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.