia – is central in our effort to theorise temporary uses. In the next part of the paper, thus, we outline a theoretical plane to discuss temporary uses. We will conceptualise urban space as a tensioned and dynamic field or interlinked, simultaneous differences. In the third part, we add analyses how ‘difference’ is conceptualised in a selection of contemporary, in some way alternative or forward-looking planning ideas. In the fourth part, we will address is the complex relationship between temporary uses and gentrification, acknowledging the connection, and arguing for policies and drafting a criteria to save the “successful” temporary uses for difference they may provide. In conclusion, we will revisit the theory and gauge temporary uses’ potential as seed-innovation in the systemic transition towards fully urbanised societies.

II. THE DIFFERENCE TEMPORARY USES MAY PRODUCE

Since late 1990s, temporary uses have been conceptualised as ‘catalysts’ of urban development or as ‘pioneers’ of economic regeneration and new urban cultures (Lehtovuori & al. 2003; Haydn & Temel 2006, Urban Pioneers 2007). Already the early analyses valorised an important tension be-

tween two perspectives: Temporary uses can be viewed either as instrumental ‘tools’ of urban planning and management or as intrinsically valuable spaces and processes, often with political and emancipatory connotations. These two ways to think about temporary uses are linked, respectively, to two socio-cultural positions and practical interests, those of the planner/developer and the activist/user. Reading the more recent academic research and project documentation, we can say that they also reflect two different sentiments, the developer’s hopeful and positive ethos on the potentials temporary uses may unearth, and the user’s uncertain and critical concern about continuity of the use and fate of their project, the unique and interesting social and spatial result achieved in short time and with little money.

While this distinction does make sense and has opened relatively rich discussions both on the actual benefits of temporary uses (public and private, societal and commercial, see e.g. Lehtovuori & Ruoppila 2012, 35) and the structural reasons for their current proliferation as an element in urban planning and real-estate management practices (see e.g. Bishop & Williams 2012), it fails to theorise temporary uses in holistic, spatial and forward-looking manner. The research until now provides rich detail about cases and a certain economic explanation about temporary uses’ role in contemporary urbanism, but key questions about the quality, sustainability and scope of temporary uses as an element of contemporary urbanism at large (not only planning and real-estate) remain open. Also the necessary policies to support whatever important may have been produced remain uncharted and poorly justified.

Temporary uses, appropriation and the Right to the City

Temporary uses are place-based (even though they may migrate at some point to a new place) and they involve a development orientation (Lehtovuori & Ruoppila 2012), understood as a stake, shorter or longer, on defining a place and imagining its future. Temporary uses, thus, involve some sort of appropriation of urban space. They also involve a communal or group-based creation of value. Temporary uses do not ‘just happen’ but engage in conscious production of space, involving practices, conceptualisations and experiences (Lefebvre 1991; Lehtovuori 2010). These simple proposals provide for us the starting point to explore a new theoretical plane for the analysis of temporary uses and their potential in the contemporary urbanism.

It is well known that value in urban context can be studied from many perspectives that broaden it beyond the purely economic, i.e. the profit of a business operation or the monetary value of a piece of real-estate. Regarding heritage, we can talk about intrinsic values, for example. More importantly, values are not static. Also the economic value of, say, real-estate is relative to and dependent on multiple concrete urban resources and processes, such as location, number and type of users, aes- thetics of built environment, connectivity, views, clean air, security and so on. Who produces these “urban values”? Who has right to them? This is the question Henri Lefebvre first formulated in Le Droit à la ville (Right to the City, 1968). Broadly, his answer is that all the citizens and users of urban space have collectively and historically produced the values and continue to do so. This is why citizens and users should equitably be able to enjoy the benefits of their “labour” in the form of live- able city, good street life, nice cafes, inviting cultural amenities, amiable neighbourhoods and so on. The fact that real-estate owners and developers cash profits on the basis of the collective labour is rendered questionable or outright wrong. Hence there are conflicts, regarding the right to the city.

For Lefebvre, space is the ultimate locus and medium of struggle, and is therefore a crucial political issue (Elden 2004, 183). To change society is to change the everyday life and its conditions.

In his fantastic Rebel Cities (2012), David Harvey brings Lefebvre’s ideas to the present, questioning and challenging them. Asking how we can claim the right to the city when the city is lost, he lucidly explores the political potential of urban organization today. Harvey accepts that many analysts claim that “city” is an obsolete notion, lacking coherence both as community and political body. For him, this is exactly the reason to re-configure the right to city as the right to renew cities, right to find completely new – for Harvey anti-capitalist – urban futures, now in metropolitan and global scales. He states that “[t]he right to the city is not an exclusive individual right, but a focused collective right. It is inclusive not only of construction workers but also of all those who facilitate the re- production of daily life: the caregivers and teachers, the sewer and subway repair men, the plumb- ers and electricians, the scaffold erectors and crane operators, the hospital workers and the truck, bus, and taxi drivers, the restaurant workers and the entertainers, the bank clerks and the city ad- ministrators.” (Harvey 2012, 137) – City is the context where mankind can create and recreate itself; the question what kind of city we build cannot be divorced from the question of what kind of people we are, Harvey ponders. “The right to the city is, therefore, far more than a right of individual or group access to the resources that the city embodies: it is a right to change and reinvent the city...” (ibid., 4) Discussing different ways to full the “empty signifier” of right to the city, Harvey (ibid., 137) states that “all those whose labors are engaged in producing and reproducing the city have a collective right not only to that which they produce, but also to decide what kind of urbanism is to be produced where, and how.”

For both Harvey and Lefebvre, thus, the right to the city is not a simple cry to get access to consume what you produced. Rather, they see it as a revolutionary concept, a call to change your own living conditions. This needs new democratic forums and equitable practices.

In recent decade, the notion of Right to the City has become popular. World Social Forums in 2004- 2005 drafted “World Charter of the Right to the City”1 that puts the right to the city in the broader context of human rights. The Charter defines the right to the city as “the equitable usufruct of cities within the principles of sustainability, democracy, equity, and social justice. It is the collective right of the inhabitants of cities, in particular of the vulnerable and marginalized groups…” City is defined as “a culturally rich and diversified collective space that pertains to all of its inhabitants.” While in Lefebvre’s late work, as well, right to the city is portrayed side-by-side with many other new or re- defined rights, such as right to autogestion or right to culture (Elden 2004, 231), we would like to maintain the dynamic and contested nature of the right to the city. It is not a right that exists, it is a right to act.

Towards a socio-spatial theory of temporary uses

This perception links right to the city to temporary uses. Important for our discussion is Harvey’s contention that “any spontaneous alternative visionary moment is fleeting; if it is not seized at the flood, it will surely pass.” (Harvey 2012, xvii) Referring to Lefebvre’s writings and experience in ’68, he states that “[t]he same is true of the heterotopic spaces of difference that provide the seed-bed

1 4

for revolutionary movement.” Referring to de Certeau’s distinction between strategy of the powerful and tactics of citizens, also Peter Arlt has discussed to the temporality of tactical urban actions. – In a single place, temporary uses may be fleeting and transitory phenomena, but in the whole urban realm, they are a permanent element, crucial for the liveability and future improvement of the city and beyond. To take a concrete example, the performativity of the ‘Instant City’ of Roskilde Festival, depends on its temporary nature. “During the week in which the event takes place, all rigid social manners, limiting norms, moralizing authorities, and dull dress codes are placed on stand-by” (Mar- ling & Kiib 2010, 25). From the 19th century Paris Commune to contemporary events, the dimension of carnevalesque “detouring” of meanings and rules is commonly attached to temporary uses.

How to put this in a broader, metropolitan perspective? Discussing both the urban form and socio- ecological functionality of contemporary city regions, Franz Oswald and Peter Baccini (2003) pro- pose “fallow land” as one the six morphological aggregates of their Netzstadt method of analysis and urban design. Their key assumption is the networked and relational character of cities and city regions. In each scale from region to neighbourhood, a logic of nodes, links and fields is in work. Unlike most theorists on urban process, Oswald and Baccini approve the empty or underused space as an organic and ever-present part of urban form. For them, fallow land is not an exemption or problem, but a necessary category and reality. Fallow lands play an important part in the dynamic process of urban change. After mapping and analysis, planning is conceptualized as a fully partici- patory and democratically rooted decision-making (Oswald & Baccini 2003). – This empirical and design-oriented conceptualisation works well with Lefebvre’s understanding of urban space through the notion of spatial dialectic. Space facilitates simultaneity of differences, the simultaneous co-existence of differences. For Lefebvre, the differences are in tensioned relations, making urban space dynamic and open for change. Fallow land and temporary uses as the appropriators of fallows constantly co-produce a differential urban space, spaces of hope and spaces of novelty and innovation.

We argue that the different or unique places temporary uses help to create, may require protecting policies because of their potential as important “cultural amenities” (Ruoppila 2014). Cultural amenities can be defined as desirable and useful features or facilities increasing specificity of a place. They should create or maintain diversity, increase quality of life and, thus, contribute to the public good of all citizens collectively, somewhat similarly as urban parks have done historically.

The same unique places can be discussed as commons, as a shared cultural, intellectual or spatial resource. Continuing his scrutiny on right to the city, Harvey makes an interesting distinction between public spaces, public goods and the commons. He claims that “[p]ublic spaces and public goods in the city have always been a matter of state power and public administration (…) While these public spaces and public goods contribute mightily to the qualities of the commons, it takes political action on the part of citizens and the people to appropriate them or to make them so. There is always a struggle over how the production of and access to public space and public goods is to be regulated, by whom, and in whose interests.” (Harvey 2012, p. 72-73) Indeed, conflicts and struggles are crucial in (re)creating public urban space as political space that can drive social change (Lehtovuori & al. 2014). Stating the importance of defending flow of public goods as materi- al for the commons, Harvey continues that the common “is not to be construed (…) as a particular kind of thing, asset or even social process, but as an unstable and malleable social relation between a particular self-defined social group and those aspects of its actually existing or yet-to-be-created

social and/or physical environment deemed crucial to its life and livelihood.” (ibid. 73)

This kind of foundational relation between space and the group that appropriates it is characteristic of the unique places temporary users produce. In a way, this specific relation is the definition of uniqueness and novelty, giving hints towards what actually should be protected. While this key relation should be “both communal and non-commodified” (ibid.), the concept and use of commons does not exclude the possibility of monetary benefit to the appropriating group: “A community gar- den can thus be viewed as a good thing in itself, no matter what food may be produced there. This does not prevent some of the food being sold.” (ibid. 74)

On the link between commons and enclosure, he writes: “It will almost certainly require state authority to protect those commons against the philistine democracy of short-term moneyed interests ravaging the land with soy bean plantations and cattle ranching. So not all forms of enclosure can be dismissed as bad by definition. The production and enclosure of non-commodified spaces in a ruth- lessly commodifying world is surely a good thing.” (Harvey 2012, 70.)

The above extensive quotes from Harvey are justified because his lucid text helps to understand the importance of both politically-motivated appropriation and the possibility of a mixture of economic and social logics in the novel places created by temporary uses. The ‘difference’ temporary uses may produce is ‘alternative urbanisms’, dynamism as well as challenging planning practices and opening new life opportunities.

III. THE DIFFERENCE IN RECENT IDEAS ON ALTERNATIVE (TEMPORARY) URBANISMS

The idea of temporary uses has emerged powerfully in planning agenda since the millennium. The research and development project Urban Catalysts argued that temporary uses are not an excep- tion or marginal issue – they are rather becoming central and strategic components of urban planning, development and management, with clear input in urban cultural and social policies. In Berlin, Philipp Misselwitz, Philipp Oswalt and Klaus Overmeyer, argued that potential of temporary uses lies in economic restructuring, resulting at the same time in over-supply of former industrial and infrastructural land and a great demand for affordable space for cultural initiatives and start-ups. Nonetheless, the common interest of real-estate owners and users, or “urban pioneers” exploring the new potential of spaces, is not always easy to find. The process requires mediators and a clear supportive role of the public authorities (Urban Pioneers, 2007). In Vienna, Haydn and Temel (2006) emphasised the critical character of temporary uses, linked to activism and do-it-yourself- mentality of city’s residents. In a clear distinction to the pragmatic and economic North American use of the term “interim use”, in Europe “temporary use” should be seen as an approach to ensure diversity and alternative space provision. In Amsterdam, the Urban Catalysts team suggested that the whole of urban space should be seen in new light as “casco” or empty hull, open for endless new opportunities and surprising uses. This vision has proven fruitful, underlined by the recent popu- larity of urban games, parkour or urban gardening (e.g. Ameel and Tani 2011, Stevens 2007). In Helsinki, Lehtovuori et al. (2003, 29) argued that vacant spaces available for various temporary uses are a condition for urban cultural renewal.

Providing the next larger account, Bishop and Williams (2012), developed from findings of Urban Pioneers (2007), arguing that vacancies produced by current economic development and property development trends, demands which the market does not cater for, and social media which helps to spread the message, together create a need for alternative, adaptive development strategies that temporary uses provide. They claim that exploring meanwhile activities, “appreciation of experimentation”, have intensified into a trend of “temporary urbanism”, which carries great potential and demand also the planners to take it into notice (ibid. 35). Indeed, almost any type of urban environment has potential for temporary uses. In urban central areas, currently under-used areas, or areas losing significance, temporary uses are tuned accordingly for intensification, initiation or re- definition of their locations (Lehtovuori & Ruoppila 2012).

During the few last years, and discussion has brought up many analogous concepts touching the temporariness and the role of new actors in planning. In the following, we will explore how the difference vis-à-vis the mainstream planning and urban development is conceptualised in a selection of such planning ideas. The list is not exhaustive, but it does give a relevant view to the current de- bate.

Tactical urbanism

The recent interest in ‘tactical urbanism’ is inspired, to an extent, by architect-mayor Jaime Lerner’s innovative urban interventions in Curitiba, Brazil in early 1990s. Talking about ‘urban acupuncture’, Lerner initiated experimental, low-cost and open-ended urban transformations that worked because they brought human resources cleverly together, thus overcoming the relative poverty of Curitiba. After the global financial crisis and slowed economic growth, also wealthier cities in the US and Europe are looking for alternative planning and urban design methods.

Lydon & al. (2012, 2-3) discuss recession, revived interest in inner-city living and the power of In- ternet in organizing a novel ‘civic economy’ as the main drivers of tactical urbanism. Offering ‘local solutions for local planning challenges’, tactical urbanism is characterized by rapid realization, low risk and a promise to improve the social capital and organizing capacity between citizens and other urban actors. Tactical urbanism is often citizen-led but can also be initiated by government entities (Pfeifer 2013). Cherished examples of tactical urbanism include guerrilla gardening, pop-up shops and the temporary occupation of parking places for public use.

Another source of the notion is the European discussion on temporary and tactical urbanism. Echo- ing Michel de Certeau’s famous distinction between strategy and tactics, Peter Arlt (2006) distin- guishes between long-term, strategic planning for urban space and tactical planning for interim uses of space. Squatter housing is an example of temporary space meeting people's needs. Haydn (2006) sees in tactical urbanism a promise to challenge the character of capitalist city as a product. According to him, tactical urbanism, instead, would open for democratic action and human expression, helping to shape urban space as a collective work, an oeuvre (Lefebvre 1974 / 1991).

Thirdly, the notion of tactical urbanism is used for radical rethinking of the urbanisation in developing countries. Instead of perceiving slums (that house at least one billion people globally) as a problem to cleared away, tactical urbanism could provide tools for people to improve their conditions

on site, gradually leading to more dense and developed ‘vertical slums’ (Flint 2014).

How tactical urbanism, in its different forms, differs from mainstream urban planning? The North American version is perceived as cheap, quick and citizen-led approach to improve everyday living conditions, an instant solution to a perceived problem. ‘City repair’ and ‘D.I.Y. urbanism’ are used as synonyms to tactical urbanism (Lydon & al. 2012, 1), making clear notion’s practical connotation. Tactical urbanism is a cheap and thus more realistic and viable way to change cities than the slow, expensive process of master planning. – The European discussion adds to term a clearly political dimension, stressing tactical urbanism’s potential in counter-cultural appropriation and the creation of alternatives to the mainstream urban development, led by real-estate business. Arlt (2006) claims that the interim user and the guerrilla have much in common because the guerrilla: ‘... is the classical tactician. He draws his strength from his surroundings because he does not take the side of state power, he fights it.’ Finally, tactical urbanism understood as a large-scale, actor-driven revival of informal settlements of the ‘global south’ could become a rather ground-breaking approach, even a template for 21st century urbanism that sees real urbanity as a potential, not as a problem.

DIY urbanism(s)

In a recent, comprehensive article, which seeks to define “do-it-yourself urban design” as a novel category of unauthorized altering of urban space, Douglas (2014) defines it as “small scale and creative, unauthorized yet intentionally functional and civic-minded ‘contributions’ or ‘improvements’ to urban spaces in forms inspired by official infrastructure” (ibid. 6). These practices are catego- rised as ‘guerrilla greening’—planting or functionally converting unused land, infrastructure, or facades; ‘spontaneous streetscaping’—painting traffic markings or installing design elements such as signage, ramps, and seating; and ‘aspirational urbanism’—promotional signs and other informa- tional installations by which community members express their own ideas or alternatives (ibid. 6). The improvements are sought “in ways analogous to formal efforts” (ibid. 11).The acts are mostly small scale or singular alterations or modifications, adding to or diversifying interpretation of the present situation. The creators of the interventions are motivated by “seeing a specific spatial ‘problem’ affecting them and/or their communities and a feeling that they could help ‘fix’ it themselves” (ibid. 15). Many focus only on “immediate fixes”, not considering broader impact, yet other consider their action “to more ambiguously inspiring others to see and think about the urban landscape differently and perhaps take similar actions themselves” (ibid. 15). The latter comes close to general spirit of temporary uses, encouraging people to take over urban space. Most importantly, it explicitly challenges the normative assumption who is allowed to change the urban space and manage to do it effectively.

Autonomous urbanisms

Autonomous urbanisms refer to situations where a group of people, who have a novel vision of a place, take over an unused property to transform it to a particular public or semi-public space. Many of these forms have alternative, counter-cultural, indie or sub-cultural character – all are searching for specific kind of place which has no equivalent in what is offered either in the market or by public provision.

Vasudevan (2014) uses the term when discussing squatting, and following Pickerill and Chatter- ton’s definition of autonomous geographies, focusing on “those spaces where people desire to constitute non-capitalist, egalitarian, and solidaristic forms of political, social, and economic organization through a combination of resistance and creation” (Pickerill & Chatterton 2006, 1). For Vasudevan, the practice of squatting is one important example of communing in the contemporary city; ”a spatial commitment to producing a new set of affective and autonomous geographies of at- tachment, dwelling, and expression” (ibid. 132). Another radical alternative are rented, squatted or collectively owned “social centres” (Hodkinson and Chatterton 2007; Montagna 2007); “self- organized cultural and political gathering spaces for the provision of radical social services, protest- planning and experimentation with independent cultural production (see, Hodkinson and Chatter- ton 2007; Montagna 2007). Anti-capitalist and explicitly political, they seek to reclaim private space and open it up to the public ”as part of a conscious refusal and confrontation to neo-liberalism and the enclosure of urban space” (Hodkinson and Chatterton 2007, 310).

Similar visionary occupying of space is also true for independent cultural centres, i.e. organizations promoting different kinds of artistic or cultural activities, located in a separate building or complex, and independent in the sense they manage their own cultural programming as well as their premis- es, and decide who is allowed to work or arrange events there (Ruoppila 2014). In most, especially older, cases these places are located in what used to be vacant, abandoned spaces in physical des- pair, which they have taken over as a result of civic movement and long-lasting conflicts over the use (ibid.). Most of these places are organised in a bottom-up manner and have strong links to civil society and free art sphere. However, many include also business tenants, such as bars, restaurants or clubs as well as creative industries.

Insurgent city

Similarly to autonomous urbanism, the notion of ‘insurgent city’ focuses on the political role of city’s public urban space as an arena of demonstration, forum for creating new publics and vehicle of resistance. Insurgent city, thus, concerns contemporary urban social movements and their relationship to the city,2 often through appropriation of public urban space. Jeffrey Hou has popularised the link between insurgency and urban space in Insurgent Public Space (2010). He highlights the connection between the acts of what he calls ‘guerrilla urbanists’ and city dwellers’ right to public space (Alisdairi 2014, 1). According to Hou (2010, 1), small but persistent acts against increasingly regulated, privatized and diminishing forms of public space may renew the role of public space as a forum for open discussion. Thus, insurgent public spaces “challenge the conventional, codified notion of public and the making of space.” (ibid. 3)

But is public space politically significant today, after all? We believe that the answer is affirmative. Writing well before the Occupy movement or the events in Tahrir (or Taksim) square, Harvey (2006, 17) claims that there are potent linkage points between the physicality of urban public space and the politics of the public sphere, even though exact mapping of the relation is hard. Public space alone, however, is not enough to drive societal change, but a broader set of everyday life contexts need to be addressed. Harvey claims that “contestation over the construction, meaning, and organi-

2 https://www.opendemocracy.net/cities-in-conflict/insurgent-city 9

zation of public space only takes effect, (…) when it succeeds in exercising a transformative influence over private and commercial spaces. (…) To take a contemporary example, no amount of ‘new urbanism’ understood as urban design, can promote a greater sense of civic responsibility and participation if the intensity of private property arrangements and the organization of commodity as spectacle remains untouched.” (Harvey 2006, 32-33.)

Everyday urbanism

Douglas Kelbaugh has proposed a typology of contemporary ‘planning paradigms’: New Urbanism, Post-Urbanism and Everyday Urbanism (Kelbaugh 2007, 12). Each of these paradigms does provide a self-conscious approach to the dull ‘market urbanism’ that is at work in every corner of the contemporary city regions. According to Kelbaugh, Everyday Urbanism is situated and tolerant, cele- brating ‘ordinary life, with little pretense of creating an ideal environment’ (Kelbaugh 2007, 12). Its proponents argue for ‘elements that remain elusive: ephemerality, cacophony, multiplicity and simultaneity’ (Chase & al. 1999).

Much like tactical urbanists, proponents of Everyday Urbanism support the appropriation of space on sidewalks, parking lots and vacant lots for informal commerce and festivities. Everyday Urban- ism champions the vernacular architecture, street life, and art of vibrant, ethnic neighbourhoods (Kelbaugh 2007, 15). Kelbaugh claims that despite its grassroots quality, Everyday Urbanism indeed differs from conventional real estate development: ”It is more personal, political and democratic than the standard ‘product’ built and financed by mainstream developers and banks. Its very abilities to fly below the organized financial radar and work in the gaps and on the margins have allowed it to empower disadvantaged people and disenfranchised communities.” (ibid.)

Three dimensions of difference

Altogether, we can separate between three dimensions of difference, emphasised in the literature on temporary urbanism. The outcomes of Urban Catalyst project emphasise the experimental character of temporary uses; the rich potential of place-based innovation, and openness to the future. The more recent concepts, reviewed above focus rather on practical improvements, with emphasis on new actors taking part in changes, or production of political alternative niches, a conscious effort to create alternatives to capitalist urban process. Thus the main difference between the recent, in many ways overlapping, concepts is what is political within them. The ideas of ‘autonomous urbanism’ and ‘insurgent city’ stand in antagonist relationship with mainstream economic development, focussing on groups seeking to establish alternative spaces, whereas DIY urbanism and everyday urbanism politicize solely agency in changing urban space, focusing on users modifying spaces which the mainstream machinery does not address. Discussion of tactical urbanism points to both directions, depending on the continent (see, Table 1).

What is done What is different

Tactical urbanism 1 US Rapid, low-risk alterations (cf. DIY Cheaper and faster urbanism)

Tactical urbanism 2 Europe Cultural centres with alternative or Creation of alternatives to the main- counter-cultural character (cf. auton- stream urban development (cf. au- omous urbanism) tonomous urbanism) Tactical urbanism 3 Global South Resident-driven improvement, verti- Sees slums as a potential, not as a cal slums problem

DIY urbanism Singular alterations and modifications Challenges the assumption who is allowed to change urban space Autonomous urbanism Squats with alternative or counter- Provides concrete, self-consciously cultural character, either directly planned alternative spaces anti-capitalist or not Insurgent City Appropriation of central public space Challenges the assumption who is as a forum for open discussion and allowed to signify urban space political action Everyday Urbanism Appropriation of marginal public Vernacular / popular style space for informal commerce and Challenges the assumption who is festivities allowed to change urban space Table 1: Main ideas of recent concepts on alternative and/or temporary urbanism

The ideas of ‘autonomous urbanism’ and ‘insurgent city’ stand in antagonist relationship with mainstream economic development and planning it supposedly subordinates. Both approaches consider social movements as ‘grassroots urban planning agents’ (Souza 2006) radically redefining the significance and use of a particular location through place-bound activism as an alternative method of development. For Souza (2006), in addition to social criticism, also direct action, including independent implementation of solutions, is necessary. “Social movements have to plan alternatives, they cannot be restricted to criticism and demands towards the state. They must be able to offer proposals and conceive concrete alternatives—and, to some extent, to realize them despite the state apparatus and (at the end of the day, and not only when they face a particularly conservative government) against the state” (ibid. 328-329, italics original).

The political agenda with ‘DIY urbanism’ and ‘everyday urbanism’ is not versus the mainstream economic order, but on who is allowed to be an agent changing urban space. Both approaches try to conceptualise individuals ‘fixing’ things analogous to formal efforts, where the formal efforts are absent. This is somewhat missed by Kurt Iveson (2013) who discusses the (traditional) politics of the DIY urbanism, more precisely to what extent do such microspatial practices constitute a new form of urban politics that might give birth to a more just and democratic city. For him, single actions hardly do, yet prospects exist, if small-scale projects are to coalesce into large-scale change. However, this would require “practitioners make themselves parties to a disagreement over the forms of authority that produce urban space” (ibid. 942). The DIY-practitioners interviewed by Douglas (2014) would probably find such political dichotomy and subsequent requirement of strict organization an uncomfortable idea. Nonetheless, most would probably agree possibility to create DIY urbanisms marking one angle of democracy, although “within the existing city of inequality”.

IV. NON-COMMODIFIED SPACES IN COMMODIFYING CITY: TEMPORARY USES AND GENTRIFI- CATION

The urban scholarship has approached temporary uses primarily as a means to generate new ideas, imagine future transformation opportunities, and draw novel attention to unused or under-used 11

spaces. The tone of the writings tends to vary based on whether the focus is on what kind of spaces a temporary use produces or how the actors of temporary uses and users may sustain in the place and what role does it play in urban transformation in the long-run. On the one hand, the authors who have focussed on spaces produced by temporary uses tend to be positive about creations of novel kinds of urban environments, re-thinking public spaces and experimenting alternatives with more loose regulations than if permanent urban structures were produced (e.g. Lehtovuori et al. 2003; Urban Pioneers 2007; Stevens and Ambler 2010; Bishop and Williams 2012). In sum, these writers consider temporary use as an approach to ensure diversity and alternative space provision. On the other hand, the authors, whose focus is on how the actors of temporary uses may sustain in their position, tend to be more critical (e.g. Colomb 2012; Shaw 2014). For instance, Claire Colomb’s (2012) account on Berlin shows how the gradual process of enlistment of temporary uses by policy- makers and real estate developers for urban development and place marketing purposes has put pressure on their very existence and experimental nature. The consequence has been various tra- jectories of displacement, transformation, commodification, disappearance, and intense local conflicts.

From the latter perspective, one can argue that, like other forms of culture-led urban regeneration, temporary uses – no matter how alternative they were – have an “inherent tendency to pave the way for profit-oriented urban development process” (Colomb 2012, 147). We ask, despite their gentrification potential, when and how temporary uses have potential to produce difference in urban space and open possibilities for non-typical uses and user experiences.

Andres (2013) has made an illuminating conceptual distinction between temporary ‘place-shaping’ and formal ‘place-making’ and discussed how the first is likely to be taken over by the second. The initial opportunity is caused by a series of ‘deadlocks’ in the planning system, i.e. economic, urban or political disruptions, leading to an alternative transformation (ibid. 760). ‘Place shaping’ refers to a set of practices for appropriations of differential spaces, “encouraged by a context of weak planning or a ‘watching stage’ which refers to a period during which the desired future for an area cannot be accomplished” (ibid. 762). If the temporary uses can raise an interest towards the area or even provide plausible ideas for its development, the ‘weak planning’ context will be likely replaced by development-led ‘master planning’, involving entrepreneurial approach and a set of placemaking strategies formalised with the purpose of redeveloping the site. The question then becomes whether (and to what extent) the process will (even) ensure the legacy of temporary uses.

The cat and mouse play between the grassroots’ cultural-led regeneration (the most typical temporary users) and real estate capital seeking to build on their success is many times told story in urban studies (e.g. Zukin, 1989).3 Given the long-lasting trends of regeneration and gentrification, the process of cultural re-signification of locations can be even considered as one of the core contemporary urban dynamics. Within this dynamics, however, cultural actors involved in ”place shaping” are exposed to risk to become victims of their own success. They may be welcomed to come to try out new things, but if they make it, the willingness to replace them largely or completely with “place

3 Partly, this is connected with who the temporary users are, stratification wise. Like Douglas (2014, 18) points out on DIY activists: “the most common factor in a project’s location seems simply to be relative proximity to the home or workplace or its creator(s)” which tend to be the newly hip and “gentrifying” neighborhoods rather than in the impoverished areas, where DIY actions would be most needed. 12

making” actors and activities is likely to increase. However, with this shift, the very cultural activity that gave the place its distinction, attractiveness and draw is also at risk to vanish (Ruoppila 2014).

For the convenience of temporary uses as tools to raise the property values within or in vicinity of the spaces they take place, have made them easy to digest on policy agendas – up to an extent. Es- pecially the “creative city strategies” have tended to cover also alternative cultural actors and trans- forming spaces, though mainly as exploitable resources to expand the commoditised activities (Peck 2005). For instance, Colomb (2012, 144) describes how in Berlin the recognised capability of temporary uses to symbolically and programmatically redefine former industrial or infrastructural landscape has set the scene for commercial redevelopment. The problem is, however, that while they are being seen as useful for marketing or content creation purposes, the policies tend to forget the support side, which eventually undermines the creative content in the long-run (Bader and Bial- luch 2008). At the same time, with the world-wide trend of gentrification and increased redevelopment and regeneration of inner cities, the actors searching for places to experiment increasingly face the problem of finding enough cheap and central spaces.

The critical viewpoint towards temporary uses stems largely from seeing it as a mechanism inevi- tably leading to gentrification or commercial development – with displacement of original actors, and eventually, at worst case, leaving no central spaces for them (e.g. Shaw 2014).

The critique is partly grounded, but we consider it too straightforward and biased for two reasons. Firstly, due to the experimental nature of temporary uses, it should not be expected that all of them should become permanent in the first place – and if they would, it does not always need in their original place. As experiments, they should follow the logic of inventions – the best will become innovations, other will experience a shorter life span. Availability of short leases also encourages try- ing something new, which can be fruitful. Apart from being transient, i.e. take place only once, for a limited time, or becoming permanent, there are also other alternatives. Temporary uses can be re- current, i.e. repeating, for instance annually, like Paris Pláge, bringing beaches to the Seine’s river front every summer since 2002; or migrant, i.e. the activities may change place from one location to another, as development proceeds, like the New York Trapez School which changed its temporary location repeatedly following phases of Manhattan’s Hudson River Park development; the activities can also move to altogether another location. If they will eventually transform into permanent use, it happens usually after becoming popular and consequently perceived as essential element of the new character of the place. Secondly, the whole gentrification process is considered often too straight-forward and black-and-white. A common distortion, writes Stefan Metaal (2007, 12), is to associate gentrification with a total transformation. He separates between ‘artistic’ (free-thinking pioneers), ‘mixed’ (socially and culturally conscious middle class) and ‘fashionable’ (wealthy pro- fessionals) phases of gentrification, and argues that urban neighbourhoods rarely go through the entire process. Unlike many dichotomist analysts, Metaal considers only the last phase problematic. The beginning of the process can be considered even positive, because “in the first instance, gentrification means opportunities for the survival and expansion of urbanity in various guises” (ibid. 26). Developing towards mixed neighbourhoods, it still supports diverse urbanity “in the form of historically expanded buildings as well as in the varied supply of amenities and the maintenance of a public culture” (ibid.). Only in the last phase also “gentrification can become the victim of its own success” (!) (ibid. 26), if ‘yuppification’ turn mixed city neighbourhoods into fashionable districts.

Hence, the drive of real estate interests is not always powerful enough to displace temporary users, although their influence to property values would be positive.4

Nevertheless, we do argue for more detailed policy in evaluating and supporting sustainability of “successful” temporary uses is needed. A policy that not only exploits temporary uses and users as a resource, but also gives them resources, and protects their persistence in a contested location. To rate a “success” is of course tricky, but at least the following dimensions should be considered: Firstly, the uniqueness of the place, a socio-spatial innovation, a design or a use concept that has no equal elsewhere, which a combination of actors have managed to create. Secondly, the value of the action that the space enables, whether the benefit is measured by insight and reflection, social co- hesion, place-related economic impact (e.g. providing new kind of hub) or leisure functions. Third- ly, the difference and variation it provides altogether to urban space. Differential spaces and places, an urban environment with open new possibilities, dynamism and controversy is a value in itself, a common good, like we have discussed in previous sections.

We argue for a mixture and co-existence, in which certain locations could be saved from displacement for the enriching elements they are able to provide. Their activity may contribute to rising property values, and often does, because like Douglas (2014, 20) puts it, “we must remember that in many cities today development capital is quite happy to take advantage of any ‘sign of life’ and run with it”, but what is being done in those particular properties should be valued for the difference they can produce.

V. TENTATIVE CONCLUSION: SPATIAL INNOVATIONS FOR A FULLY URBANISED SOCIETY

The difference temporary uses can produce is in literature and recent discourses conceptualised mainly in three ways. Firstly, being experimental, temporary uses can be seen as spatial or social innovations characterised by new types of space, use and organisation. Secondly, temporary uses facilitate new actors to join the processes of urban planning and management. They give voice and agency to people and groups who otherwise would be invisible. Thirdly, temporary uses may be consciously political alternatives to capitalist urban processes and spaces. Not all uses and users are political, however, which is important to note.

Taken together, temporary uses indeed are an increasingly important resource of creative and socially responsible urban planning and development. The question of how temporary uses actually are and to what extent they could or should be seen as seeds of permanent uses is not having one answer, of course. The field of temporary uses is highly varied and heterogeneous. While all temporary uses produce added value to users and their location, the path to permanence is not always necessary or recommended. Ephemerality, recurrence or migration may be an integral part of the

4 One could add here also conscious opposition tactics. Hodkinson and Chatterton (2007, 310) describe how town- centre based (radical) ‘social centres’ in UK and Italy are in their very presence in strict opposition to gentrification. They “represent an open challenge to this neo-liberal process by taking these buildings emptied or abandoned by capital and regenerating them back into noncommercial places for politics, meetings and entertainment. In the face of rapid changes to the urban fabric, social centres constitute a new claim to the city—a demand that land and property be used to meet social needs, not to service global, or extra-local, capital.” (Hodkinson & Chatterton, 2007: 310). 14

use and quality it produces. Nevertheless, in some way ‘best’ experiments should be recognised in urban policy as urban amenities that require support and protection for common good.

The urban field, including the place-based novelties and critical practices of temporary uses, is dynamic and tensioned. Temporary uses make visible and tangible the difference between the “isoto- py” of the space of capitalism and state power and the “heterotopy” of actual and changing urban practices. Temporary uses challenge the established planning practices and sources of power be- hind them. They represent future in the making. David Harvey has noted that “We do not have to wait upon the grand revolution to constitute such spaces [of political difference]. Lefebvre's theory of a revolutionary movement is the other way round: the spontaneous coming together in a moment of "irruption,” when disparate heterotopic groups suddenly see, if only for a fleeting moment, the possibilities of collective action to create something radically different.” (Harvey 2012, xvii) Ex- periments, tests, moments and irruptions are the ubiquitous field of urban society or urban collective rethinking its context of action, producing a different society and different space. The constant change and evolution regarding location, use rights and rents, i.e. the relation of temporary uses to the mainstream real estate process, is a constant (permanence), even though individual uses change. Collectively temporary uses, thus, play a big societal, constructive role. Maybe, in the end, they represent such a shift that the notion of ‘temporary urbanism’ (Bishop & Williams 2012) can be justified.

REFERENCES

Alisdairi, Lana K. (2014) A Cry and a Demand: Tactical Urbanism and the Right to the City. Urban Planning Master’s Thesis, University of Washington. [https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/26826/Alisdairi_wash ington_0250O_13289.pdf?sequence=1] (Accessed 12 Dec 2014)

Ameel, Lieven and Tani, Sirpa (2007). Säröjä kaupunkitilassa. Parkour. Alue ja ympäristö, vol 36, no. 1, pp. 3-13. [Cracks in urban space. Parcour.]

Andres, Lauren (2013) Differential spaces, power hierarchy and collaborative planning: a critique of the role of temporary uses in shaping and making places. Urban Studies 50 (4), 759-775.

Bader, I. and Bialluch, M. (2008) Gentrification and the creative class in Berlin-Kreutzberg. In: Por- ter, L. & Shaw, K. (Eds.) Whose Urban Reneissance? London: Routledge, 93-102.

Benjamin, Walter & Lacis, Asja (1979) [1924]. Naples. In One-Way Street and Other Writings. Lon- don: Verso, pp. 167-176.

Bishop, Peter, and Lesley Williams (2012). The Temporary City. London: Routledge.

Böhme, Gernot (1995). Atmosphäre. Essays zur neuen Ästhetik. Frankfurt an Main: Edition Suhr- kamp.

Böhme, Gernot (1998). Anmutungen. Über das Atmosphärische. Stuttgart: Edition Tertium.

Böhme, Gernot (2001). Aisthetik. Vorlesungen über Ästhetik als allgemeine Wahrnehmungslehre. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag de Certeau, Michel (1993). Walking in the city. In During, Simon (ed.), The Cultural Studies Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 151-160.

Chase J., M. Crawford, and J. Kaliski (1999) Everyday Urbanism. New York: Monacelli Press.

Chora (Bunschoten, Raoul; Hoshino, Takuro & Binet, Hélène) (2001). Urban Flotsam. Stirring the City. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.

Colomb, Claire (2012) Pushing the urban frontier: temporary uses of space, city marketing, and the creative city discourse in 2000s Berlin. Journal of Urban Affairs 34 (2), 131-152.

Dear, Michael & Häkli, Jouni (1998). Tila, paikka ja urbanismi – uuden kaupunkitutkimuksen metodologiaa. Terra vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 59-68.

Douglas Gordon C.C. (2014) Do-it-yourself urban design: the social practice of informal “improvement” through unauthorized alteration. City & Community 13:1, 5-25.

Flint, Anthony (2014) At MoMA, how 'tactical urbanism' can preserve the future of cities. City Lab (The Atlantic), Dec 9, 2014. [http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/12/at-moma-how-tactical- urbanism-can-preserve-the-future-of-cities/383577/] Accessed Dec 23, 2014.

Giddens, Anthony (1984). The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cam- bridge: Polity Press.

Gottdiener, Mark (1985). The Social Production of Urban Space. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Groth, Jaqcueline & Corijn, Eric (2005). Reclaiming urbanity: Indeterminate spaces, informal actors and urban agenda setting. Urban Studies, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 511-534.

Harvey 2006 – In S. Low & N. Smits (eds) Politics of Public Space, pp. 17-34.

Haydn, Florian and Robert Temel, Eds. (2006) Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces. Berlin: Birkhauser, 2006.

Hodkinson Stuart & Chatterton Paul (2007) Autonomy in the city? Reflections on the social centres movement in the UK. City 10(3), 305-315.

Hou, Jeffrey (2010) Insurgent Public Space.

Häussermann, Hartmut & Siebel, Walter (1987). Neue Urbanität. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Isohanni, Tuula (2006). Arabia, Arabia. Taiteellinen toiminta osana asuinalueen suunnittelua. Hel- sinki: Taideteollinen korkeakoulu A 66.

Iveson, Kurt (2013) Cities within the city: do-it-yourself urbanism and the right to the city. Interna- tional Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37 (3), 941-956.

Jacobs, Jane (1969). The Economy of Cities.

Kelbaugh, Douglas (2007). Toward an Integrated Paradigm: Further Thoughts on the Three Urban- isms. Places 19:2, pp. 12-19.

Lefebvre, Henri (1991) [1974]. The Production of Space. Oxford and Cambridge (MA.): Blackwell. [La production de l’espace, English translation by Donald Nicholson-Smith]

Lefebvre, Henri (1996) [1989]. The urban in question. In Writings on Cities. Oxford (MA): Black- well, pp. 209-215.

Lefebvre, Henri (1996b) [1968]. Right to the city. In Writings on Cities. Oxford (MA): Blackwell, pp. 61-181. [Le droit à la ville, English translation by Kofman, E. and Lebas, E.]

Lehtovuori, Panu (2000). Weak place. Thoughts on strengthening soft phenomena. City vol 4. no. 3, pp. 398-415.

Lehtovuori, Panu (2005). Experience and Conflict. The dialectics of the production of public urban space in the light of new event venues in Helsinki 1993–2003. Espoo: YTK A 32.

Lehtovuori, P., Hentilä, H.-L. and Bengs, C. (2003) Tilapäiset käytöt, kaupunkisuunnittelun un- ohdettu voimavara / Temporary uses, the forgotten resource of urban planning. Espoo: Yhdys- kuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja C 58.

Lehtovuori Panu & Ruoppila Sampo (2012) Temporary uses as means of experimental urban planning. SAJ – Serbian Architectural Journal 4 (1), 29-54.

Lydon, Mike; Bartman, Dan; Garcia, Tony; Preston, Russ; Woudstra, Ronald (March 2012). Tactical Urbanism Short-term Action Long-term Change Volume 2. The Street Plans Collaborative. http://issuu.com/streetplanscollaborative/docs/tactical_urbanism_vol_2_final

Massey, Doreen (2005). For Space. London: Sage.

Mitchell, Don (2003). The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New York: Guilford.

Montagna, N. (2006) The de-commodification of urban space and the occupied social centres in Ita- ly. City 10(3), 295–304.

Oswald, F.; Baccini, P. in association with Michaeli, M. (2003) Netzstadt – Designing the Urban, Birkhäuser, Basel, Boston, Berlin.

Peck, Jamie (2005) Struggling with the creative class. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29, 740-770.

Pfeifer, Laura (2013). "The Planner's Guide to Tactical Urbanism". Regina Urban Ecology. http://reginaurbanecology.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/tuguide1.pdf

Pickerill Jenny & Chatterton Paul (2006) Notes towards autonomous geographies: creation, resistance and self-management as survival tactics. Progress in Human Geography 30 (6), 1-17.

Ruoppila Sampo (2014) Independent cultural centres in urban regeneration - significance of cultural amenities. Paper presented at the ISA World Congress of Sociology, Yokohama.

Shields, Rob (1999). Lefebvre, Love and Struggle. Spatial Dialectics. London: Routledge.

Schmitz, Hermann (1969). Der Gefühlraum. Bonn: Bouvier.

Shaw, Kate (2014) Melbourne’s Creative Spaces program: Reclaiming the ‘creative city’ (if not quite the rest of it). City, Culture and Society 5 (3), 139-147.

Smith, Nigel (1979). Toward a theory of gentrification: a back to the city movement by capital, not people. Journal of the American Planning Association 45(4), 538-548.

Stevens, Quentin (2007). The Ludic City. exploring the potential of public spaces. New York: Routledge.

Stevens, Q & Ambler, M (2010) Europe’s City Beaches as Post-fordist Placemaking. The Journal of Urban Design, 15 (4), 515-537.

Souza, Marcelo Lopes de (2006) Together with the state, despite the state, against the state. Social movements as ‘critical urban planning’ agents. City 10 (3), 327-342.

Urban Pioneers (2007). Berlin: Stadtentwiclung durch Zwischennutzung / Temporary Use and Ur- ban Development in Berlin. Berlin: Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung.

Van der Steen, Bart & Katzeff, Ask & van Hoogenhuijze, Leendert (eds.) 2014. Squatting and Auton- omous Movements in Europe from the 1970´s to the Present. PM Press: USA.

Vasudevan Alex (2014) Autonomous urbanisms and the right to the city: the spatial politics of squatting in Berlin, 1968-2012. In: Bart van der Steen, Ask Katzeff, and Leendert van Hoogenhuijze (Eds.) The City Is Ours: Squatting and Autonomous Movements in Europe from the 1970s to the Present. PM Press, 130-151.

Zukin, Sharon (1989) Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change. Rutgers University Press.