Dissertation François





Introduction   

  •   currently: 1.400 words           (max 3.000 words)
  • motivations
  • aims
  • research questions
  • methods
  • expected outcomes
During the past decades, European cities have been continuously evolving due to the many factors influencing the urban entity. Through deindustrialization, migrations, globalization or climate change, the cities changed socially, spatially, economically, culturally, ecologically and architecturally (Madanipour & Knierbein & Degros, 2014). Public spaces always existed as a key component of any built area. They participate in the whole urban picture and experience. However, as these spaces were obviously controlled and managed by the government, thus meaning the politico-economic context, they became a target and a topic for social urban movement. As one of the major tendency that rose, lies the concept of commons, illustrated by “the civil distrust of any form of institutional government and the rejection of deep structural categories embodied in the dualities of state/market, public/private” (Stavrides, 2015). In this context, the common movement grew, mostly because of the urban society’s interest and desire of action for public space, to propose and alternative and contrasting solution to the current approach led by governements or institutions. The common movement not only exists in terms of resources, but also as “a process and a practice: the practice of commoning” (Stavrides, 2015).

Common spaces started to emerge in developed cities around the world, as a way of using and sharing urban spaces. Various communities appeared, and with them values, ideas, concepts or even battles regarding their urban experience. In the same aspect, the reasons and claims of the different communities became diversified over time. The complexity of each initiative and the spatial transformation that follows induces a variety of rules, protocols or method that can be observed. General rules are somehow delicate to extract from the different cases studied. However, in most common spaces lies a key component which is most of the time illustrated by devices or equipment. A common garden will be dealing with plant pots, vegetable garden etc, while other spaces could be integrating wood structure, table, chairs, bicycles, and other (almost unlimited) possibilities. These resources are the most visible part of the system, because it can be what composes the urban space that is used, but also the structure supporting any action of the community. In term of architecture, what we see when looking at common spaces is the design, the spatial planning or construction displayed.

This particular aspect of the topic caught my interest, because of the capacity it has to play a role in the improvement of urban common spaces. Although the space and possibilities for commons are not rare in most develop cities, the society’s knowledge and potential is restricted. Mostly because of the culture and lifestyle, a majority of the people is not aware of the concept of common space and its benefits, even thought they might share a staircase or hallway in their housing unit.  The idea here is to study how architecture can play a role in facilitating the approach for urban inhabitants to common spaces. There exists an opportunity through architectural design to make these collective spaces easier to initiate and more included in the society’s urban life, like what is already introduced by various communities. The global objective is to come up with a tool, as a guiding, helping and supporting instrument to reach the target activity, intended for any community or space, to enable the commoning practice. This tool can be interpreted as immaterial (mental, guidelines) or material (physical, structure, construction). Both perceptions are meant to support and help a community in its practice, but as already mentioned, the physical devices constitute the main visible part of the common space. This particular side of the concept will be a major influence in the shaping and designing of the urban landscape. Not only will the architectural project be a supporting instrument, it will also participate in composing the city. In this context, the objective for this research is also to integrate this tool in the city’s architecture. With the aim of developing common spaces in cities, the goal of this project, in addition to its integration in the urban context, is to present an inviting picture of commoning in the city, through architecture, to attract and enlighten inhabitants (unfamiliar with the concept). 

The site and type of space that will be explored, constitute a major component of this research. As an answer to social urban movements, public spaces will be the main focus. The definition of public spaces can be quite large. The main interpretations seem to gravitate around the notion of freedom, opening and inclusion, like UNESCO describes it, as “an area or place that is open and accessible to all peoples, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age or socio-economic level”. Another perception could also be related to the potential of gathering spaces (meaning mostly parks, square…) in their impact in the society’s urban life. These public spaces could be illustrated as “meeting or gathering places that exist outside the home and workplace that are generally accessible by members of the public, and which foster resident interaction and opportunities for contact and proximity” (Francis, Giles-Corti, Wood & Knuiman, 2012). This adds a contextual dimension to public spaces, as “third place” (Oldenburg, 1989) included in the urban daily life. This definition will help determine the nature of the space that is going to be the focus in this research. These spaces, described as holding potential for the social meeting, gathering an interaction in the everyday life, represents an excellent support for commoning. However, to answer the challenge of the evolving urban landscape, the target will be set on abandoned, unused or underused public spaces. The questions that will lead this study can be formulated as: 

How to promote common spaces as an alternative use of unused / abandoned public spaces? How to make common spaces more integrated in the urban landscape? 
How to enable common spaces for larger number of people and more diverse community?

To set a reliable basis, temporary use, vacant spaces and appropriation of public space will be researched through theory (articles, books) and practice (study cases). Existing projects of urban common spaces represent a vast source of knowledge concerning their organization. Each study case will bring information on how the space is being used, how the community organizes their resources, and what physical devices support the commoning activity. Through this process, the objective is to understand different type of interventions to create a diverse, yet complete, background that will support the design of the tool. The different study cases will also guide the site analysis and choice, by understanding the characteristics of abandonment and marginality of some public spaces. From this investigation, the focus will be narrowed down to the city of Brussels. An analysis of the unused public spaces (as potential site) and study cases in the urban area will also be drawn. A special glance will be given to the everyday life that can be observed on site and mostly to the lifestyle of the users of this area, as it remains one of the major source of information to learn capacity for introducing commons. 
This analysis work is a fundamental step to approach the design of the architectural project in this context. The intervention is meant to answer challenges arising from the social and spatial context, thus concerning the urban society and landscape of a defined area. The proposal following this analysis will mainly focus on the creation of an architectural toolkit (that can be represented as a structure), to support and enhance the commoning practice. The green strip along the Boulevard Roi Albert II will act as an experimentation site to introduce this project. As a marginal and underused public space, this area will be redesigned as a common green space playing a valuable role in the neighborhood’s everyday life. The project will deal with diversity in terms of users and social background but also concerning the time component. The structure is mainly intended to enable and encourage commoning by acting like a resource for any community to launch common activities on site from a grassroots initiative. The designed elements will adopt a flexibility that will enable the support of a larger number of activities, while being able to adapt to any variable (whether it is users, seasons or weather). The design process will investigate around temporary use, attractiveness, urban design, to develop the project in a more complete intervention. 

Background 

Theory 


Temporary use 
(+Temporary Use)

When introducing commons in the public areas of a city, the choice of a temporary structure is generally decided. Usually defined as the non permanent planning, temporary design remains diverse with many different context and users. Sometimes also called “tactical urbanism”, “user-generated urbanism” and “emancipatory practices” (Henneberry, 2017), temporary use has evolved to become a more and more popular among the other urban planning methods. However, most of the temporary practice are not emerging from a planned development. These space are most of the time “not considered to be part of normal cycles of urban development” (Oswalt, Overmeyer & Misselwitz, 2003). When a building is being abandoned, or when an area becomes vacant, traditional planning does not include temporary use as a solution, but rather demolition or planning to be reused rapidly (Oswalt et al., 2003). Thus the emergence of temporary use can “often [be] associated with crisis, a lack of vision and chaos” (Oswalt et al., 2003). Although this phenomenon appears to be somewhat random or accidental, it turns out that the majority of temporary use “are guided by different factors and rules” (Oswalt et al., 2003) enabled by its own nature and potential. The study cases that illustrate all its potential and qualities, proves that temporary practice “can become an extremely successful, inclusive and innovative part of contemporary urban culture” (Oswalt et al., 2003).

One of the qualities of the practice, that we can understand easily by having a look at its synonym “emancipatory practice”,  rely on its less restricted nature. By exploiting the temporary essence (as non permanent) of the concept, it encourages designers or participants “to think more freely and allows [them] to dare a little more” (Frisk, Loulie & Frisk, 2014). This expresses the potential that holds temporary use in its opportunity for testing, kick starting and experimenting in the city. In addition, another major aspect of temporary practice consists in its cost effectiveness. As Oswalt et al. (2003) would phrase it, “temporary uses flourish with a minimum of investment”. By appropriating existing areas or structures, recycling materials, and designing in a minimalist and practical way, temporary use allows “low cost experimentation" (Henneberry, 2017). offering “a less expensive, easier and more dynamic” (Frisk et al., 2014) approach, thus supporting “a cost effective solution” (Frisk et al., 2014) for the urban development. The “user-generated” side of the practice reflects a last, and crucial quality that is the inclusion of public participation in the temporary design and use. A step further than traditional public participation, “often limiting and frustrating” (Henneberry, 2017), this kind of activity allows an opportunity of participation in decision making for a wider range of people. This facet “gives the everyday user of the urban space a sense of involvement and ownership” (Frisk et al., 2014). Each citizen acquire a chance to have an active role in the shaping of the city, or the neighborhood. As noted by Frisk et al. (2014), this particular point can be related to “the feeling of democracy”, and to some extent to the right to the city. (Development on the right to the city + temporary use) . Temporary use can thus not only be seen as physical practice, “but also puts people in the equation of planning” (Frisk et al., 2014), by taking into account the diversity of users engaged in the wide range of activities answering their various objectives (Henneberry, 2017).

These different aspects of temporary use translated in potentials for the urban development. First, the low cost investment leads to an easier and less engaging solution for urban planners. As a result of the economic crisis along with budget management, financial resources are limited regarding public spaces development or investment (Frisk et al., 2014). In this context, as mentioned by Frisk et al. (2014), “temporary offers a cost effective solution for activating […] urban spaces that are not redeveloped nor invested because of financial reasons”.  This create a powerful argument when it comes to alternative solution for public spaces. The cost effectiveness and the ability to reverse the process of intervention promote this kind of practice in the city planning. The social participation also plays its role in the potentials for urban development. With the society “becoming active players in the shaping of new urban spaces” (Henneberry, 2017), "the city is becoming more responsive to new needs, demands and preferences of its users” (Bishop and Williams, 2012, pp. 3–4). This make temporary spaces a way for citizens to express their ideas in the city. They might use it as an approach or as a tool to claim different opinions, or to follow different objectives. By this means, temporary spaces activate the opportunity for the society to not only be the user of the urban landscape but also its actor and planner. As the Urban Catalyst study investigated, “temporary use is an important urban resource, which can play a strategic alternative in capital-oriented urban development concepts offering new models for action where traditional urban planning tools are inadequate” (Oswalt et al., 2003). This means that the unplanned aspect of temporary practices can play a role in the city planning and be incorporated in the urban development. To some extent, the temporary use can be developed (or just impacting) the permanent use. Oswalt et al. (2003) notes that “positive long terms effects” can appear as a transformation of the space and the activity regarding the spatial, social and economic context. It is possible that “the spontaneous [interventions] consolidate and transform into permanent uses” (Oswalt et al., 2003). However, when the temporary ends and disappears, its existence reveals positive effects afterwards.  If the practice is changing location, then the activity becomes, so to speak, updated or refreshed (Oswalt et al., 2003). On the other hand, spaces that hosted temporary use will benefit from the fame, economic and social impact of the practice. Even if the spontaneous intervention expires, the site itself will conserve the perks (or part of it) regarding its public use, popularity, availability and economic aspect. 

User of temporary spaces form a rich group “urban players acting deliberately and following certain visions” (Oswalt et al., 2003). Even though each type of actors seems really unique, the whole group of users have some common points. In short, we can described users as urban players that “have little or no capital, but are flexible and active and can adapt to given circumstances“ (Oswalt et al., 2003). However, some of them use temporary spaces as an opportunity to achieve or support their goals. Start-ups or activists find in temporary use a way of getting into the urban development without investing to much and still being able to create an impact in the city. On another hand, urban actors like migrants, refugees or drop-outs (homeless people …) activate temporary use by their own temporary situation or nature. Concerning the different types of use that can emerge,  the general distinction can be set between the top down and bottom up organization. On one hand, companies,  institutions, or politics can planned temporary use in the city, whether it is an activation (kick starting), testing or event related tool (Frisk et al., 2014). Temporary design can also be used as an opportunity for marketing, as a less explicitly declared (De Smet, 2013). On the other hand, practices around activism and self organization illustrate spontaneous reactions of urban actors, trying” to respond to the specific contemporary problems confronting the city” (De Smet, 2013). These mostly promote and use grassroots initiatives as a effective method for supporting their objectives.

The potentials that hold temporary uses has made them more and more considered in the urban development. The cities are changing due to the different management of financial resources, but also because of others factors as technological improvement, demography and urban space management (Henneberry, 2017). The consequence that appears from these elements is that more vacant spaces emerge in the urban landscape, in particular public spaces. These kind of spaces were long considered “secondary, problematic, irrelevant, marginal and of no economic use; unwanted wastelands” (Henneberry, 2017), by urban policies. However a new look into the temporary practices, mostly led by its cost effectiveness aspect, revealed the potential for another type of urban development. On one hand, “the temporary use of abandoned sites, based on low cost appropriation, non-monetary exchange, and programmatic experiment can generate new activities” (Oswalt et al., 2003), thus allowing vacant spaces to support a development that could not happen somewhere else in the city, bringing, this way, an added value to the area. On the other hand “temporary users are becoming active players in the shaping of new urban spaces that are used in new ways” (Henneberry, 2017), meaning that the design and the space itself is more likely to be integrated and effective. Because vacant spaces, mentioned as “spatial vacuum” (Oswalt et al., 2003), are necessary for temporary use to exist, they appear to be a suitable solution to the many issues they can face.