CPUL for Food-Friendly Neighborhoods

With food systems thinking re-entering urban thought, the creation of new design theories hasn't been this high since the 18th century, when Howard's Garden City and Giddens' City in Evolution revealed paradigm-shaking proposals for food-friendly cities. In Europe, landscape design and food systems scholars have taken on a new concept known as Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes (CPUL). According to CPUL, continuous landscape features, such as corridors are to be adapted as sites for food production. For instance, corridors could be thinned out and converted into food forests and other edible species. In addition, this features could be layered with other urban uses, such as recreational and educational features pertaining to food harvesting and discarding. All of these alter social practices by changing the conditions of the visible aspects of the foodscape in the urban fabric. Transitions in food-related practices are weaved together with existing approaches to generate resilience in the urban network such as promoting biodiversity and closing resource cycles (i.e., waste, nutrients) in the form of urban metabolism.

While these repurposed corridors take on more and more uses, they link food production hubs together. These hubs could serve their initial purposes, for example as sites of production or consumption, but some may take on new meanings, for example as a social meeting space where food drives the social and educational process. CPUL provides a tangible, material example of how a landscape may better incorporate multi-dimensional food practices toward environmental soundness via resource conservation, community economic development and public health.

Image Source: 

Leseman, B., Diepmaat, C., Rachelson, H., van de Lagemaat, J., Prins, K., Kersten, K., Gerritsen, M., Sobhani, R., Bikker, R., de Groot, S., van Loon, T., and Yuan, Q. (2016). Kernhem Kinship: A Case Study, Analysis, and Redesign of Foodscapes, Ede, The Netherlands. Poster presented at Ede City Hall, Ede,the Netherlands.  

Informal Food Networks in the Global South and the Benefits of Symbiotic Food Systems

Taking that weekly trip to the supermarket to buy canned foods, packaged pasta, milk cartons, and chicken filet from the deli may seem normal to many, but in many rapidly urbanizing areas, the supermarket has yet to take off as a dominant source of food. Therefore, experiences and practices in food shopping differ. It's as if we live in different food worlds. Take Dars el Salaam, a large city in Tanzania, as an example. In Dars el Salaam, the supermarket is still viewed as a Western luxury.  Food prices are often too high and the products unfamiliar to draw in low or middle-income customers. Instead, food is obtained daily and through various other avenues. It is astounding to see how much of a difference a pre-conventional food system makes in everyday practices.

Because of the inability to refrigerate and store food, due to limited financial means, large family sizes, small spaces, and unreliable electricity, food must be bought and consumed on a day to day basis. Thus, families must visit markets which are close to them and buy food that can be eaten daily. The food has to be fresh and bought in small quantities. For meat consumption especially, this means that animals must be slaughtered on-site and then brought to the market either the next morning or the day of and sold. Everything that is not consumed locally is sold to other markets, for instance, Chinese buyers, and no waste is produced.

Without a high-technology supermarket system controlled with logistics, informal food networks rely on many people to complete a number of tasks, as delivery has to be coordinated. In Dars el Salaam, salesmen often have apprentices who learn the trade from them. In addition, partnerships are made in the form of cooperatives at the market. Food vendors will step in for each other when needed. They all stand to gain from a cooperative structure. Transportation must also be arranged. There is interdependence between the food delivery drivers, the growers, and the market. Although the supply chain is shorter when compared, coordination is required to ensure food is delivered and sold on time. 

Co-housing and Efficient Land Use: Eliminating Land Scarcity in the Randstad Region

Although geographically, the Netherlands cannot compete with most nations on the European continent, population-wise, it is far ahead of any of its counterparts. With 7 million people living within its agglomeration of four cities, Amsterdam, the Hague, Rotterdam, and Utrecht and a small land base, much of which has been created from human ingenuity, a shortage of housing can be expected.

Fortunately, the Dutch are also known for 'progressive' built environment practices. One of these is cohousing, a citizen initiative form of housing based on the compact city concept. From an architectural/ spatial point of view, co-housing is unique as space within its development is allocated in novel ways.  Boundaries of private and public space are blurred. Fewer amenities are private, and more are turned into 'commons' which can be co-developed and used by many within the community at once. Perhaps this model of development can be examined in terms of its potential to alleviate housing land scarcity in a region as densely populated as the Randstad. 

The following cohousing design principles could be investigated further to evaluate the contribution of such building practices on land usage: 

1. Car Reduction: Many cohousing communities have done away with automobile infrastructure, as it contradicts the 'sharing' or 'communal' lifestyle community members seek to promote. Cohousing communities pursuing pro-environmental behavior amongst their residents likely discourage car use via design strategies for other reasons. Cars take up an inordinate amount of space in the landscape, such as for parking spaces in the form of lots and garages and road infrastructure.

2. Compact development, as indicated by floor space ratio and ground space ratio, also characterizes  the built environment of many cohousing projects. By improving the efficiency of each building, more land is available for additional buildings in case of shortage. This is a principle which has the potential to be adopted for traditional development practice to manage the residential land scarcity issue.

3. Multi-use of space is a common concept in co-housing, in which common rooms, open spaces, and other facilities are shared. Therefore, a smaller percentage is private and a larger percentage is shared. This alternative configuration of living space means that more people can fit into a building than before. Their basic living needs, such as a place for cooking or other daily activities can be shared with others living next door and nearby.

Although these three design principles could potentially alleviate land scarcity, the empirical evidence would have to be sought through further research. In addition, cohousing design principles demand lifestyle change which is a social and psychological issue as much as a spatial one. 

DIY Food Utopias: The Case of Almere Oosterwold

Known by many a folk worldwide as the "Tesla of eco-villages", the city of Almere intrigues us. Not only does the community combine technical and architectural innovations as part of a circular urban system, but it has created a social and planning experiment representative of the regulations, institutions, and technologies of our time. The pioneer community, managed by ReGen Villages, lays on 43 square kilometers of land in the province of Flevoland. The project began in the 1970s. An experimental, open-ended planning process which consists of iterative decision-making, Almere's approach contrasts with traditional Dutch planning practice, which many criticize as organized but painfully predictable. The project aims to produce 15,0000 dwellings, 26,000 jobs, 135 hectares allocated to businesses, 200,000 square meters dedicated to office space, and 400 hectares of additional landscape by creating a polder.

The community draws admiration for a number of developments, in the realm of new building typologies, energy, water, and solid waste systems, and also agrarian urbanism initiatives. The blog post will be focused exclusively on the sustainability food and land management aspects and some conflicts in the planning of the Oosterwold, the eastern part of Almere.

MDRDV is driving the development process through the Almere 2030 Structure Vision
Image Source: https://www.mvrdv.nl/

Although a flexible model on the surface, all residents of this community are allocated small plots of land but must adhere to a set of ten rules in developing the land. They must be aware of road, energy, piping, sanitation, public green, and urban farming conditions agreed upon by community members developing the plan. Planners are challenged with enabling creativity in garden plot design of land parcels while managing conflict. Will the rules have to be expanded over time? Can the community proceed to be innovative if more rules are created? What will the future hold in the developments of the Oosterwold?

A larger parcel of agricultural land nearly borders the homes of the community. On the one hand, this provides landowners on the site with a rural experience, being in such close proximity to arable land. This type of land development could eventually put this community in the same category of urban food utopias envisioned by the architects and planners of the Garden City, City of Tomorrow, and Broadacre. On the other hand, are landowners really ready to deal common nuisances from agricultural uses, such as smell and noise? The type of agriculture developed on the land will largely impact satisfaction of the neighbors. In addition, how can affordability and productivity be ensured? Will one individual have exclusive rights to the land? Can it be made more progressive; for instance, subdividing the large land parcel and renting out small parcels to farmers to experiment? What range of activities could exist?

Innovative techniques of vertical gardening will be attempted
Image Source: http://pegasusagriculturegroup.com/

With the emergence of such eco-villages, equity concerns have arisen. As with many utopias and early models in sustainable development, this ecovillage could exclude larger society. In designing and planning this kind of community, those equipped with the acumen and affluence to participate in such a time-consuming process, will reap the benefits. Can such models be applicable to greater society, if only a few can take part in the experimentation process? Perhaps by bringing in more outside opinions from students, academics, and farmers, it could highlight opportunities for improvement. Nonetheless, adding more stakeholders to an already complicated planning process could jeopardize it by making it more complex. 

Man-Made Islands in the Markermeer, NL: Innovating for Ecosystem Protection

A few months ago, as I came across the Binnenhof, the Inner Court, on a tour in the Hague, I learned that the king of the Netherlands has a secondary official profession as a water manager. This is how I realized how significant water management is considered in Dutch society.

For hundreds of years, the Dutch have developed a level of expertise comparable to no other country in management and planning to fight back the water. This enabled the nation to develop productive agricultural land and eventually keep millions out of harm's way, especially upon rapid urbanization in and around the coastal provinces. But this path dependency of confidence in man-made solutions has also led to mistakes, in which urban development was preferenced over ecological wellbeing and natural water flows.

An example of this is the damming of a large body of water between the provinces of North Holland and Flevoland, which are slightly north of the Amsterdam metropolitan area. The large lake is known as the Markermeer. In fact, the Markermeer has been artificially created as a result of its splitting from the Ijsselmeer to the north around a century ago. What this has led to is the gradual sedimentation in the body of water, leading to such a severe turbidity level that species loss of invertebrates,  fish, and migratory birds has ensued. While we usually hear of Dutch success stories, the Markermeer's decline indicates some of the issues with top-down, infrastructural development approaches to planning and management of water resources.

This map depicts the presence of two dams which closed off the water body from the sea and split it in half. Image Source: http://www.dutchwatersector.com/

In order to undo a history of deterioration and neglect, a governance-based collaboration has emerged, in the form of a joint venture between the national water management agency, Rijkswaterstaat, and a nature protection civil organization, Natuurmonumenten. It resembles an increasing trend of interdisciplinary, horizontal collaboration in resource management in the Netherlands and much of Europe. This partnership has culminated into an innovative vision for the Markermeer, through a building project in which silt from the sedimentation would be gathered, consolidated and solidified to construct multiple islands. Eventually, these islands could become part of a larger archipelago that could evolve through processes of natural succession into habitat for birds, fish, and invertebrate. At face value, it appears as a win-win situation, with much emphasis placed on ecological restoration and nature's needs.

The goal is for the Markerwadden to be host to a number of migratory birds and aquatic species
Image Source: http://boskalis.com/ 

The first island of the archipelago is being constructed, ahead of schedule and under budget. 

Nonetheless, the ease of collaboration in the project could be taken for granted. Could interdisciplinarity lead to future disagreements on priority decision-making? Do the construction managers have the technical expertise, given this has never been done before in the Netherlands? Will the islands draw much tourism in the future compromising the needs of species and therefore, affecting  biodiversity? All of these questions still have to be answered. 

Mobile Architectures: Contesting City Space

Mobile architectures may have been around for a long time, but they are a technology, art form, and vision worth revisiting in today's city. With the neoliberalization of the processes that shape and govern the urban landscape, cities demand radical architectural, design and planning responses that involve collaboration and authenticity. The urban ecosystem consists of a plurality of actors. Therefore, place-making should respect poly-rationalities that interpret public space in varying ways, and furthermore, not be driven by externally-directed pecuniary agendas. This perspective for the contestation of  space and the regulations (i.e., zoning laws, property regimes) that define and control it, while offering opportunities for dynamic landscape appropriation and conversion and unexpected futures by creatives and subcultures.

 The sociologist, George Simmel, argued that the metropolis is an overstimulating environment with negative psychological effects on the human. This has led to a line of thinking which assumes that the city dweller needs protection from contradictory or offensive uses of landscapes. However, this only restricts opportunities for creation and alternative interpretation of the public realm. But mobile architecture demonstrates the endless possibilities in a city where space is no longer pre-defined and normalized and capitalist-driven top-down planning ceases to dominate.

This past August, I was able to collaborate on one such mobile architecture experiment with a Berlin-based design collective, ON/OFF. The invention combines printmaking with political activism and freedom of expression into one 'machine'. With the monopolization of media and the restriction of freedom of expression, this mobile architecture, called the GuerillaPrintingPress (copyrighted by ON/OFF) enables the public to print their own leaflets (or zines if they want to keep it playful) anywhere in the city. The machine consists of reconfigurable furniture pieces. The pieces can be stacked or turned to the side, and rolled around, enabling flexibility A printer/copier can be stacked on top of one furniture piece, while the other two serve as a station for binding work space and storage shelves. This way, the public can get involved in journalism and information dissemination.

The GuerillaPrintingPress is currently on display at the Stiftung Bauhaus Dessau museum in Germany 

Here are a few more examples of mobile architectural inventions:

Hortummachina B is an intelligent cyber gardener and machine, with twelve modules of gardens consisting of sensors. These create a robotic environment for the plants to grow in. The machine takes the form of a Buckminster Fuller, enabling it to roll around in the city. This mobile architecture contests the static nature of traditional architecture and places, such as buildings and designated gardens and parks. Click here to  read more. 

The architect behind Creation station describes his invention as a mobile tool box, with a publicly accessible workspace and platform to build and fix things in a place-based and public fashion. It is useful as it can be placed anywhere in the city and enables collaboration. For example, the machine can be deployed in construction sites, schools, parking lots, sidewalks, and market squares. More importantly, it has the potential to encourage circular economy principles so that fewer things are thrown out and more are repaired or parts reassembled for reuse.

Exquisite Triciclo fulfills a social and artistic purpose as a sales cart tricycle that can be 'pimped' by owners. It brings diversity to public space, as each tricycle can be outfitted differently to fulfill the personal needs and desires of the street vendor. The tricycles reflect the interests of the general public while making public space, such as streets and markets, colorful, variable, and unexpected.

Read more on mobile disruptive architectures: http://www.onoff.cc/co-machines

Cycling and Road Infrastructure in Delft

1. Car-free bridges for connectivity: Plantagebrug 

This footbridge right outside the center of Delft was constructed in the 1980s to fill gaps under the Delft Plan of 1980. The plan called for the 500-meter spacing of all bike lanes. Plantagebrug is one of many footbridges that enhances connectivity, as the canal, a natural barrier, becomes crossable for both cyclists, moped-drivers, and pedestrians. Unlike some of the older bridges in Delft, in which staircases block commuters on wheels from easily crossing over, this footbridge allows for all forms of non-car transport. Right around the corner is a rather complicated vehicle and tram crossing, which is suitable for the 'strong and fearless' participants in traffic. Due to the complicated markings and lack of a cycle track, this crossing intimidated me more than some in my hometown of Miami (and I'm not even a cycling novice). In fact, I'm pretty certain I crossed it incorrectly as a cyclist and confused the drivers. Plantagebrug offers a much safer alternative, especially for cyclists who prefer low-stress environments. I highly recommend taking this route to connect to neighborhoods across the canals bordering Delft Centrum to the north and east.

Plantagebrug helps reinforce a continuous grid structure despite canal barriers

Tracks with concrete barriers separate pedestrian traffic and moped/ bicycle traffic 

Mopeds, electric bikes, and bikes share a path

2. Multifunctionality and Self-enforcing design: Ruys de Beerenbrouckstraat

Tucked in the quiet neighborhood across Phoenixstraat, this street ought to earn the gold star of traffic planning for its multi-functionality and safety. Contrary to official Dutch street guidelines, which try to simplify the functionality of streets and to the province's desires to make this a through street for 50 km/h traffic for better access to shops, residents wanted to preserve their neighborhood and maintain speed limits of 30 km/ h. The street, as photographed below, is clearly the result of a compromise between residents and the province. The road improvement on Ruys de Beerenbrouchkstraat demonstrates achievement of the following critical success factors for a safe cycling system

• cohesion
• directness 
• attractiveness 
• safety 
• comfort

According to the CROW 2007 Dutch Bicycle Design Manual, separated bicycle tracks
 must be constructed for higher speed roads of 50 km/ h. A pull out bus route prevents
buses from blocking traffic while stopping for smooth traffic flow. 

Self-enforcing design, such as elephant feet, warn approaching drivers to lower their speeds and be aware of cyclists crossing the road. This also functions as ROW for cyclists. The square pavement works as a visual cue as well. 

The median in the middle keeps cars within their lanes and moderates speeds.
Parallel parking also produces side friction, so cars cannot zip through.  

Most of the time, we consider it impossible for higher speeds to be compatible with road safety. Despite its through street function and speed limit of 50 km/ h, it has managed to become a safe street through intense traffic calming measures. Road widths were reduced, cycle tracks on each side were constructed, and bus pullouts enable continuous traffic flow. Crosswalks are well marked with a different color and texture differences using bricks, zebra lines, and mild road raising. Raised barriers separate the lanes on the two-way road. Traffic can pass through easily, but road speeds are reduced automatically. Redundant signage, such as yield signs, and pedestrian and bicycle crossing and path signs ensure that drivers watch out for cyclists. It would be phenomenal to see something like this added to more through streets and their intersections in North America. 

Water Management in the Netherlands: Visit to the Maeslantkering Sea Walls

Water Management in the Netherlands

How is it possible for a country to exist when two-thirds of it lies below sea level? The Dutch are the experts, as they have managed to hold back the sea and settle more than five million people on land that would not exist without human innovation and technology. Based on their delta management plan, massive steel sea barriers,  and green-frastructure for natural flood control, the Dutch have adjusted their technology and methods to past failures and have learned to adopt new designs and technologies on the job.

In the Netherlands, the attitude toward water management is that they have little choice but to invest money in flood and storm surge protection. In addition, excess water must be dealt with, using parking garages or river beds as reservoirs and even compensating farmers to flood their land.  Although it seems everything is under control, the Dutch continuously face challenges when keeping the ocean at bay. Saltwater intrusion is an increasing concern, as it threatens drinking water quality. River dykes can crack causing floods, especially when the peatland gets too dry due to excessive draining. With increasing urbanization, a changing climate which will bring more rainfall, and sea level rise, there are fewer porous surfaces for the water to infiltrate and a greater volume of water to manage. In addition, much of the Dutch population wants to live by the water, and so, displacement of people triggers concern among water management experts. Soft infrastructure is becoming an ever popular option (i.e., coastal wetland reclamation), but other large-scale solutions are required.

The majority of Dutch land is vulnerable to flooding from storm surges and sea level rise

Sea Wall Technology Design  and Operation 

These tubes fill with water enabling the wall to sink and provide extra weight to hold back the ocean

 The farthest right sea wall design was selected among multiple submissions by private companies

According to our tour guide, a trained civil engineer at the Maeslantkering sea walls west of Rotterdam, in 2050, rivers will have to discharge three times more water. In addition, the Netherlands will see higher flow over a shorter period of time. Therefore, infrastructure systems must manage water at peak moments. The sea wall site we visited consisted of 15,000 tons of steel on each side of the gate, which is the double the weight of the Eiffel Tower. What's really important is investing a lot in the very beginning. Construction costs and maintainability are important when choosing the design. To avoid 700 billion damages cost from one catastrophe, Dutch water managers and engineers invest 1 billion annually in their sea gate technology. After all, these sea gates help protect at least half a million people. These workers bear a lot of responsibility in keeping major urban centers in Western and Southern Holland safe. In emergency situations, workers are provided with food, coffee, and tea, but no beer. 

A miniature model of the Keringhuis sea walls shows the complex design involved 

The thickness of hollow tube surfaces is 54 cm 

The design chosen for its innovative features, which won over multiple designs submitted by companies, consists of tubes, which fill up with sea water so that they can be lowered into the water and add extra weight to hold back the sea. Safety is a major concern. While the ball joint was made "with the precision of a watchmaker", according to our tour guide, the computer systems also represent a vital component of the sea gates for their ability to calculate when the next high tide will come. Even the Titanic's sinking in 1912 serves as a failure that can be learned from; all compartments on the gates are now water-tight, not just the ones at the bottom. The hydraulic engine has worked for 40 years, and due to the circular electric grid, even in the case of power failure, the technology should operate when needed. When asked about impending sea level rise, our tour guide appeared nonchalant. "This is easy" he said, "all that must be done is raising the concrete pad below the gates. It isn't a cheap construction project, but the Dutch have little choice but to find answers through constant experimenting with engineering and design.

Coming from Miami, FL, part of a metropolitan region with five million people, I know that sudden sea level rise and flooding is a serious concern. Copying and pasting the Dutch solution of sea barriers is definitely unreasonable, as Miami's land surface consists of porous limestone. Pretty simply, it is a sponge which will soak up all the water from the ocean. In this case, even a full-proof sea barrier cannot keep back the ocean. I asked our tour guide if Dutch water managers have worked with other cities on the issue of sea level rise. He said that Dutch technical institute students can work with students from other cities (Galveston, Texas is one such place where such a partnership unfolds as we speak) to create place-based solutions based on experimental water management approaches. Just like the Dutch have to, each locality has a unique situation and its people must learn what works and what doesn't while on the job. Miami, in my opinion, might be able to consult the Dutch on creating floating cities, although it might only be used to buy some time before the city becomes uninhabitable. Nonetheless, if there's one thing we can learn in Miami from the Dutch, it's that we must learn to live with water, since we cannot always fight it.

How to improve i-Thrive

Throughout this blog, I discuss how to build sustainable communities in a broader sense, but is it possible to quantify improvements to ensure design characteristics match up with those of a thriving 'sustainable' neighborhood? iThrive is one such method. As a growth management excel-based tool, it can help engineers and planners assess the sustainability benefits of development by a land use and transportation design evaluation. The Excel document contains three sheets: metrics, guidelines, and a summary page.

The metrics measure the following:

• degree of land-use mix 
• density 
• proximity to services 
• street connectivity 
• land use evaluation
• road network and sidewalk 
• parking 
• aesthetics and human scale 

We visited a suburb of the Hague, Ypenburg, a master- planned development on airport land from the 1990s, and applied these criteria. Although the neighborhood felt denser than your average suburban neighborhood in North America, it did not fulfill my image of a thriving neighborhood. The neighborhood, to put it bluntly, lacked any form of vibrancy and excitement. Even the Dutch professional mobility planners we spoke to considered it to be boring.

The neighborhood of Ypenburg would do well on iThrive metrics for its floor area ratio (FAR) and units per hectare (UPH), and proximity to transit, services, and greenspace

iThrive, though comprehensive, does miss a few important details which define a sustainable community. For instance, CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) ought to be a valued factor. In addition, the metrics miss social equity, such as how much social housing or social mix a neighborhood has, as well as how diverse it is racially, culturally, or by age. Economic factors might also be left out; how can one ensure that commercial development is sustainable, especially since traffic patterns can impact how well local businesses are frequented?

In devising mobility and land use designs for a neighborhood in Kelowna, British Columbia, different groups applied iThrive metrics to their projects. Our scores ranged from 60% (at lowest) to 75% (at highest). All of our designs had something unique to them, and I would consider each a thriving sustainable community model. However, the iThrive score depends on subjective evaluation of performance on metrics and could contain biases based on the individual inputting the data. Some might be more optimistic about meeting the requirements, while others are critical. iThrive is a valuable assessment tool, but it needs to improve in its metric valuation system or be paired with other assessment tools such as EIA and Healthy Community indicators. 

Does pop-up urbanism really work?

This weekend, I had the chance to travel to some temporary/DIY/pop up/experimental urbanism sites in Amsterdam and Rotterdam where tactical architecture and urbanism is practiced and alternative futures are envisioned. FabCity, a month-long ecovillage innovation exhibition on Jawa Eiland in Amsterdam, DeCeuvel, a brownfield- shipyard converted to a cafe and cultural incubator, and the International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam- The Next Economy exhibit were among the three major visitations. At the IABR- The Next Economy, I attended a debate concerning the value of informal, coined 'pop up', urbanism and architecture interventions in shaping our lifestyles and the urban fabric. FabCity and DeCeuvel are examples of the plus and downsides of pop-up urbanism. The former might be criticized for being completely idealised consisting of various unrelated projects, such as a site for 3D printing, shipping container and modular housing exhibitions, solar technology, guerilla gardens, and biodigesters, with only a few weeks to generate any lasting impact in the city. The latter has been the result of occupying old industrial land in a relatively overlooked neighborhood in North Amsterdam under a ten-year lease.

Spatially reimagining the city- IABR: The Next Economy 

IABR visual exhibitions envision how we will deal with today's urban problems

Pop up projects around the world are exhibited at IABR- The Next Economy

Based on the concerns raised by Rene Boer, the urban researcher behind Failed Architecture, a participant in the IABR Pop Up City debate and my own observations at FabCity, I understand that pop-up urbanism as a solution to many of our urban problems is a bit naive. Rene claims that we must be cautious not to praise pop-up urbanism too often, as projects are often only of temporary, incidental nature  that cannot be scaled and rather symbolic of receding government responsibility to actively deal with urban problems. Pop up interventions can sometimes facilitate further gentrification of a neighborhood, especially when in the form of 'politically correct hipster pastoralism', as a member of the audience noted. Is pop-up ethically correct? Does it reflect the interests of the community when an outside architect comes in to start the project? Can pop-up interventions, like the shipping container homes on display at FabCity really make a difference in an increasingly unaffordable city where more density and smaller living might be required, or is this just a band-aid solution? Does pop-up urbanism inherently entail class bias, in which those with more resources and capacity (i.e., those from middle-income backgrounds), can start and continue a project because funding for these is usually limited and distributed from a variety of sources?

Shipping container experiments at FabCity

Although we cannot remain uncritical of pop-up interventions, there was consensus among the debate participants that pop-up (which they preferred to refer to as informal urbanism), has value in improving participation in the city, establishing new networks where ones didn't previously exist, and rethinking the process of planning in the city beyond simply placemaking.

3D printer technology on display at FabCity  

Founders of the DeCeuvel project from Delva Landscape Architects and Space and Matter, claimed that pop up was a political exercise that enabled creating a new imaginary for an industrial area in Amsterdam. The temporary and experimental occupation and re-envisioning has led the brownfield shipyard to be converted to a cultural incubator, in which houseboats are now used as workspaces for small-scale architecture collectives with a walking path connecting them to each other and to the De Ceuvel cafe and a "workship" in which daily cultural activities like yoga and storytelling are held. Meanwhile, phytoremediation has been adopted to deal with the contamination.

Converted houseboats to workspaces for small architectural collectives at DeCeuvel

For the leader of Hotel Transvaal, a project in which ethnic groups helped reshape vacant areas in a neighborhood helped fill the gaps of a master plan, reimagine the neighborhood in a way that was reflective of its cultural diversity, activate its business networks, and raise knowledge about the area's ethnicities, signals that pop-up inventions are a tool for improving participation to facilitate urban improvement. This stands in contrast with bottom-line driven urban development and bulldozing urban renewal.

Lastly, a representative of an office development project claimed that pop-up urbanism can affect the way spreadsheets are handled by real estate development. For instance, his projects help identify the multiple potential social services of a project beyond just the economic benefits that can be reaped. It enriches our understanding of process and methodology so that we can avoid dividing communities in favor of suppporting inclusivity in urban development.  Pop up urbanism is part of a bigger story in planning and architecture, in which we question how we 'do planning', who the city belongs to, and question our current business and ownership models that dictate spatial use and distribution in our built environments. Normally, urban imaginaries are fed by fear and neoliberalism, but pop-up urbanism, although no panacea, is refreshing in that brings different stakeholders and enables us to rethink what is possible.