The value of temporary use
A qualitative, comparative case study on the social benefits of temporary use to the cities of
Berlin and Amsterdam
Monte Königs (5881188) Master Thesis
Research Master Urban Studies University of Amsterdam First supervisor: prof. dr. C.J.M. Karsten Second supervisor: dhr. prof. dr. J. C. Rath
3 An intense experience
This Master Thesis is written for the completion of the Research Master Urban Studies at the department of Graduate School of Social Sciences, University of Amsterdam. The whole last year of this master was dedicated to doing research and writing this thesis. It has been a long year full of great experiences but also some desperate moments that come with all intense experiences in life. I got to live in Berlin for seven months. A period I will never forget and that has changed me as an academic and as a person. I got to go back home with more realization of what Amsterdam really means to me. I learned a new language, German, and challenged myself by combining this with English, also not my mother tongue. At times it was hard to keep focused in such a large project. The weather conditions in Berlin for example, could be very rough with -15°C. Luckily enough, I have met many interesting people along the way that I would like to thank. First of all, my first supervisor Lia Karsten who even on her sabbatical always was willing to give me advice. She has readjusted my focus several times for the best of this work. Also Jan Rath, my second supervisor deserves to be thanked because of his enthusiastic willingness to assess this work. My parents were always there for advice, to share my enthusiasm with and to motivate me when it was needed. I thank them a lot for that. Of course, I am most thankful for all the respondents that were willing to give up their time to talk to me. Even when my intentions were not fully understood, when they really did not have enough time to do this or when my questions in German were funny to them it is good to know that this much people are willing to help and to inform.
5 Overview of content
An intense experience ... 3
1. Introduction ... 7
2. Theory ... 10
State of the Art: temporary use ... 10
State of the art: typologies and variations ... 12
State of the art: discussions on temporary use ... 14
Critical theory ... 16
Critical theory: an overview ... 16
Critical theory: positioning temporary use ... 19
Critical theory: critical concepts ... 21
The production of space: duality of space ... 23
The production of space: triad of space ... 23
Theory used in this research ... 24
3. Methodology ... 28
Questions and methods ... 28
The research process ... 31
The selection process ... 32
The selected cases ... 33
Strengths of the research ... 35
Weaknesses of the research ... 36
4.1 Results: Flohmarkt am Mauerpark... 38
Flohmarkt am Mauerpark: the citizens involved ... 39
Flohmarkt am Mauerpark: enabled and limited ... 46
Flohmarkt am Mauerpark: added value ... 52
4.2 Results: RAW-tempel e.V. ... 55
RAW-tempel e.V.: the citizens involved ... 57
RAW-tempel e.V.: enabled and limited ... 64
RAW-tempel e.V.: added value ... 70
4.3 Results: Baut ... 73
Baut: the citizens involved ... 74
Baut: enabled and limited ... 81
Baut: added value ... 87
4.4 Results: Stadsboeren ... 90
Stadsboeren: the citizens involved ... 91
Stadsboeren: enabled and limited ... 96
Stadsboeren: added value ... 101
5 Analysis ... 104
Temporary new requirements give access ... 104
Restricting the producers, enables the users ... 106
Uncertainty and chaos attract creativeness and diversity ... 107
Skilled facilitating producers supply equity ... 109
6 Conclusion ... 112
6
7 References ... 116
8 Attachments ... 118
Attachment 1: Questions prepared for interviews ... 118
Attachment 2: List of informants, qualitative interviews... 120
Attachment 3: Code list ... 121
Attachment 4: Questionnaire ... 123
Attachment 5: Interview questions employees ... 125
7
1. Introduction
“People should be happy that we are here. The property developer can sell his property better because we make it more lively here. It brings a nice social function to the neighborhood and people are just happier when they come here.”
(Thomas le Gras, Stadsboeren)
Luckily for Thomas, the popularity of temporary use projects like Stadsboeren is rising among city officials and planners. In Amsterdam, the municipality has developed a digital map with information on the available wastelands and unused spaces that are ready to be temporarily developed. By offering this overview and their mediating service, the city hopes to aid this upcoming phenomenon. After the Wall fell in Berlin, the “Zwischennutzungen” started to pop up all over the city. With the abundance of unused spaces and the vibrant cultural scene, Berlin soon became the perfect home for temporary uses. They breathe new life into unused and undesired places and that exactly forms the most convincing reason for municipalities to back these projects up. Discussion in the academic and the city planning field try find out how these projects can be incorporated into city planning.
It is presented here as if temporary projects are a new phenomenon in the city which is not entirely true. Taking a long term view, every implementation of the city has a temporary character. The basic principles of the capitalistic system are based on temporality, on boom/bust and decline/growth cycles (Németh & Langhorst, 2013: 3). Nevertheless, city planning and spatial design are traditionally orientated towards long-term growth and the control and limitation of the inherent uncertainty and open-endedness of urban transformations (Blumner, 2006: 3). What can be said, is that the unplanned temporality is relatively new to the urban. This form substitutes the long term planned implementation and does not necessarily fit with the overall set out goals of city planning. The exact definition of this form, ‘temporary use’1 , as it is used in this research is the following:
‘an intended to be temporary activation by people other than the owner, of unused land or buildings with an unknown or impracticable new desirable use, that seeks to derive unique qualities from the idea of temporality’2.
1
Many different names are given to the same phenomenon, such as ‘interim use’, in German called [Zwischennutzung] by Blumner, 2006; Schlegelmilch, 2009; Artl, 2006 and Krivý, 2012; ‘plan the unplanned’ (Blumner, 2006); ‘interdeterminate spaces’ (Groth & Corijn, 2005) and ‘secondary spaces’ (Hentilä, 2003) even though ‘temporary use’ is the most commonly used name (Overmeyer, 2007; Hentilä, 2003; Colomb, 2012; Henricson, 2009; Haydn & Temel, 2006, Artl, 2006; Bishop & Williams, 2012). Although great variations in definitions can be seen and for instacte Graham (2012) gives interim use a distinctive definition, the common characteristcs overlap enough to speak of one phenomenon.
2
This definition is composed out of elements from the work from Haydn & Temel; 2006: 17; Blumner, 2006: 4; Krivý, 2012: 18; Bishop & Williams, 2012: 5; Schlegelmilch, 2009: 494; Overmeyer, 2007: 36 and Lémeth & Langhorst, 2013: 2.
8
Many state that these projects are becoming an increasingly important component of the urban landscape. They ‘are now becoming more diverse, are putting their stamp on a growing number of city locations’ (Overmeyer, 2007: 21), ‘bring positive attention and new energy to neglected areas’ (Blumner, 2006: 3) and are ‘harnessed into urban development policies and city marketing campaigns’ (Colomb, 2012: 132).The projects seem to fill the holes that are left in today’s city by long term planning. The financial crisis has brought a major decrease in construction activity and investments. The transition from production based urban economies towards service based economies during growing globalization has left unused industrial wastelands in many cities. The focus on long-term planning with tools such as zoning plans has made the municipalities inflexible in reaction to these developments.
“The places that are attractive for temporary users are the places that are not attractive for investors.” (Artl, 2006: 42)
In exactly those holes the temporary uses pop up. The initiatives position themselves out of the normal urban competition, they have positive influences on the image of the unused space and fit with the current orientation of cities on cultural industries. On top of that, they are rumored to be more adaptable to the modern cultural diversity of the city than traditional urban planning is. What still stays unclear is whether these unplanned initiatives even can be planned. And if so, what position should municipalities and city planners take to secure the qualities that seem to be oppositional to the qualities of traditional urban planning? The balance between letting the projects happen and strategically implementing them still has to be determined. This research is aimed at contributing to this discussion. Contrary to what already has been researched the focus here does not lie on the benefits that temporary uses can bring city developers, property owners or the municipality (Artl, 2006; Brammer, 2009; Breitfuß, 2003; Graham, 2012; Haydn & temel, 2006; Henricson, 2009; Hentilä & Lindborg, 2003; Overmeyer 2007; SUC, 2003) but on the benefits for the citizens of the city, the social benefits. By showing how these social added value of the projects are developed, hopefully more knowledge is gathered on whether it is possible for city planners to incorporate these uses without eliminating these social benefits.
The main research question of this research is ‘How do the distinctive features of temporary use enable citizens to produce more suitable spaces?’. To give answer to this question attention will be given to four different cases of temporary use project. The immense popular Flohmarkt am Mauerpark and the large artistic collective, RAW-tempel e.V. in Berlin. And from Amsterdam the highly rated restaurant Baut and the urban farming initiative, Stadsboeren. These projects have in common that they are all intended to be temporary but vary in the type of project that they are. This thesis is build up out of five large
9
chapters. The theoretical chapter starts off with offering an overview of the ‘state of the art’ theory on temporary use. The definition of the phenomenon, the expected variation and the position of this research are clarified in these ‘state of the art’ chapters. Then the theory on critical theory and the right to the city is presented as an interesting strain of theory to combine with the state of the art theory. The last presented strain of theory is on the production of space that deals with different models on the creation of space. To end the theoretical chapters, all models and concepts that are used in the analysis are operationalized to this specific research. In the methodological chapter, the research questions are presented. The three different sub questions that give more guidance to the main research question are:
1. “Who are the citizens involved in temporary use projects and what are their motives?” 2. “How are citizens enabled and limited by the features of temporary use to produce space?” 3. “What is the for citizens added value of the by temporary use produced space?:
Each sub questions is presented with the methods that are used to answer it. The experiences with the methods are presented which is followed by explained and justifying the strategic selection. Together this forms the research design, that is evaluated on its strengths and weaknesses to end the methodological chapter. The fourth chapter contains all the results of this research, which is a lot. To maintain transferability and transparency these chapter are quit extensive in presenting the found results. To keep this thesis readable, the results are presented in four chapters, a chapter for each case. Those are structured by the three sub questions. These chapter can be read separately so that the reader, you, can choose to read all or only the one(s) that interest you the most. In the last chapter, the analysis, the results are compared to one another. Here an answer is given to the main research question as the results from the four cases are compared. The analysis ends with a conclusion and a reflection on the theory and the possible contribution of this research to the field. But we are not there yet, first off, lets dive into what is already known about the phenomenon.
10
2. Theory
State of the Art: temporary useIn the last decade much has been written about temporary use. Most of the work is written out of an architectural and city planning perspective. The research project, Urban Catalyst, has taken this perspective and investigated the potential of temporary uses as a motor of urban change. The research consisted of a network of 12 partners from five European cities: Helsinki, Amsterdam, Berlin, Vienna and Naples. (SUC, 2003: 2) Many of the theory used in this work is based in later publications that derived from this research3 and are mostly occupied with the modeling, outlining and categorizing of the concept of temporary use by describing the important characteristics of the temporary users, the uses, the sites, the contexts and the relations between these aspects. Only a few theorist have made to connection between the phenomenon and social theory such as Groth & Corijn (2005), Becker (2010), Bishop & Williams (2012), Colomb (2012), Krívy (2012) and Németh & Langhorst (2013). By combining and comparing these theories quite an understanding on the common characteristics and different forms of temporary use is established.
As is argued above, many different definitions are utilized by different authors and even different names are used to refer to the same urban spaces. It is therefore important to conceptualize the phenomenon in this research clearly. Temporary uses are defined by several elements. The first is, of course, its temporality. Temporality does not mean the projects need to have a short timeframe but that they are planned to be impermanent, it is the intention of the user, owner, developer or planners that the use should be temporary. Although the length of projects varies greatly because of the extension of temporary contracts or allowances, the rule mostly applied is that the project should not have a longer certainty than five years. (Bishop & Williams, 2012: 5; Haydn & Temel, 2006: 17). Secondly the use is organized by someone else than the owner of the property and consists of a use that is important for its organizer and user (SUC, 2003: 3; Hentilä & Lindborg, 2003:3). The intended temporality stems from the third element which is that the use is an alternative use to the original, abandoned use and its owner’s or planner’s desirable long term use that is either unknown or unrealizable. From this element many alternative names derived such as in between, interim and secondary use. (Overmeyer, 2007: 36; Schlegelmilch, 2009: 494; Blumner, 2006: 4; Bishop & Williams, 2012: 5) Lastly the projects use the unique qualities of temporality for their benefit. Because the use is temporary and alternative to long
3 : Lehtovuori, 2009; Lethovuori &Havik, 2009; Hentilä & Lindborg, 2003; Haydn & Temel, 2006, Overmeyer, 2007
11
term plans it offers room for innovation, playfulness, creativeness, uncertainty, unexpected opportunities and flexibility that is often the core of their success and popularity. (Groth & Corijn, 2005: 506, 521; Haydn & Temel, 2006: 17; Colomb, 20012: 135; SUC, 2003: 3; Pogoreutz, 2006: 77; Schlegelmilch, 2009: 494). All this together form the following work definition for this research of temporary use:
‘Temporary use is an intended to be temporary activation by people other than the owner of unused land or buildings with an unknown or impracticable new desirable use, that seeks to derive unique qualities from the idea of temporality’
Next to the elements that define temporary uses, the available literature shows several common characteristics of temporary uses. The allowance of the use does not certainly define the actual length of the use. Whether the time frame is based on short hold contractual agreements that can possibly be extended or the owner turns a blind eye for the time being, it creates great uncertainty for the projects. So not only is the timeframe intended to be temporary, the length of the project is often unpredictable. (Hentilä & Lindborg, 2003: 3; Overmeyer, 2007: 36). This uncertainty and the small amount of resources of the temporary uses lead to another intrinsic feature of temporality, which is limited investments. In the Urban Catalyst project this is called ‘Urbanism Light’ which means that “found spaces and materials are recycled with a minimum of investment and physical intervention” (SUC, 2003:3). In some cases temporary users have to pay a small financial compensation for their use, add new infrastructure such as electricity and water and use mobile equipment to appropriate the place-based intricacies into a certain use needs but more investments can’t be made (Lethovuori & Havik, 2009: 225; SUC, 2003: 14). Because the projects do not have to be suitable for the mainstream economy (and often do not have the resources to be) the possibility to use creativeness and culturally significant practices is bigger and necessary. The limitations in economic and spatial investments are compensated by the social and cultural investment. The social investments are the time and efforts users put into a project. The cultural investments consist of creative and experimental uses that are often related to art, culture, sport, gastronomy, education, social events and combination of all those. In the end, the social groups behind the projects and the specific uses are the main reason the phenomenon of temporary use exist. (Blumner, 2006: 4; Becker, 2010: 76)
12 State of the art: typologies and variations
The intrinsic characteristics of the temporary use projects, its uncertainty, the limited economic investments and physical interventions, the reliance on creative and cultural practices and its high dependency on social groups, are the common aspects of the diverse literature on these kind of projects. The great variety of projects are captured in different typologies of locations, goals of the owner, organizers and projects by different authors. In order to create valid typologies, large research studies are necessary to capture the variety of projects in different modern cities. The Urban Catalyst and Bishop and Williams (2012) have done such researches and others have interpreted and adjusted these typologies.
Vacancies occur on many locations in the city that create vacant spaces and unused buildings. Locations that are appropriate for temporary uses and where temporary uses can be found are former industrial sites such as abandoned factories and warehouses; infill sites such as demolished housing; empty and unrenovated shops, public buildings, offices and housing and infrastructure related vacant areas including areas between rail lines and abandoned roadways (Schlegelmilch, 2009: 494; Blumner, 2006: 7). The owners of such vacant urban spaces might have different motives for allowing (or ignoring) temporary use activities at their properties. It will minimize their efforts for property management and possibly generate rental revenue. Activity at their property can prevent vandalism and offers the possibility of making the site more popular which can lead to the increase of its value. Possible financial compensation can cover insurance fees, land tax and general maintenance costs and the temporary use projects does not hinder the long term development and might even become a possible long-term solution (Schlegemilch, 2009: 498).
The organizers of the temporary use projects can also be called pioneers (Overmeyer, 2007) and also vary in different types and motivations. Combining the identified types of Overmeyer (2007: 39-41), Urban Catalyst (SUC, 2003: 3) and Blumner (2006: 7) seven different groups of organizers can be distinguished:
Entrepreneurial start-ups who may look for publicity, cheap circumstances to start up, proximity to like-minded and futures development into re-integration in urban economy;
Volunteer, non-profit groups who aim to upgrade the location or the surrounding area and its community;
Artist who are in need for spaces to create art an build an artistic community;
13
System refugees who intentionally withdrawal themselves from established orders to create their own alternative universe;
Drop-outs who have criminal backgrounds, are homeless or in any other way do not fit the ‘normal standards’;
Part time activists who have a regular position and income in the society, but want to enrich their and other lives with experiences outside established orders.
Breitfuß emphasizes that this typology should be seen as fluid. A temporary use project can pass through different user groups, for instance when part time activist start a project and when it gains popularity it gets business and start-up features and the organizers get more evolved. Many hybrid forms and combinations can be found. (2003, 136)
The same applies to the typologies of the projects itself. In every typology made by theorists on this topic, hybrid and alternative forms can be found in the urban landscape. The projects are categorized in roughly two types of typologies. For instance the typology of Henricson (2009) where three kinds of temporary uses are distinguished based on the average duration of the temporary use. The first type that mostly have the longest duration are the uses that consist of small businesses, cultural scenes and meeting places. Next to that the uses can be workshops, art projects and other events and the last kind are the spontaneous and informal actions (2009: 28-29). The Urban Catalyst (2003: 15) offers a typology based on the type of user in the projects as outlined above which combined with typologies by Schegelmilch (2004: 504) and Blumner (2006: 6) distinguishes the following uses:
Gardens, allotments and public green spaces (for instance community gardens, playgrounds, urban farms);
Art and culture (for instance art installations, studios, workshops, performance spaces);
Sport and recreation (for instance skate parks, beachvolleyball, adventure courses and climbing walls);
Gastronomy (for instance clubs, bars and restaurants);
Offices (for instance flexible workspaces or small businesses);
Shops (for instance second hand or vintage shops, flea markets and promotional shops);
Parking lots and storage sites;
Social institutions (for instance community centers);
Temporary and alternative living situations (for instance trailer parks, house boats and tent cities).
14
Theorist such as Hentilä & Lindborg (2003), Urban Catalyst (2003), Graham (2012) and Németh & Langhorst (2013) have worked out even more typologies that describe how temporary uses have long term effects and can be used as a tool in planning strategies. Examples of these typologies are “‘impulse’ where a temporary use gives an impulse to the future development of the site” , “‘consolidation’ where a temporary use establishes itself at a location and is transformed to a permanent use” and “’Coexistence’ where temporary use continues to exist (in a smaller size) even after establishment of a formal permanent” use (Hentilä & Lindborg, 2003: 12-13). The research Project Urban Catalyst add to those the temporary uses that extend their use at different locations where the transformations have mostly a positive effect, updating and refreshing the character of the activity (SUC, 2003: 24). New concepts can arise that are later developed outside of the temporary use form, the effect of the projects on the social and cultural capital are beyond its own duration and they serve as an incubator for new types of professionals who become professionals through learning by doing (SUC, 2003: 24). In this way the first step towards temporary use as a planning tool is taken.
State of the art: discussions on temporary use
Bishop and Williams conclude with the argument for “a more systematic inclusion of temporary uses into existing planning and design instruments to realize the latent potentials of vacant urban lands as an important resource” (2012: 203). The Urban Catalyst research conclude their project with the assumption that if city planning wants to incorporate the unplanned phenomena into traditional planning that the formal economies working in traditional planning have to adapt informal qualities and the informal economies working in temporary uses have to adapt formal qualities. By categorizing strategies, motives and projects, prototypes, models and tools can be made in order to formalize temporary use projects. Formal procedures of planning such as administration and management should be deinstitutionalized and de-formalized. (SUC, 2003: 25) Németh and Langhorst take a comparable position towards the implementation of temporary use into regulatory processes, namely that significant changes to regulatory urban planning and development should be made in order to increase comfort levels for landowners, developers and regulatory agencies with attention to specific conditions and each cases particularity (2013: 4-5).
In reaction to this plea for the incorporation of temporary uses in traditional urban planning Groth and Corijn state that the creativeness of such informal complexes can’t be completely planned because they depend too strongly on the investment of informal actors that temporarily occupy the urban spaces (2005: 523). In some way the elements that define temporary uses and the common
15
characteristics are all based on the principle that temporary use functions outside of traditional urban planning and the quality of it might get lost by formalizing or structuring the flexibility, playfulness and creativeness. Colomb describes this tension as a conflict that inherently occurs with temporary use. Due to the allowance of temporary use only during the absence of demand for commercial development, it will only be a matter of time before temporary uses have to encounter with top-down planning and urban development processes. When local authorities see temporary use as an instrument to make a site valuable for mainstream forms of real-estate development it creates a conflict with the intrinsic qualities of grassroot, unplanned and alternative urbanism, where any hope for long duration is immediately connected to profit-oriented urban development. (2012: 147) Krivý adds that the additional value of temporary uses to the city that exist out of the creation of innovative milieus and synergy, the attraction of residents and businesses to this creativeness and the therefor enhanced image and competition capacity of the city, do not lie in their temporariness, per se. It lies in the “diversity, spontaneity and indeterminacy of the ‘cultural activities’” that are consequences of temporality. (2012: 18) The projects “are characterized by a tension between their actual use value (as publicly accessible spaces for social, artistic, and cultural experimentation) and their potential commercial value” argues Colomb (2012, 138). Colomb then raises important questions on the effects of the instrumentalization of temporary uses for policy purposes on the projects itself (2012, 138). She tries to find answers to these questions by looking at marketing strategies of the city of Berlin in the context of the ‘creative city’.
This research is aimed at adding to the discussion of temporary uses as additional value to the urban landscape and its possible implementation into city planning. Other than previous research has done, this research is focused at the experiences of the organizers and users. The emotional and physical dedication of these social groups is emphasized as an important reason for the success of the projects but not much has been researched on how the organizers dedicate their time, why they do this and how it is received in the actual use value. Clarifying what the added value of temporary uses is and to what this added value can be traced back to will give a brighter insight into what might get lost by the incorporation of temporary use in market-led city planning. In order to relate the experiences of the users to the academic literature in urban theory and on the specific debate in the theory on temporary use, two theoretical discussion from urban sciences will be used to position the phenomenon of temporary use projects in the wider urban landscape. The theoretical work related to ‘the right to the city’ will be used to evaluate the potential added value of temporary uses to the city. The theory related to ‘the production of space’ will be used to analyze and grasp the creation of urban spaces by temporary uses and to describe what kind of places exactly are created.
16 Critical theory
A critical examination of the possible contribution that temporary users can make to the urban is needed in order to evaluate the importance of temporary uses. In the tradition of critical thinking, theory related to ‘the right to the city’ is used to critically examine how - through the phenomenon of temporary use - citizens can contribute to the urban and what this added value of the contribution exactly consist of. ‘The right to the city’ finds its origins in critical urban thinking but along the way it has become an activist slogan that acts as a voice for ‘one side in the conflict over who should have the benefit of the city and what kind of city is should be’ that in some cases include some seriously watered-down ones compared with the original concept (Mayer, 2010: 367). Overall it has been seen as a moral claim or cry for a new kind of urbanity that fits the wishes of its inhabitants better. For this research the right to the city will mainly be used as a theoretical building block to critically examine the peculiarities of temporary uses that in the end, - possibly and certainly not necessarily - will lead to a contribution to the critical and moral discussions on urbanity and temporary uses.
“‘Critical’ I take to be, among other things, shorthand for an evaluative attitude towards reality, a
questioning rather than an acceptance of the world as it is, a taking apart and examining and attempting to understand the world. It leads to a position not only necessarily critical in the sense of negative
criticism, but also critically exposing the positive and the possibilities of change, implying positions on what is wrong and needing change, but also on what is desirable and needs to be built on and fostered.”
(Marcuse, 2010: 185)
Critical theory: an overview
The originator of the slogan ‘the right to the city’ is Henry Lefebvre who wrote about ‘Le Droit à la Ville’ in 1968. In that piece he put forward the notion of the need for a radical change in how ‘the urban’ operates and the debate has continued ever since. Lefebvre indicated the discrepancy between the ideal form of urban life and the (then) current state of the urban. In the ideal form there is an equal distribution of access to potential benefits and fundamental rights and liberties between all urban dwellers. In the urban forms that actually exist this ideal is strongly hindered by strong power relations and capital-driven urban structures. Lefebvre also indicated a general lack of understanding of the urban. Urbanity is most commonly described in reference to the rural society or the traditional society that developed out of the rural but Lefebvre argues for a renewed ‘right to urban life’ in which urbanity finds its own and true ‘morphological base and its practico-material realization’ in which the qualities inherent to the urban can flourish the most (Lefebvre, 1996/1968: 150, 158). Urbanity as a supreme resource among all resources, a place of encounter and its priority to use value are these inherent qualities fall
17
short in the urban Lefebvre describes. Commercial and cultural infrastructures and urban planners of the ‘the bureaucratic society of managed consumption’ or a society that is merely based on consumption as Lefebvre calls it, do not satisfyingly answer specific needs (1996/1968: 147). These needs are described by Lefebvre as the following: ‘the need for creative activity, for the oeuvre (not only for products and consumable material goods), of the need of information, symbolism, the imaginary and play’ (1996/1968: 147). In order to realize this ideal form of the urban where this social need is satisfied, critical thinking should be used by professionals (urban planners, architects, scholars ect.) to develop a new science with which each object of the urban can be examined and challenged but that is not sufficient. The inhabitants of the urban, which Lefebvre identifies as the ‘working class’, should become “the agent, the social carrier or support of this realization” of this renewed urbanity through practicing it in everyday life (Lefebvre, 1996/1968: 158).Although the state of the urban has significantly changed since Lefebvre posed this problem the discussion has continued and led by significant authors as Marcuse (2010), Harvey (2003), Zukin (2009), Fainstein (2010) and Purcell (2003).
Marcuse’s (2010) main concerns were the operationalization of the terms used in this discussion. What is this right, who has this right and what is the city, are all questions Marcuse tries to answer. Marcuse states that the right is not an individualistic right but a collectivity of rights which goes further than the legal claim in the judicial process because it is a “moral claim, founded on fundamental principles of justice, of ethics, of morality, of virtue of the good” (2010: 192-193). To account for this right, Marcuse suggests that researchers “need to expose the common roots of the deprivation and discontent, and to show the common nature of the demands and the aspirations of the majority of the people” (Marcuse, 2010: 195). Thereafter, Marcuse clarifies two aspects on what is meant by ‘the city. First, the right of the city does not refer to the existing city but to the future of the city, it does not entirely exist yet. Next to that, Marcuse argues that one cannot speak of a city at all but more of a whole society, the term only functions as a synecdoche and metaphor, therefor ‘the urban’ would better fit its purposes. (Marcuse, 2010: 193) As for to who the right to the city applies, Marcuse distinguishes different groups for which the right varies in form such as the cry, demand or aspiration. “The demand is for those who are alienated, the cry is of those who are alienated” (Marcuse, 2010: 190) but Lefebvre, to which Marcuse refers to, is more straightforward: “the right is of all those who inhabit” (Lefebvre, 1996/1968: 158).
Harvey (2003; 2008) translates the problems posed by Lefebvre to more current urban developments and he thereby takes a leftist political position. He states that society is dominated by the accumulation of capital through market exchange and free markets are not necessarily fair because
18
without attention to unequal social and cultural relations monopoly powers are inevitably produced. Societies focus on the accumulation of capital through market exchange challenges the social needs and right. Juristically we are all individually protected but the individual right of capitalism (such as open market and freedoms of choice, independence from state interference and individual responsibility) do not immediately benefit the social. (Harvey, 2003: 940) In the urban this can be seen through the commodification of the quality of urban life. The urban political economy relies on consumerism, tourism, cultural and knowledge-based industries to determine the urban centers. (Harvey, 2008: 31). Harvey argues strongly that these developments of the capitalist economy on the urban have dispossessed masses of any right to the city, because of the inequality of free markets. These developments cannot be seen in every city exactly as Harvey describes them but it does gain more awareness of directions many cities are orientated towards and where the right to the city fits in. Harvey writes that it is a right to change what already exist after our heart’s desire to create an urban where we can live with our own creations in a qualitatively different kind of urban sociality as one of the most precious of all human rights (Harvey, 2003: 939). In Harvey’s case this translates into an urban where the unequal are unequally treated in order to create equality in capitalisms free market.
Zukin gives a comparable translation of Lefebvre’s theory to the current urban but calls the forthcoming effect ‘a crisis of authenticity’. The directional decision of city governments to adapt financial instruments to channel and increase investment capital seeking profitable returns so that they can compete in every sector of the symbolic economy (such as finance, real estate, art, media and fashion) create a hegemonic urban environment (Zukin, 2009: 543-544). In the globalization and the economic crisis the reliance of cities on the neoliberal market system becomes bigger. An undesirable change in the urban as a response to these developments is the crisis of authenticity that is “representing a different regulation of both spaces and people, creating projects and dependencies on a larger scale, eliminating the means by which poor people and ethnic minorities produce their lives, and reducing the social and aesthetic diversity that has been a historical element of city life” (Zukin, 2009: 545). Zukin refers here to the same undesirable change that Lefebvre outlines when he explains the development of social needs. Both plea for social developments in the city that are not dependent on their exchange value or seen as a commodity but those that directly answer the social needs not answered by economic structures. Zukin claims that without it the city is ‘losing its soul’ (Zukin, 2009: 545).
Fainstein’s focus has been more on the temporary municipalities role in cities. The main problem according to Fainstein is the municipalities focus on the intense competition for private investment.
19
Processes of deindustrialization and globalization have made commercial competition and the places where this competition is acted upon are the cities. Urban authorities have adopted more neoliberal policies on basis of the claim that growth-promoting policies result in the greatest good for the greatest numbers. The discourse of city planning has been dominated by justifications for projects in terms of enhancing competitiveness that has come at the expense of wider social benefits (Fainstein, 2010: 1, 213). Purcell tackles the same problem as Fainstein by describing the change from government to governance4 consisting of three main developments. First local and regional authorities take over responsibilities from the national scale making them responsible for economic development, social services, provision of infrastructure and spatial planning (2013: 100). Secondly the focus of policy is shifting from redistribution toward competition in the context of neoliberal restructuring. Thirdly, the functions of the local authorities have been redistributed to non-state and quasi-state bodies. Both Fainstein and Purcell express their concern on the benefits created by the urban government due to its neoliberal policies are for instance directed to enforce tourism and economic activity. Hereby the disadvantaged inhabitants of the city are not included in the focus of urban policies. The argument here is mainly that neoliberal policies are directed at the already better off and that the inhabitants of the city that need the most attention from the urban government are left out. (Fainstein, 2010: 3-5) Therefore the state of the urban is unjust towards all of its inhabitants and a plea for justice is done. This plea is highly normative and emotional and should be seen as such.
Critical theory: positioning temporary use
The problems posed by Lefebvre and the other more contemporary scholars that lead to a call for the right to the city are very closely linked to the urban developments that fertilized the growth in number and importance of temporary uses. Next to that, great similarities between the refocus at the social needs and benefits in cities that is called for in the right to the city and the inherent qualities of temporary uses can be seen. Cities are forces to respond to the intense competition for private investment fuelled by the inflow if international businesses (Fainstein, 2010: 1-6). Competitiveness and making profit form the main discourse of city planning. In many cases the municipalities’ efforts contribute to this discourse of profit making. The urban space is rationalized by their potential to raise property values (Fainstein, 2010: 10). In this manner the representation of the urban space is
4
Governance as explained by Purcell is the development where cities authorities move away from demand-orientated redistribution and toward supply-oriented competition. The reorganization its structure, by outsourcing services to institutions such as volunteer organizations and private firms that carry out many functions of the local government, aims to create greater efficiency. (Purcell, 2013: 101)
20
determined by profit based factors which can be alien to the actual use of the space by its citizens. In that case there is a lack of representational urban spaces and here is exactly where temporary use projects have to potential to fulfill an important role.
Temporary uses are a great example of spaces in cities that do not (per se and at least temporarily) assess the value of the space for its exchange value or possibilities for making profit. Németh & Langhorst also recommend temporary uses as a model that has de capacity to expose conflicting structures, such as the competing value systems of the neoliberal city policy and the need for social and cultural benefits in the city. Temporary uses find feasible, more just and equitable ways to satisfy these both sides. (2013: 5) Some might succeed in this challenge and some might not even get close to striking the golden mean but exactly this experimental form of urban reform is what Lefebvre in 1968 called for. Lefebvre calls for an urban reform that is revolutionary but not inevitable by force but in the way that it is positioned against the established order (1996/1968: 154). The use of experiment in order to study the possibly surprising implications and consequences on the ground, named ‘experimental utopia’, is, according to Lefebvre, the most interesting way to finding a ‘successful’ space (1996/1968: 151). Thus by not fitting in the standardized market-led urban temporary uses unavoidable challenge the existing urban structures and are likely to give answer to the needs created in the right to the city. Owing to the enabling of economic weak players to set up temporary uses and the independence from profit-making, temporary uses can possibly give answer to the need of the ‘oeuvre’(Lefebvre, 1996/1968) or ‘the crisis of authenticity; (Zukin, 2009). An intrinsic element of temporary uses is that they are fluent, ever-changing and in direct contact with the needs and wishes of a certain groups of individuals, which keeps the diversity of the projects in change as well. (Groth & Corijn, 2005: 522-523) In this diversity and change, creative talent, innovative entrepreneurs and outcasts can develop their ideas and in this way produce the wanted space (Blumner, 2006: 9). In this way they have the control over the implications of the city that is called for in the right to the city where a call is made for a urban design that is executed by and adjusted to the wishes of the whole society and all those who inhabit (Purcell, 2013: 102).
Even though temporary uses might look as a nice fit into the discussion on the right to the city und thus might have a nice contribution as a urban form to the city, it will be needed to further critically examine relation between the changes that are called for in the theory on the right to the city and the actual contributions temporary uses can make to those changes. In the following part, different criteria that are brought up in the theory on the right to the city that can assess urban reform are conceptualized in order to be used later on this research to assess the potential contribution of temporary uses.
21 Critical theory: critical concepts
Fainstein has put great efforts into providing conceptualizations that give answer to the problems posed in the right to the city debate. In her book, ‘The Just City’, Susan Fainstein critiques her fellow scholars by providing critique on the widespread neoliberal ideology without offering a counter ideology and sets the example herself (2010: ix). She pleads that municipalities have gone too far with rationalizing public spaces on notions of profit making and she therefor pleads for a just city which is: ‘a city in which public investment and regulation would produce equitable outcomes rather than support those already well off’ (Fainstein, 2010:3). To support this statement, a theory of justice is drafted to conceptualize this highly complex term. Defining justice can be a very difficult and ambiguous process. Even though the concept faces these problems much can be said to materialize the concept of justice. Justice in this sense does not just incorporate the legal justice system in society but also a moral sense of equal opportunity and rights for everyone, internalized into the system (Marcuse, 2010: 192-193). The morality of justice can be further decomposed into three different values democracy, equity and diversity (Fainstein, 2010). These concepts are mainly operationalized to measure the justice of cities policies and therefor might be more difficult to apply in this research on the experiences of temporary uses, nevertheless the concepts used by Fainstein will be explained and used as a loose translation of the policy discourse.
The first concept Fainstein uses is democracy. In terms of urban planning and municipalities policies, democracy entails the democratic election of the cities authority and that the democratic parties are directly held responsible for the public needs. A second aspect of democracy in city planning is the more frequently used bottom-up approach in cities planning. To include citizens in both decision making processes and execution of planning means a better responsiveness, empathy and furtherance of democracy. On the other hand, counter consequences of bottom-up approaches can be separatism, inefficiency and opportunism. (Fainstein, 2010: 63-67) The second concept of the theory of justice is equity. Fainstein prefers the term equity over the term equality because it is not a requirement that each person should be treated the same, neither that the outcome should be the same for everyone but that every treatment should be appropriate to each person. All citizens should have equal opportunities without the outcomes having to be equal. Disturbances in equity are for instance relative disadvantages and unequal opportunities for specific classes or groups. The elevation of the standing of the weaker groups and economic, political, social and spatial redistribution are beneficial aspects to equity as it evens the access, opportunities and benefits for everyone. (Fainstein, 2010: 36, 77-82) The last concept, diversity, is an intrinsic feature of urban life. It stand for the active realization of and reenactment upon
22
diversity in cities’ populations and physical environments. It also entails tolerance, in constant mutual economic and social support, towards a diversity of uses that corresponds to the diversity of inhabitants. Overall the concept can be described as ‘the inclusion of all city users within the space of the city, regardless of their cultural differences’ (Fainstein, 2010: 69). The theory of justice assumes that these three concepts and their ambiguous conceptualization and definition can be used as handlebars for the analysis of justice in the urban context. They will be used as such in this research. The concepts of the theory of justice can be used to analyze the position of temporary uses in the urban landscape and especially analyze the role citizens and social groups take in the creation of a particular urban space. In the next chapter concepts on this creation of urban space will be further explained.
The production of space
The creation of space, however is a complex process. It involves different actors and influences that are ever changing which makes the urban space itself a hard to grasp concept. In the case of temporary uses for instance different actors that contribute to the initiation and realization of the projects can be identified. Of course, there are the potential users that are interested in developing a project on a specific urban space. They need to deal with the property owner that might be a public party such as the municipalities authority or a private party such as an investor. The property owner needs to be willing to allow or to ignore the site or building to be used. Regardless whether the municipality is the owner, it always has an active involvement in temporary uses due to the necessity of use and build permits that the municipality can give out. (Blumner, 2006: 6-7; Overmeyer, 2007: 22-23) These three actors are involved in the initiation of a temporary use project. Later on the actual users can be added as an influential group in the creation of the temporary use projects as their participation and interpretation of the use but also just by being present in the space. Even other groups such as youth or park agencies when for instance their missions intersect or a mediating party that tries to match temporary users and property owners and bridge the gaps between these different cultures, can influence the production and creation of the urban spaces of these projects (SUC, 2003: 13). Even though the social groups that act as the temporary users are in the end responsible for the temporary use projects and the primary initiative takers, the creation of space is dependent on many other actors like these mentioned above. With the purpose of finding out what temporary uses can contribute to the urban, it is important to understand how urban spaces are created.
23 The production of space: duality of space
Stuart Hall’s theory on representations might offer some insight in the creation of urban spaces. Hall has constructed an encoding-decoding model to understand representation in media. He states that in media, images can only become relevant or with meaning when they are represented. He even goes that far by saying that nothing has meaning until its meaning is giving by its representation. A specific image or symbol is created by a producer. In this process the shaping of the image or symbol is done with a specific intend for the outcome. The intended meaning might have historical references, certain ideological preferences and so on. This side of the creation of a meaning is called the encoding side of the model, where an intended meaning is given by representations. The dual model offers another side where this intended meaning is then interpreted by its receiver. The image or symbol that is produced is received dependent on its receiver perspective and hereby given a second meaning. This side of the creation of meaning is called the decoding side of the model. Hall states that an image or symbol does not have meaning without either sides of the model. (Hall, 1997: 395-398). Originally this model is not used to analyze urban spaces but the duality of the model can be traced back to urban spaces. In the model of temporary uses the encoding-decoding model can be applied to the organizers and users of the temporary use projects. The organizers create with the limiting and enabling influences of both the property owner and the municipality a certain intended urban space but only when the users come into the space and make use of the project and in this way interpret the intended meaning by the organizers capacities the total meaning of the urban space can be observed.
The production of space: triad of space
The duality of the model by Hall is incorporated5 in the model of the production of space that originated from Lefebvre (1991) and further elaborated by Purcell (2013) and Henrison (2009). This philosophy on socio-spatial processes is captured in a model where three processes – or kind of spaces as they are called in the theory - and their relations explain the development of urban spaces. In this theory, the urban is seen as thoroughly social. This means that an urban space can only be described as an whole of spatial formations in relation to its social processes.
“The production of urban space therefore entails much more than just planning the material space of the city; it involves producing and reproducing all aspects of urban life.”
(Purcell, 2013: 102)
5 I could not find direct references between Hall (1997) and the theory on the production of space (Lefebvre, 1991),
24
This importance of the social processes can be seen back in the three concept that form this theory. The spatial space is the first process in the theory of the production of space. This kind of space is seen as the most material and physical and it is the space that is perceived. Here the relative objective and concrete spatiality is perceived and validated by the use of its users in their day-to-day life in the rhythm of work, living and leisure activities. Here the constructed, ‘already there’ urban space is produced by the use of it. The second kind of space distinguished in the production of space is the representations of space. Here the focus is made on mental and idealistic space that is conceived by its representations. Space gets conceptualized and symbolized by urban theory of scientist, strategic plans of planners, policies of municipalities, knowledge of engineers but also by symbols, signs and codes that refer to how the lived space is conceived and constructed in ideas. Next to the physical appearance of a space, a space also has intended directions on how to use it and what it should mean. The production of space is complete with the third space, the representational space, the space that is social and that is lived. The dialectic relation between the spatial space and the representation of space where complex symbols and uses are combined and understood through the social use of the space. It represents a person’s actual experience of space. Space is an active element of social life which can be clearly seen in this last space. (Henriscon, 2009: 23-24; Purcell, 2003: 578; Purcell, 2013: 102; Lefebvre, 1991/1974: 33) From this model temporary uses can be researched on different levels. Firstly the spatial space that is the spatial heritage from previous uses and the way It is used before the temporary use. Secondly the representational space that is created in the spatial space through the temporary use organizers and their abilities. Through the representational space where the original spatial space, the organizers representations and the use of the visitors all come together. Space as an social construct, just as both models define space, is serviceable for this research because in this research the perception of the organizers and users of temporary use project are the central focus.
Theory used in this research
The concepts and models explained above are adapted to this research. Hall’s model is used to research two sides. The encoding side is where temporary uses are produced and designed. Here the appearance, the use and intended meaning of the spaces are constructed. The decoding side is where the temporary uses are received and interpreted. This happens through the perception but most importantly through the use of the project. The production of space model handles a more complex form in which space is produced. Here the physical space, the meaning that is given to that space and the perceived, socially
25
used space can’t be understood separately and are in constant interaction. In the following figure is visually shown how this model is used in this research.
Figure 1: Conceptual model of the production of space
On the left side it shows the spatial space where the design form the previous use left a certain physical heritage. When a temporary use project starts, it has to deal with this physical heritage at the stand and throughout the whole existence of the project. The physical space offers opportunities and limitations to the activities that are possible. Therefore is influences the meaning the space can have. On the right side the organizers use their abilities, opportunities and limitations that are dependent on their context to create new representations of the spatial space. By adjusting their representations to the spatial space but also giving new meaning through their new representations, new space is created. The spatial space can get modified, the intended use changes, and thus its meaning. Those two spaces come together in the representational space. Here the third influence on the creation of space is the actual use itself. The day to day use of the space is dependent on the spatial space and the representations of space and has its own creating power. The design and idealism behind a space can be used totally different than was intended. Focusing on all three of these spaces and their interconnected relations helps this research in analyzing all important aspects in the creation of space. The model of Hall is used to identify the different groups of citizens involved in the project. The model of the production of space helps to focus on all the different elements in the creation of an urban space.
From the ‘state of the art’ theory, the different features of temporary uses are drawn. In the research they used as independent variables and selection criteria. This research is explorative which
26
means that the independent variables are only applied as guidelines. Not all are expected to be found as an independent variables. The features consist of two kinds, the elements and the characteristics. The elements are the features that according to the theory, can be seen by every temporary use project. The characteristics can often be seen but not always. In the next table, the elements and characteristics are listed as they are drafted in the beginning of this theory chapter.
Table 1: Elements and characteristics of temporary use as independent variables.
The theory does not yet give an exact causal relation between the specific features of temporary uses and the potential social benefit they bring along. Therefore these seven features are used as an orientation in finding this relationship. The goal of the research is to connect the potential social benefits that are found, to some of these features.
As the overview on critical theory has shown above, many concepts can measure a certain social benefit. In this research, three concepts seem most relevant and useable in measuring this added value. These concepts are equity, democracy and diversity. If all concepts would be met perfectly, the result would be an urban space that fits the citizens and their needs, is representational for all citizens and is responsive to producing activities of citizens. In the main research question, this is translated to a ‘suitable urban space’. Equity is used to evaluate the distribution of opportunities to participate within the project. More specifically, equity evaluates the accessibility, possible exclusion and elevation of the standing of the weaker, poorer groups. Democracy, as described by Fainstein (2010), consists of the political system, where citizens chose their own representatives but it also consists of bottom-up approaches. A project can be measured by democracy by looking at who has the power to decide and who has the power to execute. In other words, the level of democracy can increase when more citizens are able to decide on the project and to help execute the project. An important element to answer to this evaluation is the responsiveness of the project. Whether the ones with the power on how the project is going to look like, are responsive to wishes from others. The last concepts, diversity evaluates whether the diversity in uses and users corresponds with one another. It is important according to this concepts that there is an active realization of and reenactment upon diversity populations. The concepts
Features of temporary use
Elements 1. Intended temporality
2. Activation of unused land by people other than the owner 3. Alternative use to unknown or impracticable new desirable use 4. Unique qualities from the idea of temporality
Characteristics 5. Uncertainty of time frame 6. Limited investments
27
can touch common grounds but are used complementary to each other to measure the added value of the projects for citizen. In that way, they form the dependent variables of this research. A difficulty in the operationalization of the concepts derived from the theory of justice is that these concepts have a great tendency to propagate political implementations. The purpose of this research is not to propagate a political position as that would impair the validity of this research. The concepts are thus used to portray what temporary uses potentially have to offer to the urban without a verdict whether they should or not. Only when is understood what the effects of temporary uses on the urban landscape are, than can they be politically examined on what is right and what is wrong. But that last step is not for a (or this) scholar to take. The concepts are used to critically examine the potential qualities of temporary uses in the urban landscape.
These models and concepts form the theoretical building block of this research. The preconceptions and knowledge about the subject that is taken into the field of research are all based on this overview and conceptualization. In the next section, the research questions and the way they will be answered, the used research methods and an evaluation on whole research will be presented.
28
3. Methodology
Questions and methodsThe main research question, ‘How do the distinctive features of temporary use enable citizens to produce suitable urban spaces?’ is used as a guiding question in this explorative research. The different concepts and models can be seen back into this question. The elements and characteristics are the distinctive features of temporary use. The way citizens produce urban space refers to the production of space model. The word suitable is used in the main research question to enclose the qualities of the concepts of the just city that together form the potential added value: suitable urban spaces to the composition of citizens and their needs. Thus, to be clear suitable urban spaces means spaces that are based on democracy, equity and diversity. Spaces that score high on these concepts suit or fit the citizens or the citizens wishes. This forms an added value to the urban landscape. This question is very broad and needs specification in order to do good research.
Therefore three sub questions are distinguished. The first sub question is ‘Who are the citizens involved in temporary use projects and what are their motives?’ and tries to answer the question who these citizens are, how they are involved in the project and what their motives are. Two different research methods were used to answer this first sub question that are in line with the encoding and decoding model from Hall. One method focusses on the encoding side of the citizens that primarily produce, the organizers and the other method focusses on the decoding side of the citizens that primarily interpret, the users. Fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with several organizers of the cases and a small questionnaire was distributed to 30 visitors of each case. In the interviews the respondents were asked to introduce themselves and their co-organizers, to explain the motivation to start the project in the first place, how the motivation shifted through time and what their future ideals are. In some cases interviews with both the original organizers and the organizers that took over later in the project were conducted. The questionnaire focusses on the visitors of the projects and asks some basic personal information such as age, gender, profession, location of residence and ethnicity. Next to that, the informants were asked to answer how they heard of the project, why they decided to come, how many times they have been there before and why they came back if they have been to the project more often. A question in the questionnaire and also data gathered in the interviews focused on the transferability between users and producers, the moment were users start to produce and organizers interpret. Users were asked if they wanted to actively contribute to the project and the producers were asked to describe the users and their role in the project. In some cases short informal conversations helped to clear ‘in-between’ users and producers. The encoding and decoding model
29
structures the categorization of the different identified groups. To answer the question, the different groups and their characteristics and motives are described.
The second sub question is ‘How are citizens enabled and limited by the features of temporary use to produce space?’ where both the elements and characteristics of temporary use (see table 1, page 26) as the production of space model will be applied. In order to answer this research question data from the semi-structured interviews and data from the third method of research, observations, are used. Again in the interviews, data is gathered on the organizers as citizens and their possibilities and limitations in organizing these projects. They were asked to describe the process of starting the project to get an understanding on what was possible, what wasn’t possible and also why and by whom they were limited or enabled in their activities. Here the production of space model is used to reflect on the relation between representations of space and the spatial space, so how the organizers put their representations on the already existing space. Also the elements and characteristics of temporary use structured the questions asked in the interviews, such as how the intended temporality had an effect on their organization, how the relations were with the owner and municipality and to what extend they had an enabling or limiting role and what their motives and ambitions were with the space. Next to that, extensional time was used in the interviews on how the organizers dealt with the given circumstances of possibilities and limitations. For instance, how they handled making investments in their projects in combination with uncertainty with the timeframe, how they dealt with personal attachment to the space and how they experienced their presence in the space in reference with the original use and their surroundings . The other research method that tries to answer this second sub question is structured observation. At all the locations of the cases many observations were done that focused on the role of the users in the project. Interaction between users, users and producers and the overall activities were structurally conducted in order to understand the third space in the production of space, the representational space. In the observations, the spatial space and the representations are observed by looking at the exterior of the projects. The representations that the organizers tried to make on the spatial space and possible original representations were observed. Most importantly, it is observed how in the representational space, the users as they provide the day-to-day use experience the representations of the producers. How the spatial space that is originally not designed for this use is represented to make it fit. The observations were also used to observe to what extend the users are able to contribute themselves to the production of the space, in other words, how they are enabled to contribute to the representations of the space. The only two features of temporary use that can be observed and also got some attention in the interviews are the social and cultural investments and the
