Advertisement

Pop-ups and Public Interests: Agile Public Space in the Neoliberal City

  • Quentin Stevens
  • Kim Dovey
Chapter

Abstract

Both ‘temporary urbanism’ (in Europe) and self-organized ‘tactical urbanism’ (in North America) are claimed to have a range of public benefits. These embrace five key values: urban intensity, community engagement, innovation, resilience and place identity. This chapter’s critical examination of the neoliberal planning regimes, actors, and interests shaping such transformations also identifies a range of potential negative impacts, including displacement, privatization, gentrification, disenfranchisement, and the withdrawal of long-term public-sector planning and investment. Temporary and tactical transformations of public space can reproduce or even exacerbate the urban problems they seek to address.

References

  1. Angst, M., Klaus, P., Michaelis, T., Müller, R., & Wolff, R. (2009). Zone*imaginaire: Zwischennutzungen in Industriearealen. Zürich: Vdf Hochschulverlag.Google Scholar
  2. Barron, P. (2014). Introduction. In P. Barron & M. Mariani (Eds.), Terrain vague: Interstices at the edge of the pale. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Biddulph, M. (2011). Urban design, regeneration and the entrepreneurial city. Progress in Planning, 76, 63–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bishop, P., & Williams, L. (2012). The temporary city. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Braudel, F. (1981–1984). Civilization and capitalism, 15th–18th century (3 vols.). New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  6. Carr, S., & Lynch, K. (1981). Open space: Freedom and control. In L. Taylor (Ed.), Urban open spaces. New York: Rizzoli.Google Scholar
  7. Carr, S., & Lynch, K. (1968). Where learning happens. Daedalus, 97(4), 1277–1291.Google 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. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dobson, S., & Jorgensen, A. (2014). Increasing the resilience and adaptive capacity of cities through entrepreneurial urbanism. International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business, 6(3/4), 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dotson, T. (2016). Trial-and-error urbanism: Addressing obduracy, uncertainty and complexity in urban planning and design. Journal of Urbanism, 9(2), 148–165.Google Scholar
  12. Douglas, G. (2014). Do-it-yourself urban design. City and Community, 13(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dovey, K. (2013). Planning and place identity. In G. Young et al. (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to planning and culture. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  14. Dovey, K. (2010). Becoming places. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Dovey, K., & Pafka, E. (2014). The urban density assemblage: Modelling multiple measures. Urban Design International, 19, 66–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fabian, L., & Samson, K. (2014). DIY urban design: Between ludic tactics and strategic planning. In B. Knudsen, D. Christensen, & P. Blenker (Eds.), Enterprising initiatives in the experience economy: Transforming social worlds. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Färber, A. (2014). Low-budget Berlin: Towards an understanding of low-budget urbanity as assemblage. Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 7, 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferguson, F. (2014). Make_shift city: Renegotiating the urban commons. Berlin: Jovis.Google Scholar
  19. Finn, D. (2014). DIY urbanism: Implications for cities. Journal of Urbanism, 7(4), 381–398.Google Scholar
  20. Greco, J. (2012). From pop-up to permanent. Planning, 78(9), 15–16.Google Scholar
  21. Harvey, D. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Haydn, F., & Temel, R. (Eds.). (2006). Temporary urban spaces: Concepts for the use of city spaces. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  23. Hou, J. (Ed.). (2001). Insurgent public space: Guerrilla urbanism and the remaking of contemporary cities. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence: The connected lives of ants, brains, cities and software. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  25. Kamel, N. (2014). Learning from the margin: Placemaking tactics. In V. Mukhija & A. Loukaitou-Sideris (Eds.), The informal American city: Beyond taco trucks and day labor. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kamvasinou, K. (2011). The public value of vacant urban land. Municipal Engineer, 164(3), 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kamvasinou, K., & Roberts, M. (2014). Interim spaces. In P. Barron & M. Mariani (Eds.), Terrain vague: Interstices at the edge of the pale. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Krauzick, M. (2007). Zwischennutzung als Initiator einer neuen Berliner Identität? Berlin: Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin.Google Scholar
  29. Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on cities. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Loukaitou-Sideris, L., & Mukhija, V. (2014). Conclusion: Deepening the understanding of informal urbanism. In V. Mukhija & A. Loukaitou-Sideris (Eds.), The informal American city: Beyond taco trucks and day labor. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lydon, M., & Garcia, A. (2015). Tactical urbanism: Short-term action for long-term change. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lynch, K. (1981). Good city form. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nemeth, J., & Longhorst, J. (2014). Rethinking urban transformation: Temporary uses for vacant land. Cities, 40, 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oswalt, P., Overmeyer, K., & Misselwitz, P. (2013). Urban catalyst: The power of temporary use. Berlin: DOM publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Pagano, C. (2013). DIY urbanism: Property and process in grassroots city building. Marquette Law Review, 97(2), 335–389.Google Scholar
  36. Radywyl, N., & Biggs, C. (2013). Reclaiming the commons for urban transformation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (2006). Developing creativity in tourist experiences: A solution to the serial reproduction of culture? Tourism Management, 27, 1209–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rios, M. (2014). Learning from informal practices: Implications for urban design. In V. Mukhija & A. Loukaitou-Sideris (Eds.), The informal American city: Beyond taco trucks and day labor. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sandercock, L. (2003). Cosmopolis II: Mongrel cities in the 21st century. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  40. SfS Berlin (Ed.). (2007). Urban pioneers: Temporary use and urban development in Berlin. Berlin: Jovis.Google Scholar
  41. Solà-Morales, I. (1994). Terrain vague. In C. Davidson (Ed.), Anyplace. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Stevens, Q. (2015). Sandpit urbanism. In B. Knudsen, D. Christensen, & P. Blenker (Eds.), Enterprising initiatives in the experience economy: Transforming social worlds. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Stevens, Q., & Ambler, M. (2010). Europe’s city beaches as post-fordist placemaking. Journal of Urban Design, 15, 515–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  45. Tonkiss, F. (2013). Austerity urbanism and the makeshift city. City, 17(3), 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Urban Catalyst. (2001). Analysis report Berlin study draft. Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
  47. Valverde, M. (2005). Taking land use seriously: Toward an ontology of municipal law. Law, Text, Culture, 9, 34–59.Google Scholar
  48. Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Quentin Stevens
    • 1
  • Kim Dovey
    • 2
  1. 1.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Melbourne School of Design, University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations