Advertisement

The Spatial Features and Temporality of Urban Alternatives

  • Antonella Bruzzese
Chapter

Abstract

The chapter uses the physical features of urban space and the temporalities of their ‘life cycles’ as a lens to analyse two cases from Milan where spatiotemporal gaps have been used for reappropriation and reinvention by self-organised actors and subsequently institutionalised. Following the work of Bernardo Secchi, the contemporary city is seen as a palimpsest on which uses and practices are continually grafted in complex and mutual relations, creating an irreducible ensemble of contingent processes, relations, and materialities. The differentiated tempos and rhythms implied by these processes mean that the material city changes more slowly than the ways in which it is used. The spatiotemporal gaps thus created give rise to occasions for the reinvention of urban possibilities and hence for the creation of urban alternatives.

Keywords

Palimpsest Temporary use Urban changes Milan Urban rhythm Spatiotemporal gaps Self-organisation 

References

  1. AA.vv. (2007). Urban Pioneers: Temporary Use and Urban Development in Berlin. Jovis.Google Scholar
  2. Arena, G., & Iaione, C. (Eds.). (2012). L’Italia dei beni comuni. Roma: Carrocci.Google Scholar
  3. Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition (p. 53). The University of Chicago Press (tr.it S.Finzi, Vita activa La condizione umana, Bompiani, Milano, p. 39).Google Scholar
  4. Armondi, S., & Bruzzese, A. (2017). Contemporary Productions and Urban Change between Public and Private Actions. The Case of Milano. Journal of Urban Technology, 24(3), 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkinson, R., & Bridge, G. (Eds.). (2005). Gentrification in a Global Contest. The New Urban Colonialism. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bishop, P., & Williams, L. (2012). The Temporary City. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Botticini, C. (2008). Flessibilità e progetto di architettura. In M. A. Segantini (Ed.), Atlante dell’abitare contemporaneo. Milano: Skira.Google Scholar
  8. Brenner, N., Marcuse, P., & Mayer, M. (2009). Cities for People, Not for Profit. Introduction. City, 13(2–3), 176–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruzzese, A. (2010a). Arte e spazio pubblico. Una riflessione intorno ad un tentativo di “place making”: il caso di Beyond project. Territorio, n. 53, 30–38.Google Scholar
  10. Bruzzese, A. (2010b). Progetti flessibili. Pratiche progettuali al servizio dell’adattabilità. In P. Bossi, S. Moroni, & M. Poli (Eds.), La Città e il tempo: interpretazione e azione. Rimini: Maggioli editore.Google Scholar
  11. Bruzzese, A. (2013). Centralità a tempo. Industria creativa, trasformazioni urbane e spazio pubblico a Milano. Planum. The Journal of Urbanism, 2(27), 1–6.Google Scholar
  12. Bruzzese, A. (2015a). Addensamenti creativi, trasformazioni urbane e Fuorisalone. Santarcangelo di Romagna: Maggioli editore.Google Scholar
  13. Bruzzese, A. (2015b). The Places of Creative Production. Concentrations, Features and Urban Transformation Processes in Milan. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting on Cultural Heritage 4th Conference, Cultural Creative Industries: Economic Development and Urban Regeneration, Rome.Google Scholar
  14. Bruzzese, A. (2016). Spazi in attesa, industria creativa e riusi temporanei. Il caso di Lambrate a Milano. Atti della XVIII Conferenza Nazionale SIU—Società Italiana degli Urbanisti, Roma.Google Scholar
  15. Bruzzese, A. (2017). Creative Production and Urban Regeneration in Milan. In S. Armondi & S. Di Vita (Eds.), Milan. Productions, Spatial Patterns and Urban Change (pp. 60–72). Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bruzzese, A., Botti, C., & Giuliani, I. (2013). Territorial Branding Strategies behind and beyond Visions of Urbanity. The Role of the Fuorisalone Event in Milan. Planum. The Journal of Urbanism, 2(28), 1–11.Google Scholar
  17. Bruzzese, A., & De Michelis, G. (2011). Progettare la temporaneità. L’esperienza del workshop la “Cittadella del Riuso Temporaneo” a Sesto San Giovanni. Territorio, n. 56, 59–64.Google Scholar
  18. Bunčuga, F. (2000). Conversazioni con De Carlo. Architettura e libertà. Milano: Elèuthera.Google Scholar
  19. Cassano, F. (2004). Homo civicus. La ragionevole follia dei beni comuni. Bari: Edizioni Dedalo.Google Scholar
  20. Cavoto, G. (2014). Demalling—Una risposta alla dismissione commerciale. Rimini: Maggioli Editore.Google Scholar
  21. Cho, I. S., Heng, C., & Trivic, Z. (2016). Re-framing Urban Space: Urban Design for Emerging Hybrid and High-Density Conditions. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Ciorra, P., & Marini, S. (2011). Re-cycle. Strategie per la casa, la città e il pianeta. Catalogo della mostra (Roma, 30 novembre 2011–26 febbraio 2012). Roma: Electa.Google Scholar
  23. Colomb, C. (2012, May). Pushing the Urban Frontier: Temporary Uses of Space, City Marketing, and the Creative City Discourse in 2000s Berlin. Journal of Urban Affaire, 34(2), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Corboz, A. (1983). Le territoire comme palimpseste. Diogène, n. 121 Janvier-March 1983 pp. 14–35 (trad.it. Il territorio come palinsesto, Casabella, 516, sett. 1985).Google Scholar
  25. Crosta, P. L. (2006). Di cosa parliamo quando parliamo di urbanistica?. pp. 91–98 in M. C. Tosi (2006) Di cosa parliamo quando parliamo di urbanistica? Roma: Meltemi.Google Scholar
  26. Crosta, P. L. (Ed.). (2009). Casi di politiche urbane. La pratica delle pratiche d’uso del territorio. Milano: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
  27. Crosta, P. L. (2010). Pratiche. Il territorio “è l’uso che se ne fa”. Milano: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
  28. de Certeau, M. (1984). L’Invention du Quotidien. Vol. 1, Arts de Faire, Union générale d’éditions (trad. it 2001, L’invenzione del quotidiano. Roma: Edizioni Lavoro).Google Scholar
  29. Douglas, G. C. C. (2014, March). Do-It-Yourself Urban Design: The Social Practice of Informal “Improvement” Through Unauthorized Alteration. City and Community, 13(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fabian, L., Giannotti, E., & Viganò, P. (Eds.). (2012). Recycling City. Pordenone: Giavedoni Editore.Google Scholar
  31. Ferreri, M. (2015). The Seductions of Temporary Urbanism. Ephemera, 15(1), 181–191.Google Scholar
  32. Gehl, J. (1987). Life between Buildings. Using Public Space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company (trad. it.: Vita in città. Rimini: Maggioli, 1993).Google Scholar
  33. Gingardi, V. (2017). Processi di trasformazione urbana a Milano: il caso di Lambrate. ASUR, n. 118.Google Scholar
  34. Glass, R. (1964). Introduction: Aspects of Change. In Centre for Urban Studies (Ed.), London: Aspects of Change. MacGibbon and Kee XIII, XLII London.Google Scholar
  35. Gosseye, J., & Avermaete, T. (Eds.). (2015). The Shopping Centre 1943–2013 The Rise and Demise of a Ubiquitous Collective Architecture. TU Delft, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment.Google Scholar
  36. Hajer, M., & Reijndorp, A. (2001). In Search of New Public Domain. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.Google Scholar
  37. Hall, T. E. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday & Co. Inc. (trad. it. La dimensione nascosta (1968). Milano: Bompiani).Google Scholar
  38. Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  39. Haydn, F., & Temel, R. (2007). Temporary Urban Spaces. Vienna: Birkhauser.Google Scholar
  40. Heimeyer, F., & Petzet, M. (2012). Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: German Pavilion, 13th International Architecture Exhibition, la Biennale di Venezia. Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz.Google Scholar
  41. Hilbrandt, H. (2017). Insurgent Participation: Consensus and Contestation in Planning the Redevelopment of Berlin-Tempelhof Airport. Urban Geography, 38(4), 537–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Iaione, C. (2013). La città come bene comune. Aedon, n. 1.Google Scholar
  43. Infussi, F. (2007). Fenomenologia del “progetto mite”: per una pratica progettuale inclusiva delle diversità. In A. Lanzani & S. Moroni (Eds.), Città e azione pubblica. Riformismo al plurale (pp. 63–74). Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
  44. Inti, I., Cantaluppi, G., & Persichino, M. (2014). Manuale di riuso temporaneo. Milano: Altreconomia.Google Scholar
  45. Kelbaugh, D. (2007). Toward an Integrated Paradigm: Further Thoughts on the Three Urbanisms. Places, 19(2), 12–20.Google Scholar
  46. Kunzmann, K. (2017). Crisis and Urban Planning? A Commentary. European Planning Studies, 24(7), 1313–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. La Varra, G., Peran, M., Poli, F., & Zanfi, F. (2008). Post-it City. Ciutats Ocasionals. Barcelona: ed. CCCB.Google Scholar
  48. Lanzani, A. (2015). Città, territorio, urbanistica tra crisi e contrazione. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  49. Lefebvre, H. (1947). Critique de la vie quotidienne, L’Arche, Paris (trad. it. Critica della vita quotidiana. Dedalo, Bari, 1977).Google Scholar
  50. Lehtuvuori, P., & Ruoppila, S. (2017). Temporary Uses Producing Difference in Contemporary Urbanism. In J. Henneberry (Ed.), Transience and Permanence in Urban Development. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  51. Longo, A., Moro, A., & Concilio, G. (2014). Disegnare a distanza ravvicinata: prove tecniche per un masterplan non convenzionale. Paper presented at the XVII National Conference L’urbanistica italiana nel mondo. Prospettive internazionali, contributi e debiti culturali, Società Italiana degli Urbanisti, Milano, 15–16 May 2014.Google Scholar
  52. Madanipour, A. (2017). Temporary Use of Space: Urban Processes between Flexibility, Opportunity and Precarity. Urban Studies, 55(5), 1093–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Marinoni, G. (2005). Metamorfosi del progetto urbano. Milano: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
  54. Németh, J., Langhorstb, J. (2014, October) Rethinking Urban Transformation: Temporary Uses for Vacant Land, Cities 40 (Part B), 143-150.Google Scholar
  55. Oswalt, P., Overmeyer, K., & Misselwitz, P. (Eds.). (2013). Urban Catalyst–The Power of Temporary Use. Berlin: Dom Publishers.Google Scholar
  56. Parker, P., & Schmidt, S. (2017). Enabling Urban Commons. CoDesign, 13(3), 202–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pasqui, G. (2008). Città, popolazioni, politiche. Milano: Jaca Book.Google Scholar
  58. Portas, N. (1998). L’emergenza del progetto urbano. Urbanistica, n. 110.Google Scholar
  59. Ricoeur, P. (2003). La memoria, la storia, l’oblio. Milano: Raffaello Cortina editore.Google Scholar
  60. Sassen, S. (2000). Cities in a World Economy (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press (tr.it: Le città nell’economia globale, II ed. 2003. Bologna: Il Mulino).Google Scholar
  61. Secchi, B. (1984). La questione dei vuoti. Casabella, n. 503.Google Scholar
  62. Secchi, B. (2000). Prima lezione di urbanistica. Roma: Laterza.Google Scholar
  63. Secchi, B. (2005). La città del ventesimo secolo. Roma and Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
  64. Semi, G. (2015). Gentrification. Tutte le città come Disneyland? Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  65. Turchini, G., & Grecchi, M. (2006). Nuovi modelli per l’abitare, Il Sole 24 ore, Milano.Google Scholar
  66. Van Gestel, T., Heezen, H., & Zonnemberg, N. (Eds.). (2009). Art as Urban Strategy. Beyond Leidsche Rijn. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.Google Scholar
  67. Viganò, P. (2010). I territori dell’urbanistica. Roma: Officina edizioni.Google Scholar
  68. Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a Way of Life. The American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zukin, S. (1982). Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Architettura e Studi UrbaniPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations