Investigating the Democratic Potential of Temporary Uses in Urban Redevelopment Projects

  • Peter ParkerEmail author
  • Nina Vogel
  • Lisa Diedrich


Exploring the notion of ‘temporary use’, this chapter sheds light on novel ways of governance and collaboration, observed in current urban redevelopment projects in Europe. Often instated on leftover areas and premises, the projects are driven by municipal authorities, public or private developers who offer parts of the spaces under redevelopment for temporary appropriation by users who conventionally play a secondary if not marginal role in the formation of new urban districts. By drawing on a pragmatic understanding of democracy, the chapter assesses the ambiguities surrounding this phenomenon: is it empowering and democratizing, or does it drive gentrification and normalize precarious forms of rental? The chapter proposes a systematic framework through which such questions can be addressed.


Temporary use Democracy Urban redevelopment Ambiguity 


  1. Andres, L. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arlt, P. (2013). What City Planners Can Learn from Temporary Users. In Oswald et al. (Eds.), Urban Catalyst: The Power of Temporary Use (pp. 80–87). Berlin: DOM Publisher.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, C. (2003). Culture and Democracy: Media, Space and Representation. Edinburgh: University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barnett, C. (2004). Media, Democracy and Representation: Disembodying the Public. In C. Barnett & M. Low (Eds.), Spaces of Democracy: Geographical Perspectives on Citizenship, Participation and Representation. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, C. (2007). Convening Publics: The Parasitical Spaces of Public Action. In K. Cox, M. Low, & J. Robinson (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Political Geography (pp. 403–417). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bradley, K. (2015). Open-Source Urbanism: Creating, Multiplying and Managing Urban Commons. Footprint—Delft Architecture Theory Journal, 9(1), 91–108.Google Scholar
  7. Brenner, N., & Schmid, C. (2015). Towards a New Epistemology of the Urban? City, 19(2–3), 151–182. Scholar
  8. Colomb, C. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gravelaine, F. de (2010). A Nantes, la mutation d’une île. Place Publique. Les Chroniques de l‘Ile de Nantes 3. Nantes: Place Publique.Google Scholar
  10. Diedrich, L. (2013). Translating Harbourscapes. Site-Specific Design Approaches in Contemporary Harbour Transformation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  11. Diedrich, L. (2015). Emerging Journey-Forms. Observations of Landscape Architecture from a European Point of View. In L. Licka & K. Grimm (Eds.), Contemporary Landscape Architecture in Austria (pp. 54–71, Nextland Editions). Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  12. Diedrich, L., Bridger, J., Hendriks, M., & Moll, C. (Eds.). (2015). On The Move. Landscape Architecture Europe. Wageningen: Blauwdruk.Google Scholar
  13. Diedrich, L., & Dahl, C. (2016). Ile de Nantes 2000–2010: A Method for the Meantime? Journal of Landscape Architecture, 11(2), 72–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dryzek, J. S. (1994). Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ferreri, M. (2015). The Seductions of Temporary Urbanism. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 15(1), 181–191.Google Scholar
  16. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Social Text, 25(26), 56–80. Scholar
  17. Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fung, A. (2012). Continuous Institutional Innovation and the Pragmatic Conception of Democracy. Polity, 44(4), 609–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Groth, J., & Corijn, E. (2005). Reclaiming Urbanity: Indeterminate Spaces, Informal Actors and Urban Agenda Setting. Urban Studies, 42(3), 503–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hajer, M., & Reijndorp, A. (2001). In Search of New Public Domain. Rotterdam: NAi.Google Scholar
  21. Harris, E. (2015). Navigating Pop-up Geographies: Urban Space-Times of Flexibility, Interstitiality and Immersion. Geography Compass, 9(11), 592–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haydn, F., & Temel, R. (Eds.). (2006). Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  23. Hendriks, M. (Ed.). (2016). Done It Yourselves. In Scape the International Magazine of Landscape Architecture and Urbanism, #15 (pp. 144–175). Wageningen: Blauwdruk.Google Scholar
  24. Iveson, K. (2007). Publics and the City. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jégou, F., & Bonneau, M. (Eds.). (2016, November). Fitting Temporary Use in the Legal Framework. REFILL MAGAZINE #1, 1(1), Retrieved from
  26. Lydon, M., & Garcia, A. (2015). Tactical Urbanism: Short-term Action for Long-term Change. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  27. Madanipour, A. (2017). Temporary Use of Space: Urban Processes between Flexibility, Opportunity and Precarity. Urban Studies.
  28. Mitchell, D. (2003). The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  29. Oswalt, P., Overmeyer, K., & Misselwitz, P. (Eds.). (2013). Urban Catalyst: The Power of Temporary Use. Berlin: DOM Publisher.Google Scholar
  30. Parker, P., & Schmidt, S. (2017). Enabling Urban Commons. CoDesign, 13(3), 202–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parkinson, J. (2012). Democracy and Public Space: The Physical Sites of Democratic Performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peck, J. (2012). Austerity Urbanism. City, 16(6), 626–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Purcell, M. (2008). Recapturing Democracy: Neoliberalization and the Struggle for Alternative Urban Futures. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. SAMOA. (2017a). Une nouvelle équipe de conception urbaine pour l’Ile de Nantes. Press kit April 2017 Ile de Nantes. Nantes: SAMOA.Google Scholar
  35. SAMOA. (2017b). Expérimentations—Faites le quartier ! Press kit February 2017 Ile de Nantes. Nantes: SAMOA.Google Scholar
  36. Senate Department for Urban Development, Berlin (Ed.). (2007). Urban Pioneers: Stadtentwicklung durch Zwischennutzung. Berlin: Jovis Verlag.Google Scholar
  37. Tonkiss, F. (2013). Austerity Urbanism and the Makeshift City. City, 17(3), 312–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. TUTUR. (2015). TUTUR Final Report. Temporary Use as a Tool for Urban Regeneration. URBACT II, European Union. Retrieved from
  39. Vogel, N. (2017). Synergies through Entanglement: Commoning Entering the Urban Governance Realm. The Public Sector, 43(1), 7–18.Google Scholar
  40. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urban StudiesMalmö UniversityMalmöSweden
  2. 2.Department of Landscape Architecture, Planning & Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)AlnarpSweden

Personalised recommendations