Article

1. Theoretical Frame

1.1. Introduction

The research paper is focused on the part from an already developed master’s research on pop-ups as temporary practices and their role in regenerating urban voids. Accordingly, the paper will focus on the paradoxicality of the architecture statues and the aspect of time as the main factor in such paradox. As well as the pop-up architecture’s impact and transformation significance in the urban void it occupies. Moreover, the relation between the pop-up and the void and the different strategies taken to achieve a regeneration process for urban voids.

A considerable number of pop-ups were gathered, researched schematically to choose some suitable cases to be within the case studies in my master’s research. However, I will be selecting two case studies out of six conducted case studies based on their location relevance for this paper; located in the Mediterranean Sea, as well as the transformation impact, they produced to the void they occupied.

1.2. Paradoxicality towards Architectural

StatusArchitecture is normally seen as permanent, eager for the state of monuments, and this sort of architecture has typically its place. Nevertheless, that goes for other kinds of architecture, the ephemeral kind, which contends the concentration of architecture as lasting. The type that discerns itself through being impermanent and the temporal physicality feature in a site it occupies yet still maintains the development of a sense of place. Adding to that, Kronenburg made a convincing dispute that the experimentation inalienable in such architecture disputes predetermined ideas about what structures can and ought to be. He explained that the temporality approach adapts to various demands and characterises by providing more for less and encouraging innovation. Correspondingly he argued that end-users, architects, designers, and builders should reconsider their attitude towards temporary architecture (Arieff 2011). When designing, the majority would state that the architect’s intention is for buildings to last. Thus, it is no surprise that it seems complicated to distinguish between solid architecture and temporary ones in the history of architecture. At the point when perpetual is set against transitory, a French logician in the 19th century, who is recognised as the originator of deconstruction, Jacques Derrida, would contend the difference could not be viewed as equivalent. As permanent architecture always seems to be given the high ground and consistently being more critical to architecture and its history, it has often been viewed as more vital. (UKessays 2018)

1.3. The Tendency of the Temporary

It was coined in an article by Gem Barton about how we are conditioned to believe that permanence and longevity are desirable and that what is considered the most rewarding are the aspects that last the longest, not just in architecture but in life. Thus, the term temporary is seen as insignificant in general, and architecture is not excluded from that perception. Yet time changes, and diversity becomes a demand. Thus, temporality became appreciated and, in turn, short-term projects, installations, and pop-ups. (Barton 2013)

Accordingly, despite the known norm of architecture, the process of these projects is united in their impermanence. Hence, all the different intentions and strategies, regardless of whether as an effort to generate publicity as well as political interest, a strategy put in place by residents to develop their communities, or a massive investment made by municipal governments or private investments aimed at profit-making on economically obsolete grounds; both fall under the concept of “temporary spaces”. (Feireiss, Hamm 2014) Peter Bishop and Lesley Williams add to that in their book ‘The Temporary City’ were they state that meanwhile, activities and short-term practices in urban areas have not been significantly analysed in equivalence to their importance. In an era of increasing pressure on deficient resources and cities in continuous flux, the wait for long-term permanent solutions to vacant lands and dereliction is no longer possible. Instead, the introduction and interference of temporary uses and short-term structures should be considered as well as their legitimacy and importance should be acknowledged. (Bishop and Williams 2012) They can be a powerful tool through which it could be drip-feeded to initiatives seeking incremental change while being led by a loose-fit vision.

A focused description of temporary structures is that they are scalable, low-cost, and a quick response to urbanised areas, and is thought to keep city life rolling in a wait for long-term solutions to be established. (Harris et Nowicki 2015) Temporary uses started to gain recognition and became an essential tool for many ingenious minds who aim to go beyond the norm and create interesting spaces that reflect their visions in a universe controlled by revenue maxim. (Lehtovouri, 2012) Urban planners are also starting to cease temporary uses as chances for urban development. (Urban Catalyst, 2017: 17)

Accordingly, the interest in cities is rising towards small temporary-scaled interventions. One of the reasons behind this interest in these small interventions is the rapid increase in global urbanization in terms of speed and scale and the pressing need to convey quick, easy, impactful urban interventions. The timing of these projects throughout the year is a significant factor in their success. (Abd ElRahman 2015) The varying and, at times, exceedingly incompatible genealogies are a focal segment of its charm: ‘temporary reuse’ gives off an impression of being a floating signifier fit for including a wide variety of activities and urban discursive systems. Its central promises and narratives, however varying, are surprisingly seductive and capable of attracting spatial experts’ energies and sensitivities over a scope of political positions, which incorporates experimental and alternative fringes of standard architecture, planning and cultural production. (Ferreri 2015) Peculiar as they are, they tend to be a medium of expression of a varying, intricate comprehension of architectural and spatial perception. The space production practice has long since diminished to be the architects’ exclusive realm. It has evolved to fulfilling an urge of ingenuity in space creation for many creatives in the form of expressions that are emotionally charged. That led to architects losing their entitlement to the conventional space design, however the ability to explore new and exciting spaces emerges by ousting existing practices in the constructed setting. (Platoon 2015)

Unlike master plans that seek a distant goal, temporary uses start from the context and the current conditions and seek to use what already exists rather than coming up with something new. It is concerned with small urban places and brief spans of time in addition to the conditions at different points in time. (Haydn, Temel 2006) Temporary uses have been growing in their development potential to the extent that leads to political awareness and grabs the attention of municipalities, thereby ensuring the subject of temporary use has a place as a future focus in municipal planning. In a direct definition, temporary represents the non-permanent, which is restricted by time. Yet when mentioning temporality in urban planning, it becomes more than just something non-permanent; a less bounded opportunity of ideas that could be tested in the open and is also considered a head start for projects towards the permanent. It is characterised by being dynamic and has the ability to excite local economies. Lately, it has started gaining attention in the urban planning field as a tool for the strategic planning process.

In addition, the temporary uses highlight the potential of empty urban spaces from former industrial sites or other redundant spaces by using its ability to activate these spaces through this use that hold great potential for the development and testing of new ideas. Similarly, the temporary use of urban spaces is acquiring more political interest and becoming a trend in urban planning and development. (Frisk, Louie, no date) There have always been such interventions, but since the 90s, they have become more relevant in the space industry as public authorities and locals have progressively retreated from large-scale planning and provision of local service. The various recessions over the last period have resulted in further austerity by governments and further eroded their impact on space development. (Minkjan 2014)

On a broadening demand for a temporary as well as a flexible structure, enclosed space or engaging one that is capable of adapting to individuals, times or uses, this impermanent structure, also called “pop-ups”, grants considerable inventiveness as well as significant expense and time reductions at the course of the building phase. (Bertino 2019) Such peculiar form of temporary architecture with its ephemeral quality does not stop at serving social and political movements; it goes beyond to influence contemporary urban planning and innovative design strategies taking different forms that could be seen in pop-ups, tactical, do-it-yourself, or ephemeral urban planning. These temporary structures are characterised by being modest in size and their ability to concentrate on one definitive area. They are typically executed by autonomous space professionals, organisations, or small business owners, frequently subsidised but rarely being funded structurally. Such Urbanism is almost always transient and is defined in some way by its adaptive reuse of materials and structures. (Boer and Minkjan 2016) These projects and practices have a significant place in the discourse of low-cost urbanity. 

1.4. Pop-Up Architecture

Pop-ups are defined as temporary structures that are limited by time and are considered to bring the occupied space to life. According to (Ferreri (2015), pop-up terminology commonly describes diverse practices that frequently inhabit a space for a deliberately transitory duration.

They are a result of unforeseen or conventional initiatives by individuals, organizations, projects, and other interested parties. (Abd ElRahman 2016) Despite being unplanned, they are present in every city and are a kind of architecture that encourages innovation and creativity. They are characterised as being diverse when it comes to materiality, functionality and uses, thus serves the different cultural realms and day-to-day demands. It could also be approached as a contemporary method to affect and inspire people. (Timofeeva, Tolkachova, Bartov 2014) These pop-ups are considered artistic, communal, and sociable-oriented structures. They are capable of boosting the legitimacy of a region and typically increase by that the values of land and generating by that cultural significance. (Boer and Minkjan 2016) These structures are also characterised by its adaptability to changing lifestyles and basic human needs. It allows flexible reuse of structures and materials and could be self-constructed without the involvement of construction companies. “Architecture that adapts, transforms, interacts with its user.”

Although it plays an important role in public and cultural life as well as the urban development of cities, it has been entirely ignored by the official policy-making and city planning circles. (Oswalt, Overmeyer & Misselwitz 2013) Ella Harris proposes that pop-ups are domains that allow the reinterpretation of space and time in more prominent aspects. (Harris 2015)

1.5. Urban Void Definition

After World War II and by the 1970s, urban planning was based on ensuring quality living conditions for the entire population, but that model was replaced by the concept of the corporate city, which is a movement based on financial goals; sites that are relevant for investment are planned as projects, while the space in between disappears from the public consciousness. The space in between is referred to as an urban void.
Careri notes that voids are an integral component of the spatial fabric and reside nomadically in cities. Each time authority strives to enforce a new regime, they are capable of manoeuvring and have evolved outwardly as well as opposed to a contemporary venture which still cannot acknowledge or embrace their principles (Garcia 2017)

The urban voids were first introduced by Trancik in his book Lost Space as unwanted urbanistic territories in demand of restructuring and design (Weththasinghe & Wijesundara 2017), characterised by being anti-space, promising no commitment to the environment or clients. Thus, these voids are not compellingly established, have no quantifiable limits and founder to link components in a consistent manner (Trancik 1986). They are also places that are left out of city planning and no longer serve their intended purpose. According to Trancik, these lost spaces include the leftover spaces under high-rise buildings or flyovers, abandoned waterfronts and abandoned industrial complexes. On the other hand, urban voids were identified by Perara in 1994 to be underutilised, abandoned and forgotten land and premises among the public and private realm. They are present in urban areas and are a consequence of outdated or defunct uses. (Perera 1994)

Urban voids are generally seen as a sign of city decline, and, in this manner, they open up new opportunities for developing and creating ambiguous and dynamic connections. In a global context of social and economic changes, urban voids expect the significant role of socioeconomic ramifications of this exceptional commodity, urban land, in relation to the spatial arrangement. The voids that disrupt the urban fabric in cities, leaving it obsolete, calls into dispute the utilization of such areas. At the time, they were called urban ruins and were considered on the border amongst public and private spaces, with no affiliation to any of them (Limthongsakul 2017). In that sense, the potentials and opportunities of these voids as catalysts for urban regeneration are disregarded (G Doron 2006) and limited evaluation in such regard in urban planning; ephemerality and temporariness are seldom seen as progression and revitalization traits. (De Girolamo 2013)

1.6. Pop-ups as a strategy for the urban void phenomena

Pop-ups have different strategies to occupy and regenerate the void through tangible and intangible aspects. The tangible aspects are the economic, commercial, sociocultural, political and necessity. While the intangible aspects are the spatial experience in creates and the effect it leaves in the memory. However, within this paper, I will only explore one of the strategies within the intangible factors, which is memory.

Temporary architecture attempts to straddle the borders between outer and inner atmospheres within an urban space allowing people to connect more and maximise their sensation. This maximization, in turn, has the ability to serve the Poignant influence generated by a temporary structure. Additionally, the presence of these structures for a short duration, probably being witnessed or just once encountered, in turn ought to have an immediate impact. (Armada 2012) Environments could be more than assigned locations; however, mind spaces where shared experiences can be amplified. (Ciantar 2016) In Ephemeral Architecture book, Robert Kronenburg proposes that transitory architecture, constructed instinctively and relative to a specific event, capable of engaging and connecting to its audience on an obscure stage. The mere idea of building and reconstructing structures before one’s eyes is considered a consequential encounter as it remains in the memory. (Kronenburg 2004) People become aware of the span of these projects and the possibility of the dissemblance and destruction of these structures. (Cultural Essay 2016) Therefore, the structure plays into the social needs for instant fulfilment nonetheless provides enduring cultural effect due to the unforgettable encounter. (Armada 2012) The effect of an impermanent encounter is rather important in entailing its impact and significance than the period of this temporary encounter. Zumthor said that such memories contain the most profound architecture encounter he recognises as they are architectural reserves he pursues as an architect in his practice.

Consequently, Pop-up is a transient architecture but still manages to retain value and purpose. It has the ability to mediate the contention between the search for permanence and unavoidable obsolescence. It is intended to occur for a fleeting time span and would then vanish, providing a transitory experience as well as sustaining a memory for later. It results in a unique and meaningful experience due to the acknowledgement of its limited time. A sense of immediacy emerges within a society that demands immediate gratification in an architecture that can rapidly slither out and into reality. Consequently, the prime concern must be to establish a durable influence culturally by means of expression of time. The pop-up was so brief to the point that drives Jensen to make this statement:

“It is necessary to be in the right place at the right time to experience Raumlabor in action. The physical construction disappears rapidly, and the long-term effect of their projects is first and foremost established through memory. The physical context remains untouched, but the memories of and the narratives about the place have changed. All projects are connected with a certain event and are designed to disappear as soon as the occasion for them is no longer present.” (St. Hill, 2019)

2. Analysis

2.2. Extracted Pop-Up Classification Criteria

Based on previous research for my dissertation, different aspects have been established to be used in the form of criteria in classifying and defining the relation between pop-ups, the context it occupies and the factor of time. Three criteria have been created; however, I will only reveal selected categories within these criteria related to the selected case studies in this paper and space transformation.

After an excessive observation and study of numerous pop-up projects, a development of three main criteria have been established as the basis for explaining the relation between the pop-up structure and the void it occupies as well as the intangible factors affected in the process despite the ephemerality of the pop-ups. In addition, these three criteria also show how the pop-ups and urban spaces are affected by each other and not just how they impact the surrounding.

The first criterion was the urban void typology, that is considered an urban catalyst and a potential space for the pop-ups to occupy. The second criterion for classifying the spatial configuration and state of the pop-up takes into account how the pop-up occupies the void and the impact of the void on such spatial state and form configuration of the pop-up. Finally, the third is the strategies taken by the pop-ups in occupying the urban void and regenerating it, taking into account three main factors: the pop-up form, the context as well as the time factor. In which there three factors vary in their impact intensity and relation based on the pop-up strategy.

Classification will start with the urban void typologies, moving to the diverse spatial states of the pop-ups and then describing the different pop-up strategies. A short introduction on each criterion will be introduced before subdividing the criteria.

2.3. The Three Classification Criteria

2.3.1. Urban Void Typologies

The following classification will be based on the different urban void typologies identified within a previously done research with selection criteria according to a reflection of the essential urban voids that are commonly used by pop-ups. Accordingly, below are six categories of urban void typologies:

2.3.2. SPATIAL STATE

This classification criteria deals with the form of the pop-up and the context it settles in. The relation between the form and the context, and how each can impact the other is one of the main aspects. The impact does affect not only the form but also the spatial state of the pop-up, including the context. They could end up acting as one thing with a certain materiality, flexibility, and adaptation. A pop-up could fit into different spatial states depending on the strategy it followed and the development plan it encompasses. In essence, the relation between the context and the form of the pop-up allows different outcomes for the form configuration and, in turn spatial configuration of the space. Respectively, three categories where developed: