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Architecture; [email protected] **University of Turku, Department of Social Research; [email protected] DRAFT, please do not quote word to word Temporary Uses Producing Difference in Contemporary Urbanism Paper presented at the “Transience and permanence in urban development” workshop,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 inter- ventions. 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 heteroge- neous 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 formulat- eD. 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- 2 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 actu- al 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.

Load more