밑으로부터 도시계획 (Bottom Up Urbanism)

Folly for a Flyover was supported by the Bank of America Myrill Lynch CREATE Art Award, was
nominated for Design Museum Design’s of the Year 2012, Conde Naste Traveller Awards, was listed
in The Observer’s ‘Top Ten Architectural moments of 2011’, featured in The New York Magazine’s
‘Delirious City’, a selection of twenty four exemplary urban inventions from across the world, has
been exhibited at Maison D’Architecture and Pavilion D’Arsenal in Paris and is the flagship project
International Showcase of Pop-Up Architecture in Lima, Peru, as part of the British Council’s
contribution to the London Festival of Architecture 2012.
BOTTOM UP URBANISM
A Survey of Temporary Use in Europe
COMMUNITY FELLOWSHIP David Glick – Summer 2012
Client & Contact: CREATE 2011 (Anna Doyle), The Barbican (Katrina Crookall)
Dates & Delivery: 2010 – 2011
Delivery Partners: CREATE, The Barbican, muf architecture/art and 68 local businesses and groups.
Budget: £40,000, fee: £4,000
Project Lead: Lewis Jones
Folly for a Flyover aimed to test the viability of an derelict motorway undercroft in Hackney Wick as a new public
space. The project provided a café, cinema and workshop space which hosted an eight week programme of
events and drew over 20,000 people to the previously unused undercroft. The site’s potential future users,
both local residents and businesses were invited to join in right from the inception of the work, from assisting
with construction to collaborating on programming.
The unintended bi-product of the intersection of the Lea Navigational Canal and the A12, the undercroft is
at the meeting point between Hackney Marshes, the residential and rapidly changing industrial areas of the
Hackney Wick and the nascent Olympic Park.
For years a place of misdemeanor and anti-social behavior, public access to the site was blocked. However,
the undercroft is on the edge of a well-used towpath, and possesses the rare physical conditions of being
both under-cover but open air. The main factors constraining its potential were legislative prohibitions and
its troubled social history. Development of the project therefore took two inter-related courses; an extensive
process of negotiations with the legislative bodies responsible for the site and using a design-based solution,
focused on opening up participation as broadly as possible to shift the public perception of the site.
Turning the existing problems of the site into opportunities, the Folly acted to re-write the site’s troubled history.
Posing as an imaginary piece of the area’s past, a building trapped under the motorway, providing recreational
and community uses that capitalized on the surrounding green space and canal route, incorporating a cafe,
events space and boat hire facilities.

La parcelle du 56 -ancien passage dans le centre du
quartier Saint Blaise, fermé suite à la construction
d’un nouveau bâtiment- est considérée inconstruc-
tible, car bordée de nombreuses fenêtres, et laissée
à l’abandon. En 2005, la DPVI propose à aaa d’ex-
plorer les potentialités d’usage de cet espace très
visible et qui intrigue… Après quelques mois d’ar-
pentage et de multiples contacts avec des acteurs
locaux, aaa propose un projet élaboré sur la base
des désirs récoltés, et qui devrait évoluer par la
suite avec les futurs usagers du lieu. Un réseau de
partenaires se tisse -parmi eux l’APIJ, une associa-
tion spécialisée dans l’éco-construction. L’usage du
terrain -d’abord libre, puis équipé par deux modules
mobiles- n’est pas interrompu pendant les travaux;
au contraire, les réunions de chantier -comme dispo-
sitif du projet- sont l’occasion d’échanges sur des
questions écologiques que le projet explore. Des
interventions ponctuelles donnent lieu à des chantiers
«parallèles» pour la construction d’une serre mobile,
de «murs de voisinage», des parcelles… Fin 2007,
une trentaine de personnes ont les clés de l’es-
pace et l’utilisent périodiquement pour du jardinage,
des spectacles, expositions, débats, fêtes, ateliers,
projections, concerts, séminaires… D’autres projets
d’usage d’aménagement continue à émerger .
The project 56, explores the possibilities of an
urban interstice to be transformed into a collectively
self-managed space. This project has engaged an
unusual partnership between local government struc-
tures, local organisations, inhabitants of the area
and a professional association which run training
programmes in eco-construction. The management
of the project gives space and time to construction,
the construction site becoming itself a social and
cultural act. Together with the construction of the
physical space, different social and cultural networks
This book is the culmination of research supported by the Hart
Howerton Community Fellowship program. The findings are based
upon articles, interviews, and observational analysis of 28 case
studies in six cities visited in the summer of 2012.
Copyright © 2013 by David Glick.
Designers, planners, and citizen activists
can learn from vacant or underutilized
sites appropriated by artist collectives and
creative entrepreneurs. With the imperative
to extract surplus value relaxed, these
moments of rupture from the status quo are
uniqueinthattheyaffordatemporalwindow
for programmatic experimentation, yielding
entirely novel spatial and social relationships.
Out of these voids where the private (and
public sector) operating under the mantra of
“highest and best use” have failed to assess
the full potentials of a site, this research
explores how self-organized collectives or
small-scale entrepreneurs have generated
“addedvalue.” Ittracesarangeofcasestudies
from the scale of a pop-up cinema under
a highway overpass in London to an entire
cultural district in the center of Hamburg
that have emerged through bottom-up
processes, to unlock latent urban potentials.
These outlier examples in aggregate begin
to suggest an exciting range of largely
untapped, alternative models by which
urban interventions might be conceived,
implemented, and continue to evolve
through cross-disciplinary collaboration and
grassroots models of participation.

INTRODUCTION
A Growing Trend
Tactical Urbanism
CITIES 12
Itinerary
City collages
CASE STUDIES 34
Objectives
Process
Categories
• Squatter Settlements
• Grassroots Organization
• Interim Use
• Design Build
• Entrepreneurial
• Hybrid
SOCIAL VALUE 100
• Programmatic Synergies
• Maximizing Diversity
• Degrees of Ownership
• Active Space
• Flexibility
CONCLUSIONS 113
Passage 56 & Ecobox by Atelier d’Architecture Autogérée
(Images: Urban Act and Translocal Act available at http://www.urbantactics.org/)
Images on front cover courtesy of Assemble – for more information see http://
assemblestudio.co.uk/
Images at left – Lido Beach by Exyzt, from https://www.ﬂickr.com/photos/exyzt/
sets/72157630461756992/

Though the 2008-2009 Great Recession may have slowed the pace of large-scale urban
redevelopment, it has also lowered the barrier of entry for a wide range of actors to participate
in transforming the city through resourceful “Do It Yourself” approaches.
Food Trucks
Views from the “Lot” beneath the Highline in New York City
Guerilla Gardening
This unsolicited “placemaking” practice began in the 70’s and continues to gain popularity as a method for introducing greenery into banal streetscapes.
A Growing Trend

guerilla
DIY
pop-up
insurgent
open source
spontaneous
tactical
________ urbanism
...whatever the buzzword of choice – as a growing
trend throughout many US and European cities
suggests – an incremental, “temporary” approach to
producing urban interventions increasingly appears
to be a viable means for affecting long-term change.Park Mobiles, San Francisco
These seating and landscape elements were converted out
of dumpsters at a low cost, and are able to be periodically
rotated to different locations around the city.
n
ts
ately
tacti-
on of
by San
, were
ect re-
green
Street
psters,
arking
ap for
Buena
nclude
tacti-
ets.
being
Each
uding
s, and
ng so,
Parkmobiles are, well, mobile.
Credit: Dwell via Miyoko Ohtake
A parkmobile located outside of SPUR’s urban center.
Credit: Dwell via Miyoko Ohtake
5

Dumpster pools
What began as a pop-up urban beach on a
vacant lot next to the Gowanus canal was
quickly picked up by NYC’s Summer Streets
Festival and installed on Park Ave.
(Images: http://inhabitat.com/dive-into-a-dumpster-
guerrilla-pool/)
In New York,it’s shipping containers repurposed as radio stations or an entire flea market, dumpsters refurbished
as swimming pools, roof top gardens, or food trucks which form impromptu public spaces.
Pop-up Retail
A temporary market made out of repurposed
shipping containers
Dekalb Market – Brooklyn, NY
Urban Agriculture
Improved green roof technologies, a growing
ecological consciousness, and new tax
incentives have propelled a dramatic increase in
rooftop farms.

In San Francisco, it’s parking spaces transformed into public spaces. Beginning in 2010, the city instituted
the“Pavement to Parks”program to reclaim excessive space dedicated to the automobile for pedestrians.
“Parklets”
38 parking spaces have been transformed into public spaces since the “Pavement to Parks”
program began in 2010. (source: www.sfpavementtoparks.sfplanning.org)
PARK(ing) Day
In 2005 Rebar, an art and design organization
in San Francisco transformed a metered parking
space into a public space for a day. This “open
source” project has now grown into an annual
event celebrated in 162 cities across the globe.
(source: www.parkingday.org)

Farmers Markets
New York City currently has 138 farmers markets, a 73% increase since 2006.
(source: www.osc.nys.us.)
Les Bouquinistes, Paris (1500’s – present)
An early example of pop-up retail
Yet cities have always (to some degree)
evolved through organic, additive processes.
The winding streets of medieval cities
crystallized over time – out of the ebb and
flow of daily use –following what Le Corbusier
dismissively referred to as “the donkey
cart’s way.” The bustling, kinetic energy of
the markets and street vendors was just as
integral to daily life and commerce as “brick
and mortar”establishments. Out of necessity,
the social and economic dynamics between
inhabitants and physical form were tightly
interwoven, and inscribed upon temporary
and permanent structures through small
transformations, accumulated over centuries.
The advent of the industrial revolution began
todramaticallyalterthisbalance–thatwiththe
rise of automobility paired with the technical
rationality of the post war era ushered in an
even more dramatic transformation. The
massive outward migrations that ensued
emptied cities of their former densities, and
in conjunction with increased regulations
on temporary usage/public space (vendors,
festivals, etc.), led to a decline of open-air
markets and the overall vitality of the“sidewalk
ballet” Jane Jacobs so famously celebrated.
The smooth efficiency of the grid and single
use zoning became more conducive to
keeping traffic and pedestrians moving, rather
than at producing spaces that encouraged
one to linger, or break from routine.
THE INCREMENTAL CITY
Though the terminology has been on the rise
in recent years, D.I.Y./Tactical Urbanism is hardly
a new phenomenon. Les Bouquinistes (mobile
booksellers) in Paris for instance, have been
referred to as an early parallel to pop-up retail.
What began in the 1500’s as unsanctioned
activities along the Seine River, over hundreds
of years have become institutionalized by
the city.1
The regulations have gone through
several iterations to now mandate “shops”
collapse every night into boxes of standardized
dimensions. This incremental process of
refinements to an urban space that eventually
become institutionalized practices or manifested
as physical structures , stand in stark contrast
to todays dominant ideology that conceives of
each space individually, as self-enclosed and
permanent artifacts.
1 Allison Arief, “It’s Time to Rethink Temporary,” New
York Times, Dec. 19th, 2011.
INTRODUCTION / A GROWING TREND

Festival of Ideas for the New City, NYC
Ideas Symposium and D.I.Y. showcase
Hosted by the New Museum in spring 2011
(source: http://www.ideas-city.org/)
D.I.Y. CULTURE
In recent years, informal strands of economic
and cultural production have begun to make a
resurgence, particularly in“global”cities of the US
and Europe. Street vendors have become more
tolerated, or even embraced by some urban
governments as part of larger redevelopment
strategies,i.e.foodtrucksusedto“activate”vacant
lots beneath the Highline in New York City. Pop-
up retail has also become a popular technique
for increasing visibility and familiarity with an
undeveloped property. More substantially, urban
agriculture and farmer’s markets have become a
ubiquitous phenomenon in most major cities.
Cyclical events such as holiday markets to maker
fairs have also become increasingly prominent.
Whereas temporary events such as the Festival
of Ideas for the New City have more overtly
explored the future trajectory of D.I.Y. culture.
After such exuberant, but fleeting celebrations
that showcase local artisans, storytelling booths,
and skills sharing classes – it’s impossible not to
imagine how aspects of this largely untapped
“creative engine”might be more fully realized.
The growing popularity of open air markets
and ‘maker’ fares can’t simply be attributed to
convenience or low prices (as they often offer
neither); instead, the motivations are likely
more nuanced. Their success may correlate with
any number of cultural shifts, such as the local,
handicraft, and artisanal food movements, as
well as a growing eco-consciousness, celebrating
organic and locally grown agriculture. In addition
to ethical factors, these destinations can offer far
richer experiences than supermarkets or chain
stores, which present the same range of products
and interiors that can be found nearly anywhere.
By contrast, markets and festivals can satisfy the
desire for unique experiences, or even hold the
mystery of potential discoveries. Likewise, these
environments don’t perpetuate the same vague
sense of estrangement from a product and where
itwasmade(andatwhatsocialandenvironmental
cost), rather – the degrees of separation between
consumer and producer are reduced yielding
presumably higher quality interactions, i.e. the
possibility to haggle over price, or learn more
about a product from its maker. There’s also the
psychological value in knowing one’s money is
going directly to support a small business, local
farmer, or artisan.
We can only speculate whether these trends are
connected by common cultural, technological,
or environmental origins. Yet even isolating
them individually, they suggest significant shifts
in cultural values, which (at least among certain
demographics) places a renewed emphasis on
quality of experience and local connections. In
combination with the enhanced networks of
socialexchangeenabledbytheInternetandopen
access to temporary/pop-up tactics – a wider
range of entrepreneurs and artisans have been
able to take risks, and express their creativity.
All of these factors form a compelling backdrop
for examining this burgeoning D.I.Y. culture
as a means to illuminate alternative modes of
practice, leading to very different kinds of urban
environments.
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
9

3. The Internet as a tool for building the civic economy
First, a benefit of the recession is that it slowed
the North American growth machine. This effectively
forced citizens, city departments, and developers to take
matters into their own hands, get creative with project
funding, and concentrate on smaller, more incremental
efforts.
This has occurred while more and more people—
especially the young and well educated—have continued
to move into once forlorn walkable neighborhoods.This
cohort includes retirees, who are also interested in re-
making their chosen neighborhoods. Interestingly, some
of these young people are also moving into government
leadership positions as the baby boomers retire.
Finally, the culture of sharing tactics online has
grown tremendously and is becoming more sophisticat-
ed. Thanks to web-based tools, a blogger can share some-
thing tactical in Dallas and have it re-blogged, tweeted,
facebooked etc. in dozens of cities within minutes. The
most industrious tactical urbanists, such as Team Better
Block, Rebar, and Depave, are using the web as a plat-
form for sharing free how-to manuals aimed at helping
you bring their tactics to your town. Such a trend is an
example of what Britain’s National Endowment for Sci-
ence, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) calls the ‘civic
economy’ — the spirit of entrepreneurship combined
with the aspiration of civic renewal.
WHY HERE AND NOT THERE?
Theoretically, tactical urbanism can be applied to
the arterials, parking lots, and cul-de-sacs of America.
Yet, the best examples are consistently found in compact
towns and cities featuring an undervalued/underutilized
supply of walkable urban fabric. We believe this calls at-
tention to the limited social, economic, and physical re-
The Great
Recession
Shifting
Demographics
The Internet as
a Tool for
Building the
Civic Economy
TacticalURBANISM
siliency found in sprawling, auto-centric environments.
It seems that human-scaled places, where social capital
and creativity are most easily catalyzed, are a pre-req-
uisite for tactical urbanism. The larger moves and de-
sign techniques, such as those highlighted in the Sprawl
Repair Manual and Retrofitting Suburbia might provide
more appropriate first moves in dealing with America’s
unwalkable suburbs.
The rise in tactical urbanism may be attributed to three recent and
overlapping trends.
Can this be chairbombed? How does a parklet add value if there is no
on-street parking or sidewalks? Can you build a better block if there is no
coherent block structure? Credit: Unknown
MIKE LYDON, Project Editor/Author
DAN BARTMAN, Layout/Copy Editor
TONY GARCIA, Contributor
RUSS PRESTON, Contributor
RONALD WOUDSTRA, Contributor
Tacticians
Tactical Urbanism
“short term action - long term change”
The rise of Tactical Urbanism
(Image: Tactical Urbanism 2)
In 2010, a New York City based group of urbanists
published the “Tactical Urbanism” toolkit. This
catalog celebrated a range of D.I.Y. transformations
of the public realm across the US, by situating
what might have otherwise seemed isolated
phenomenon under one umbrella, and provided
it with a new moniker. The term “tactical” was
carefully chosen to contrast long term “strategies,”
which require tedious bureaucratic processes, large
upfront investment, and generally allow little public
input. As an alternative – they propose deft, short-
term actions as a way to open up the planning
process and inspire the creativity of ordinary citizens
to become more involved in shaping their urban
environments – beginning at the sidewalk, street,
and block. In addition to the free online publication,
they’ve hosted a series of salons and operate a
blog, providing a platform for bringing likeminded
“tacticians” together to share their ideas. Their
narrative serves as a continual reference point for
discussions on the potentials of D.I.Y. Urbanism.
Tactical Urbanism is defined by:
• A deliberate, phased approach to instigating
change
• An offering of local ideas for local planning
challenges
• Short-term commitment and realistic
expectations
• Low-risks with the possibility of a high reward
• The development of social capital among citizens,
and the building of organizational capacity
between public/private institutions, non-profits/
NGO’s, and their constituents
Mike Lydon attributes the rise of Tactical
Urbanism to a confluence of factors: the 2008
recession, which has forced cities, developers,
and even individual citizens to become more
resourceful; shifting social demographics, i.e.
young and upwardly mobile demographics
are tending to choose walkable urban
neighborhoods over the suburbs; and the
internet as a catalyst that has accelerated
the exchange of ideas and prototype ideas,
adaptable to local specificities.
(Source: Tactical Urbanism 2 – available at http://
issuu.com/streetplanscollaborative/docs/tactical_ur-
banism_vol_2_final)
INTRODUCTION / TACTICAL URBANISM

Pedestrianization of Times Square An Iterative Approach to Improving Public Space
A compelling piece of the Tactical Urbanism argument revolves
around the economic and political advantages of an incremental
approach. They claim low budget, temporary projects not
only have merit in terms of their expediency, but are a smarter
way to design. An idea can first be tested, in order to make
improvements and learn from how people actually use a space,
before long term-investment. One of their favorite cases in
point , is the pedestrianization of Times Square. First, portions
of Broadway were closed to traffic and filled with foldout lounge
chairs. This initial phase served the function of gradually shifting
public perception and user behaviors, so that the Department of
Tranpsortation’s risky proposition could clear the next political
hurdle for an inexpensive asphalt coating to be adhered and
moveable furniture provided – creating a pedestrian plaza
overnight. This example demonstrates, that by garnering
enough popularity an interim period can also function as the
means to leverage political support. Funds have now been
secured, and plans are underway for a multi-million dollar
permanent transformation. Such a dramatic change would
have been politically infeasible without first convincing the key
stakeholders of a pedestrian plaza’s social and economic value,
through a“demonstration”project.
Bottom-up Urbanism
This study overlaps with several key concepts offered by the
Tactical Urbanists, particularly on the broader implications of
direct citizen participation, and how lessons learned from these
iterative approaches might challenge normative planning/
design assumptions. But in order to more fully understand these
inherent constraints and opportunities, the scope will expand
to situate D.I.Y. practices within a larger paradigm, the rubric of
“bottom-up”most closely captures. The common thread among
these cases is that instead of land use decisions and design
visions descending down centralized chains of command, in the
form of RFPs (Request for Proposals) and master plans – they
emerge out of tightly knit social networks, in which power is
more evenly distributed among a broad range of consitutents
(presumably fewer degrees separated from community interests
and on the ground realities).
1. Initial Test
2. Prototype
3. Permanent Plaza
11
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

LONDON June 21st – 23th
ROTTERDAM June 24th – 25th
AMSTERDAM June 26th – 27th
BERLIN June 28th – July 8th
HAMBURG July 9th
COPENHAGEN July 10th – 13th
CITIES

everyday transition zones
15
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Individuals
17
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

19
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Individuals
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
21

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
23

Individuals
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
25

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
27

Individuals
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
29

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
31

Individuals
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
33

INTENTIONS
Showcasing this wide range of case studies is intended to suggest potentials for cross-disciplinary
collaborations and grassroots models of participation in conjunction with temporary uses, i.e.
festivals or recreational and cultural activities to activate underutilized spaces. These examples
demonstrate how unexpected programmatic synergies might excite a local community to imagine
a long-term vision for what could be there, and how habits engrained through interim use might
feed back into these sites of experimentation, to enhance their social and symbolic value.
METHODS
Using data gathered through articles, interviews, and observational analysis I examined the
prospects of small-scale actions as a viable means for affecting long-term urban transformations,
andthesocial/culturalvaluetheseiterativeapproachesmightafford. Whereasbroaderspeculations
revolved around whether insights learned from these outlier examples might be transferable to
other contexts. I categorized the strengths and weaknesses of these various bottom-up approaches
across a gradient from sanctioned to unsanctioned projects. Acknowledging that left alone,
a coherent organizational structure may not always “bubble up,” this study is preferential to the
nuances of hybrid strategies that blend professional expertise and local knowledge.
PARTICIPATION
A central focus throughout has been to consider the benefits and pitfalls of a heightened level of
direct citizen participation. I questioned whether the positive feedback loop registered in these
environments (where individuals more readily see the affects of their actions enacted in the world),
might play a role in enhancing civic efficacy, acculturating participants to become more deeply
involved in future activities, or opportunities to influence land use decisions; as well as how the
distinction of a space as quasi-public and collectively self-managed, might function as a social
catalyst for binding likeminded individuals together through active forms of engagement. Likewise,
what attendant spatial or programmatic arrangements might help foster this sense of inclusivity?
EXPECTATIONS
Using diagrams and imagery unpacked key findings into a series of spatial principles, programmatic
synergies, and collaborative organizational principles. Yet rather than a tool-kit of techniques to
be directly implemented, the expectation is that these lessons learned might encourage more
holistic thinking about how, and for whom urban public spaces are shaped. As well as point toward
planning/design approaches that are flexible to a broad range of inputs, blending outside expertise
with local knowledge – to instantiate a more reflexive relationship between urban citizens and their
built environments.
OBJECTIVES
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
35

who INITIATES a project?
who provides INPUT into the design process?
who has the POWER to make DECISIONS?
HOW are projects implemented?
how do projects continue to EVOLVE?
CASE STUDIES / PROCESS

ADDED VALUE
Attempting to address social or ethical concerns through
the standard economic frameworks can be a challenge,
as such issues are generally considered extra, unless
they can be justified as “added value” that contributes
to a higher return on investment. Even the term “added
value,” through its continual usage tends to reinforce the
assumption everything outside a template of predetermined
formulas is optional, or bonus, overlooking the prospect
that created value might drive a project. As the Highline
so powerfully demonstrates, the reflex to begin with an
analysis of what market projections will “support” can easily
miss what is already there (and could be enhanced). For
many developers the mile long “eyesore” along Manhattan’s
west side was standing in the way of capitalizing upon the
potential land value beneath. Yet it only took two concerned
preservationists and a photographer to mobilize a wellspring
of political and economic support in opposition to the mayor
Giuliani’s plan to demolish the elevated railway. Ironically,
the transformation of the aging piece of infrastructure into
a tremendously successful park was able to generate over
two billion dollars in spin-off revenue to the surrounding
areas, eclipsing the original projections several times over.
The highline is an extreme case, presented not necessarily
as template to copy (given it’s oversuccess), but to convey
the magnitude of latent urban potentials and range of
alternative practices that a greater sensitivity to bottom up
forces might unlock.
CREATED SPACES OF PARTICIPATION
Andrea Cornwall makes a useful distinction between
“invited” spaces of participation (mediated through state
agencies and widely discredited as perpetually stuck at
“token” levels, and generally ineffectual) versus “created”
spaces of participation, such as the mobilization of grassroots
networks.1
Institutionalized participatory planning always
assumes a “receiver” side to the decision making process,
filtered through top-down power structures. Whereas
“created” spaces of participation break this mold. Cornwall
argues they offer environments where power is more
evenly distributed among individuals united by a common
goal. Which for instance yields greater possibilities for the
empowerment of less skilled speakers, by affording them the
opportunity to more effectively develop their arguments.
Likewise, since the parameters are not pre-defined, a self-
organized coalition can bring greater bargaining power
to negotiations with city agencies, investors, etc. by
maintaining some degree of control over the terms of
engagement. This model of “deep” participation suggests
tremendous potentials for producing spaces more attuned
to the best interests of a given community, yet is largely
unexplored in the realm of urban planning and design.
PROCESS
An investigation of “Bottom-up” Urbanism must
fundamentally be concerned with process... to question
who initiates a project, the sequence by which actors
become involved, their motivations (financial, social,
cultural, humanitarian, other), who has agency to make
decisions, and what financial instruments or political
persuasionisnecessarytomaketheseideasareality? Urban
environments that are flexible to adapt to user demands
through multiple iterations to inform more “authentic”
places that in turn feed back into rituals, festivals, and
every day social behaviors are very compelling in theory –
but how does this process actually work? How do these
projects (many of which originated out of unsanctioned
activities) actually drift toward gradual acceptance, and
in rare occasions become celebrated cultural institutions?
Instead of taking hundreds of years, i.e. Les Bouquinistes in
Paris – can similar adaptations happen in five years, or over
a summer?
FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS
These citizen-led efforts tend to be initiated by artists,
activists, grassroots networks, or even architects. Yet
they defy easy categorization (as any urban intervention
often requires coordination among many different
constituencies). Tosimplify–thissurveyprovidesasnapshot
from the point of view of the initiators, categorizing them
by position along a gradient from bottom-up to top-down
hierarchies, and in relationship to their relative degree of
social acceptance and/or legality.
1. Andrea Cornwall, “Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings and
practices,”Community Development Journal Vol 43 No 3 (July 2008): 270.
BOTTOM UP
TOP DOWN
City Agency
Developer
Small-scale
Entrepreneur
Architect/
Artist Collective
Community group
Citizen Activist
Squatters
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
37

BOTTOM UP
TOP DOWN[projects by CITY] [reshuffled by INITIATOR]
PROCESS // INITIATORS
City Agency
Developer
Small-scale
Entrepreneur
Architect/
Artist Collective
Community group
Citizen Activist
Squatters
London
New Addington
Sugarhouse Studios
Box Park
Folly for a Flyover
Cineroleum
BT5 parking garage
Lido Beach
Union Press
Rotterdam
het Schieblock
Amsterdam
Almere retrofit
Stoerepicknick
Jasper Leijnsenstraat 21
Valreep
Westergasfabriek
NDSM
Berlin
Prinzessinnengarten
Mauerpark flea market
Holzmarkt
Beach Mitte
Strand Bar Mitte
Ostrand
Badeschiff
Tempelhof Airfield
Kids Garden
Tacheles
Hamburg
Park Fiction
Gaegeviertel
Copenhagen
Christiania
Almere retrofit (DUS)
New Addington (Assemble)
Sugarhouse Studios (Assemble)
Holzmarkt
Box Park
Beach Mitte
Strand Bar Mitte
Ostrand Beach Bar
Badeschiff
Folly for a Flyover (Assemble)
Cineroleum (Assemble)
BT5 auditorium (Practice)
Lido Beach (Exyzt)
Union Press (Public Works)
Tempelhof Airfield
Westergasfabriek
NDSM Shipyards
het Schieblock (ZUS)
Park Fiction
Prinzessinnengarten
Stoerepicknick
Kids Garden
Gaegeviertel
Christiania
Valreep
Tacheles

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
unauthorized
short-termlease
tacitacceptance/
shortduration
established
institution
fullyfunded/
semi-permanent
squatter activity
city or large
developer
entrepreneur/
interim use
grassroots/
community organization
artist/architecture
collective
sanctionedunsanctioned STATUS
INITIATORS–STEWARDS–OWNERSbottom-uptop-down
39
PROCESS // MATRIX
New Addington
(Assemble)
Almere
retrofit (DUS)
programmed by
community
Folly for a Flyover
(Assemble)
Union Press
(Public Works)
Lido Beach (Exyzt)
BT5 parking garage
(Practice)
Cineroleum
(Assemble)
Mauerpark
flea market
Sugarhouse Studios
(Assemble)
Tempelhof Airfield
Morchenpark
Kater Holzig
Bar 25
prototyping
event
Kater Holzig
prototyping
event
Kater HolzigKater Holzig
Morchenpark
prototyping
Bar 25
prototyping
eventevent
Holzmarkt
(proposal)
Strand Bar Mitte
Beach Mitte
Ostrand
Badeschiff
Box Park
het Schieblock
(ZUS)
Park Fiction
prototyping
events
NDSM
Westergasfabriek
Stoerepicknick
Prinzessinnengarten
Kids Garden
Prinzessinnengarten
Westergasfabriek
Jasper Leijnsenstraat 21Jasper Leijnsenstraat 21
PrinzessinnengartenPrinzessinnengarten
squatter activity
Folly for a FlyoverFolly for a FlyoverFolly for a Flyover
(Assemble)
(Public Works)
Badeschiff
het Schieblockhet Schieblock
(ZUS)
Park Fiction
prototyping
events
Park Fiction
Valreep
Tacheles
Gaengeviertel
Christiania
Y Axis:
Bottom-up to Top-down
The current position of the
initiator/steward/owner of
a space is located across
a spectrum ranging from
informal organizations
of limited agency and
resources to established
institutions with far reaching
decision-making capacities.
X Axis:
Unsanctioned to
Sanctioned
Since most of the instigators
of these projects do not own
the properties, their use of
the space is contingent upon
an array of social and legal
arrangements. This gradient
defines thresholds – ranging
from tacit acceptance,
formalized legal contracts,
short-term leases, to full
ownership.1
This additional metric is
important to trace projects
as they transition across key
thresholds, out of temporary
status toward more lasting
manifestations. In instances
where the current stewards
and/or owners of a space are
different from the original
initiators – these trajectories
extend back to pivotal
moments that altered the
long-term fate of a site
(that would have otherwise
been solely transformed
by speculative real estate
processes).
1“Sanctioned”to“unsanc-
tioned”metric partially
adapted from Tactical
Urbanism 2, pg. 7. (Source:
http://issuu.com/street-
planscollaborative/docs/
tactical_urbanism_vol_2_fi-
nal)

[SELECTED case studies]
Almere retrofit (DUS)
New Addington (Assemble)
Sugarhouse Studios (Assemble)
Holzmarkt
Box Park
Beach Mitte
Strand Bar Mitte
Ostrand Beach Bar
Badeschiff
Tempelhof Airfield
Folly for a Flyover (Assemble)
Cineroleum (Assemble)
BT5 auditorium (Practice)
Lido Beach (Exyzt)
Union Press (Public Works)
Westergasfabriek
NDSM Shipyards
het Schieblock (ZUS)
Park Fiction
Prinzessinnengarten
Stoerepicknick
Kids Garden
Gaegeviertel
Christiania
Valreep
Tacheles
CASE STUDIES // CATEGORIES
Hybrid
Professionals hired by a city agency or developer to supervise DIY
interventions, or through outreach or curated events filter user feedback to
inform semi-permanent interventions.
Entrepreneurial
Property is leased for a highly themed, but low cost profit making venture.
Design Build/Installation
Artist/Architecture collective enlists volunteer labor to construct temporary
structures.
Interim Use
Arrangment with landowner that authorizes temporary use.
Catalyst
Individual or collective sets the spark to catalyze a latent base of support -
enlisting volunteer labor, ideas, or crowdsourced funding.
Grassroots Organization
A collective (often representative of individuals from the neighborhood)
enters a lease or formal agreement with the landowner outlining
conditions of use.
Squatter Settlements
Occupation of abandoned buildings - which can often lead to acceptance,
develop into a formalized institution granted rights to use the property, or
eventually raise enough money to purchase the land outright.

CATEGORIES
Hybrid
Entrepreneurial
Design Build
/Installation
Interim Use
Catalyst
Grassroots
Organization
Squatter
Settlement
Out of the wide
range of case studies
surveyed, several
distinct categories
emerge, each carrying
their own inherent
advantages and
disadvantages.
Westergasfabriek
unauthorized
short-termlease
tacitacceptance/
shortduration
established
institution
fullyfunded/
semi-permanent
squatter activity
city or large
developer
entrepreneur/
interim use
grassroots/
artist/architecture
collective
41
PROCESS // MATRIX (ALL CATEGORIES) BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
New Addington
(Assemble)
Almere
retrofit (DUS)
programmed by
community
Folly for a Flyover
(Assemble)
Union Press
(Public Works)
Lido Beach (Exyzt)
BT5 parking garage
(Practice)
Cineroleum
(Assemble)
Sugarhouse Studios
(Assemble)
Tempelhof Airfield
Morchenpark
Kater Holzig
Bar 25
prototyping
event
prototyping
event
Kater Holzig
Morchenpark
prototyping
Bar 25
prototyping
eventevent
Holzmarkt
(proposal)
Strand Bar Mitte
Beach Mitte
Ostrand
Badeschiff
Box Park
het Schieblock
(ZUS)
Park Fiction
prototyping
events
Mauerpark
flea market
NDSM
Stoerepicknick
Prinzessinnengarten
Kids Garden
(proposal)(proposal)(proposal)
Prinzessinnengarten
Westergasfabriek
Jasper Leijnsenstraat 21Jasper Leijnsenstraat 21
PrinzessinnengartenPrinzessinnengarten
Folly for a FlyoverFolly for a Flyover
(Assemble)
(Public Works)
Badeschiff
het Schieblock
(ZUS)
Park Fiction
prototyping
events
Park Fiction
Valreep
Tacheles
Gaengeviertel
Christiania
programmed by

SQUATTINGASAPOLITICALSTATEMENT
Unlike in the United States, where illegally
“squatting”abandoned buildings is immediately
cracked down upon – squatting in Europe has to
varying degrees been more tolerated. Likewise,
it doesn’t necessarily carry the same stigma as in
the US. Squatters in Europe are not necessarily
people that would otherwise be “homeless.”
Instead they are often willingly declassed, and
self-identify with counter-culture movements
envisioned as political demands for affordable
housing, historic preservation activism, or as
pioneers of alternative communal lifestyles.
HISTORY
Though squatting may be the oldest mode
of land tenure, these practices had not been
widely (re)established in the developed world
until the post-war era as a direct response to
massive housing shortages. In the 70’s and 80’s
the motivations for squatting began to move
beyond basic necessities of shelter, to take on
morecomplexpoliticalissues. IntheNetherlands
for instance, unsanctioned occupations were
selectively aimed at developers who “land
banked” underutilized properties to drive prices
up. Enough political support was garnered in
the 70’s for the Netherlands Supreme Court to
grant“squatters rights”for buildings unoccupied
for longer than 12 months. Squatter activities
in general reached a height in the 80’s aligning
with the punk counter culture, and were often
organized around leftist political ideologies,
such as the Autonome in Germany. In Hamburg,
the Hafenstrasse squatters played a symbolic
front line to this movement, ultimately gaining
property rights to twelve buildings, currently run
as a housing cooperative. (The deep social ties
fostered through these efforts were to be later
reactivated by the Park Fiction participatory
planning process initiated in the mid 90’s). In
Berlin squatting was already prevalent in West
German regions such as Kreuzberg, but with
the mass exodus that followed reunification, a
floodgate was opened for the appropriation of
vast areas of unoccupied buildings in the former
GDR (many of which remain in dispute since the
clear-cut ownership rights became incredibly
ambiguous through the transfer from state to
private ownership). However, in recent years
there has been significant political backlash
against squatting. In 2010, squatter’s rights
were overturned in the Netherlands. In 2012,
the UK also passed legislation criminalizing the
occupation of abandoned buildings (one of the
few other countries to extend legal protections
to squatters). Yet despite increased restrictions,
these laws are still only enforced on a case-by-case
basis. Though the role these practices once played
has been significantly diminished, the culture
of squatting is still engrained in the collective
memory, and continues to affect the trajectory
of land use decisions for many underutilized sites
throughout Europe.
URBAN FRONTIER
The diagram to the right underscores how there
are many possible scenarios for spaces that begin
as squatter settlements to pass key thresholds
over time, and become established, even beloved
cultural institutions. Squatters are often the
trailblazers who first refurbish an underutilized
site and test differnet uses, demonstrating its
long-term potentials to a wider audience. Those
that invite the public in for arts related events can
become particularly successful at putting these
sites on the “on the map” as cultural destinations.
Unsanctioned occupation also plays a unique role
in that it can“buy time”to set the groundwork for
other parties with greater organizational capacity
to“carry the torch”ahead, and coordinate funding
and political support to make a long-term vision
a reality.
Hafenstrasse squat, Hamburg
Squatted (1981 – 1996)
Housing Cooperative (1996 – present)
These twelve buildings became the symbolic front line of the
autonome movement in the early 1980’s. Out of a series of
confrontations the city periodically granted autonomy to the
squatters, and ultimately sold them the properties for $1.2 million
DM. This latent grassroots network was later reactivated to boost
the Park Fiction participatory planning process of the 90’s and early
2000’s.
(Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafenstra%C3%9Fe
Nina Bednarz, “When Squatters Grow Up” DW, May 26th, 2004,
http://www.dw.de/when-squatters-grow-up/a-1216679)
SQUATTER SETTLEMENTS

CATEGORIES
Hybrid
Entrepreneurial
Design Build/
Installation
Interim Use
Catalyst
Grassroots
Organization
Squatter Settle-
ment
Occupation of
abandoned buildings
eventually leads to
acceptance, develops
into a formalized
institution granted
rights to use the
property, or raises
unauthorized
short-termlease
tacitacceptance/
shortduration
established
institution
fullyfunded/
semi-permanent
squatter activity
city or large
developer
entrepreneur/
interim use
grassroots/
artist/architecture
collective
Hafenstrasse
squatters
43
PROCESS // MATRIX BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
het Schieblock
(ZUS)
NDSM
Westergasfabriek
Park Fiction
squatter activity
Westergasfabriek
het Schieblockhet Schieblockhet Schieblockhet Schieblockhet Schieblock
(ZUS)
Hafenstrasse
squatters
Park FictionPark Fiction
prototyping
events
Valreep
Tacheles
Gaengeviertel
Christiania

CONTINUITY
These processes operate somewhat different
from artist “pioneers,” who make a blighted
neighborhood “safe” for the first wave of
gentrification. Because such appropriations are
generally disarticulated, the actors who have
created this added value are easily displaced,
and the slate is wiped clean to maximize the
highest return on investment. By contrast,
the selected case studies have been chosen to
indicate the possibilities of continuity; either
through informal organizational networks that
become institutionalized, or negotiations that
allow the initiators to preserve some echo of the
social character and types of use that preceded
more permanent transformations. By tracing
these lines of causality back 10, 20, or 30 years to
an original“occupation”– it is most significant to
highlight how these unsanctioned actions were
pivotal in altering the fate of a project toward
culturally and socially productive ends. The
Westergasfabriek for instance used to be an
old gas works complex. Now it is operating as a
CulturePark,andhasbecomeoneoftheleading
entertainment destinations in Amsterdam.
Likewise, it was a coalition of squatters that
partnered with several outside organizations to
transform the NDSM shipyards in Amsterdam
into a small business incubator. This space
operates as a mini-city under one roof, with
elevated streets and co-working spaces that
each tenant designs themselves (staying true to
the D.I.Y. ethos).
Valreep, Amsterdam
Squatted (2011 – present)
Valreepisthelastexistingbuildingslatedfordemolitiontomakewayforalarge-scaledevelopment.
The rationale for this unsanctioned occupation, is that it is a historic preservation protest. By
functioning as a live/work space and venue for cultural events it also announces this community’s
desire to become more substantively involved in shaping their urban environment.
CASE STUDIES // SQUATTER SETTLEMENTS

EVALUATION
Though squatter settlements are not the primary focus of these investigations, they are the most
appropriate place to begin an investigation of bottom-up urbanism, in order to understand the
phenomenon in its purest form. Instead of relying only on legal frameworks and profit motivations to
differentially weigh the potentials of a site these enclaves of resistance operate under a different logic
(at least temporarily), where land use is based upon internal dynamics that balance social and cultural
metrics with profit. Decision-making processes operating at the most informal end of the spectrum
might have the potential to be more efficient and egalitarian, yet without a without a clear authority
structure to fall back on, they might easily devolve into chaos, or suffer severe political fissures from
within. The question is whether a stable organizational dynamic can somehow evolve organically, and
arrive at a consensus yielding the best use for a site? Or does this process need to be augmented by top-
down hierarchical structures? As many of these cases suggest – the best outcomes often involve some
combination of both. Efforts that achieved long-term stability were generally able to meet investment
or political interests halfway, around a common goal.
Developer’s vision
The Valreep house represents an example
of a protest movement against a very large
development project, conducted in situ by
occupying a historically significant building
slated for demolition. It houses artists and
hosts events from musical performances to
book discussion groups. Though it is not
likelytosucceed,thisalternativevisioncould
be viewed as a barometer for the types of
uses inhabitants of the area might like to see
on the site (if given the choice). Moving to
a much larger scale to consider Christiania,
weseeamorepoliticallysuccessfulexample.
It has maintained a relatively stable standoff
with the authorities for nearly forty years.
However its fate is still held in the balance,
with hostility flaring up again in response
to the renewed public debates about how
to redevelop the 82 acres of city owned
land near the center of Copenhagen. This
alternative community boasts its own
currency and legal system, yet skews heavily
toward a counter-culture of conspicuous
drug use and an anarchistic ethos, which
emphatically declares its separateness from
the rest of the city (a stance that could very
well hinder its odds for long-term success).
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
45
Squatters’ vision

Christiania is an intriguing experiment, yet
its full-time festival atmosphere and self-
commodification as an edgy destination for
“indie” tourists makes it easy to criticize as a
spectacle, and its larger cultural contribution,
questionable. Tacheles is another infamous
holdout, with a slightly better track record
with the state. This five-story department
store turned squatter “art house” has persisted
for twenty-two years, and was only recently
shut down in September 2012. Though its
appearance was somewhat foreboding, it
remained open to the public. And by housing
artist studios and performance spaces it
garnered enough public support to warrant
funding from the city for various productions.
More successful strategies for gaining broader
acceptance seem to be those that foster a
culture organized around common goals of
artistic production, rather than recreational
use or abstractly defined concepts such as
“anything goes,” i.e. Christiania. The last
example, the Gaengeviertel, demonstrates
how a large-scale citizen-led effort organized
with a strong focus on cultural production
might actually become relatively integrated,
and even embraced by some politicians and
investors.
Christiania, Copenhagen

Tacheles, Berlin
Squatted (1990 – Sept. 2012)
a former department store appropriated as art studios and
performance spaces
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
47

twelve buildings saved from demolition by 200 artists
Plan
Gaengeviertel, Hamburg
In a relatively short period of time this squatter settlement has achieved a
cultural vitality and“authenticity”even the best team of architects, planners,
and developers would have difficulty“designing.”
Valentinskamp entrySurrounding context

A Dutch developer’s plans to demolish nearly a full city block
of historic buildings in the center of Hamburg and develop high-
end offices and condominiums was stalled due to the 2008 global
financial crisis. Recognizing their window of opportunity, a coalition
of over 200 artists occupied the vacant buildings. Over several years
they have transformed the complex into one of the most vibrant
hubs of cultural activity in Hamburg. Most of the surrounding
buildings are composed of high end, shining glass and steel facades,
yet the area remains desolate after the workday is through. The
Gaengeviertel stands in stark contrast as an oasis of activity. The
dynamic mix of uses within these twelve buildings, ranging from
a comedy club, restaurant, café, bike shop, bar, yoga and dance
studios, galleries, artists’residences and studios, and a playground, is
enough to create the sense of a bustling 24/7 community. Meals are
prepared for residents in a communal kitchen, using a barter system,
rather than the exchange of currency, to create a stable system
of shared resources. Likewise,
the decision making process is
more akin to that of a housing
cooperative: if an individual has an
idea, they propose it to the group
(usually easily gaining approval),
and can then quickly move ahead
to begin building anything from a
stage to a public art piece (without
the usual red tape and bureaucratic
hurdles). This open process
significantly reduces barriers to
participation. Individuals can make
their mark by modifying theses
spaces through performance
or artistic intervention. The
informality helps blur boundaries
between programmatic elements
and contributes to a densely
interconnected and vibrant social
life.
program: art gallery, sculpture park, restaurant, cafe, bar, comedy club, book store, music
venue, studio space, classroom, bike shop, game space, theatre/dance, playspace, residences
Courtyard
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
49

A snapshot of activities around Gaengeviertel: one group is choreographing a dance performance, across from a
playground that is being constructed while dinner is being prepared for the residents of the complex.

In this case, squatters were able to demonstrate
a site’s potential cultural value to the city, and
convince authorities to purchase the property back
from the developer, and authorize their use of the
space. Ironically, for city planning officials these
unsanctioned activities unexpectedly aligned
with their new branding strategy: “Hamburg, city
of Talent.” After realizing the renewed life these
squatters brought back to the center city might
be harnessed to further their broader strategies
to attract the “creative class,” they have negotiated
a contract authorizing the temporary use of the
space (though the artists’ ultimate fate and use of
the facilities is still to be decided). Realizing that
their efforts have been co-opted by the city, the
artists have written a manifesto entitled, “Not in
Our Name.”
Regardless of their ideological differences,
both sides stand to mutually benefit from the
arrangement. The occupation represents a partial
victory for this coalition of squatters, in that they
have determined use of the site. The real question
however, is whether they will be able to maintain
theirpresenceand/orsomeinfluenceuponitslong-
term fate. One option might be to follow a similar
path as the Hafenstrasse squatters, to eventually
negotiate a deal to purchase the property at a reduced
price? There is also an argument that they should
“capture” some of the created economic value which
will presumably benefit surrounding redevelopment
ventures.
(Source: http://das-gaengeviertel.info/)
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
51

GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION
Spaces produced through grassroots organization have much in common with squatter
settlements, in the way power is distributed. Yet differ, in that squatters preemptively occupy
a space, with greater organizational capacity generally evolving after the fact. NDSM shipyards
and Westergasfabriek are examples in which squatters set the initial spark, but it was ultimately
grassroots efforts that mobilized outside stakeholders to carry a longer-term vision forward. The
following collectively produced spaces are presented at moments when they are more or less
operating within the system (though not to say they don’t have an activist political dimension
embedded).
Generally a small neighborhood coalition is first formed, a concept for an underutilized site
proposed, and then a short-term lease or legal agreement outlining terms of temporary use is
secured. Community gardens are by far the most common examples (a template that has been
widely utilized in the US). Looking to Europe however, we find a range of experiments that look
familiar at face value, but are in fact not so easily categorized.
NDSM Shipyards, Amsterdam
Small Business Incubator
(Source: http://www.ndsm.nl/en/)
D.I.Y. office space
Westergasfabriek, Amsterdam
Culture Park
(Source: http://www.westergasfabriek.nl/en/)

CATEGORIES
Hybrid
Entrepreneurial
Design Build/
Installation
Interim Use
Catalyst
Grassroots
Organization
A collective (often
representative of
individuals from
the neighborhood)
enters a lease or
formal agreement
with the landowner
outlining conditions
of use.
Squatter
Settlement
unauthorized
short-termlease
tacitacceptance/
shortduration
established
institution
fullyfunded/
semi-permanent
squatter activity
city or large
developer
entrepreneur/
interim use
grassroots/
artist/architecture
collective
53
NDSM
Westergasfabriek
Stoerepicknick
Prinzessinnengarten
Kids Garden

The initiative has proven very popular in two short years;
to which the owner has responded with great enthusiasm,
explaining his interest in making the garden permanent
– except that it should not be accessible. His attitude
underscores how often the value collectively produced
projects hold for end users of a space is missed completely by
private land owners and political institutions . In this case, the
garden’s true value is not as a passive visual amenity, but as an
active landscape. The shared chore of cultivating the space
serves as a social catalyst to bring residents together, to foster
a sense of community.
For more information see http://
icanchangetheworldwithmytwohands.blogspot.co.uk/
Jasper Leijnsenstraat 21, Amsterdam
(2011 – present)
Initiator: Natascha Hagen Beek, Artist
Contract: informal agreement with owner
community garden in a residential courtyard
CASE STUDIES // GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION

The lot in 1999
The lot in 2012
Kid’s Garden, Berlin
(1999 – present)
Initiator: Green for Children (partnership w/ neighboring schools)
Owner: city of Berlin
Contract: periodically renewed land-use agreement
source: http://kidsgardenberlin.wordpress.com/
urban forest and play area managed by a neighborhood association
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
55
The Kids’ Garden incorporates gardening as part of an educational curriculum for children. The
formerly vacant lot has been transformed with some minimal structures, paths, and seating
elements, but for the most part has been left to grow wild for over twelve years into a secret
urban forest. It provides an alternative to sterile playgrounds as a safe zone for unstructured
play, that weaves together engagement with the natural environment as a core component to
childhood development. Currently a neighborhood association maintains the space, holding
a legal agreement authorizing its temporary use. As is the case for nearly all of the showcased
examples, its long-term fate is uncertain. The local munipality is in negotiations to build a day
care center on the site (which ironically already partially serves this function, quite successfully,
and without a large operational budget).

The site of a former grocery store produces food again as a community garden.
Prinzessinnengarten, Berlin
(2009 – present)
Initiators: Marco Clausen and Robert Shaw
Contract: yearly lease with the city of Berlin

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
57
Beyond initial appearances the Prinzessinnengarten is much more than an urban farm. It also
has a café, library, beehives, a restaurant (which serves food that has been grown on site), and
regularly hosts performances and lectures.

The Prinzessinnengarten defies ready-made categories – demonstrating there’s still potential for
completely new typologies to be invented, and it is perhaps by leaving a degree of open-endedness
that some of the most novel programmatic combinations might be achieved. It’s through this model
of accumulated D.I.Y. contributions from over two hundred volunteers, that the space has evolved
from a relatively modest urban farm into a vibrant mixed-use destination.
However, rising property values in the area have fueled pressures to redevelop the site. Every year
when the lease is up for renewal the Prinzessinnengarten founders face the threat of eviction.
To counteract their impending fate, they have begun to take proactive measures by launching a
grassroots campaign that has received over 500 crowdfunded contributions and 30,000 signatures
on a petition to preserve the garden. This groundswell of support is a testament to the social value
even a small community space with a modest investment of financial capital, but a great deal of
social capital can foster.
Source: http://www.startnext.de/en/prinzessinnengarten

BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
59
performance space
kitchen
school
restaurant
library
cafe

het Schieblock (studios/start up business incubator)
economic context
physical context
het Schieblock, Rotterdam
ZUS as an anchor tenant (2001 – present)
Initiators: Elma van Boxel and Kristian Koreman (ZUS architects)
Contract: five year lease with the property owner
Besides a few squatters and a sole tenant, ZUS
architects, a large office complex close to the central
transit station and city center lie derelict for nearly
15 years. However in the past four years, the site
has been reviatlized as an experiment that employs
a completely different approach to “making” the
city.
The fact that 600,000 square meters of office
space lie empty in Rotterdam, yet high rise office
buildings continued to be developed (in order
to inflate public perceptions that the market was
still strong) ZUS took as justification to form an
opposition movement. They published critical
articles rallying against the city’s masterplan, and
teamed up with a small development firm CODA,
to launch their own initiative to revitalize the
area without demolishing the existing structures.
Serving as realtor, ZUS successfully attracted
many of the most innovative artists and creative
professionals in Rotterdam, to relocate to the
Schieblock. Two years after this remarkable
turnaround began, the city announced their
position remained unchanged, triggering ZUS
to attempt yet another, more ambitious scale of
interventions. In 2010 they negotiated a five-
year test period with the owner, permitting them
to experiment with the surrounding sites as a
“laboratory for urban development.”
As early pioneers of the Schieblock in 2001, ZUS
discovered through renovations to their own
office space the structure had many redeemable
characteristics... which began to spark their
imaginations about the adaptive reuse potentials
for the rest of the building. However, it wasn’t until
the announcement of a 2007 city redevelopment
plan, slating the Schieblock for demolition, that
a more dramatic transformation was to be set in
motion.
These projects have taken on more ambitious
agendas than the previous case studies, requiring
the creativity and expertise of select individuals
to serve as a catalyst for overcoming significant
political and financial hurdles.
CATALYST

CATEGORIES
Hybrid
Entrepreneurial
Design Build/
Installation
Interim Use
Catalyst
An Individual or
collective sets
the spark to
catalyze a latent
base of support,
enlisting volunteer
labor, ideas, or
crowdsourced
funding.
Grassroots
Organization
Squatter
Settlement
Luchtsingel bridge
unauthorized
short-termlease
tacitacceptance/
shortduration
established
institution
fullyfunded/
semi-permanent
squatter activity
city or large
developer
entrepreneur/
interim use
grassroots/
artist/architecture
collective
61
het Schieblock
(ZUS)
Park FictionLuchtsingel bridge
het Schieblockhet Schieblockhet Schieblock
Luchtsingel bridge
Park FictionPark Fiction
prototyping
events

CULTURAL PRESERVATION
The centerpiece of these transformations has been the re-activation of the ground floor with de
Dependance, a“center for urban culture.” For three weeks instead of working at their computers,
the office labored to transform what was previously a boarded up retail space into a café, lecture
hall, and gallery. To counteract the effect the surrounding office buildings have had at emptying
the sidewalks of human habitation after 6 o’clock, ZUS actively worked to foster synergies
between this hub of creative production and ground floor public programming to stimulate
an “18 hour economy.” They’ve increased visibility and curiosity about the activities within
by painting the surrounding sidewalks with brightly colored yellow stripes. More extensive
transformations include a passageway that cuts through a series of buildings directly linking to
the central transit station, creating an internalized pedestrian street with a series of temporary
public spaces such as a beer garden and pop-up restaurant. They envision their fight is not
only to preserve a building, but the “cultural infrastructure” of Rotterdam, that has been largely
displaced to the periphery.
Cultural liquidation in Rotterdam (Image: http://www.zus.cc/work/urban_politics/127_De-Dependance.php)
passage linking het Schieblock to central station
CASE STUDIES // CATALYST

new pedestrian street and pop-up public spaces
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
63

Design studios in Angniesbuurt
(adjacent neigbhorhood)
Barriers
crowdfunded urbanism
each contributor gets their name etched on a plank
LUCHTSINGEL
The next phase is a pedestrian bridge that will cross over a six-lane highway, elevated railway,
and parking lots to provide greater connectivity to burgeoning retail and cultural destinations in
nearby Angniesbuurt (a neighborhood currently under served and physically disconnected), while
introducing a series of new green spaces where the bridge touches down. Through an online
crowdfunding campaign, the bridge and public spaces (currently under construction) have been
enabled by the financial support of thousands of individual contributions ranging from 125 to 1,250
euros. A strategic move by ZUS was to etch all the names of the contributors on the bridge itself,
which has served as a symbolic statement of the massive public support the project has garnered.
The Rotterdam International Architecture Biennial (curated by ZUS) also showcased the project as a
“test site,” bringing increased visibility that has helped them secure a $5.2 million dollar grant from
the city to continue their placemaking experiments.

phase 1 underway proposed public spaces at bridge touchdown
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
65

proposal for phase 2

ADAPTIVE URBANISM
Popular public support however is not enough in and of itself to preserve the Scheiblock as a site of
artistic and cultural production. Once their lease is up and the five year test phase is through, there is no
guarantee ZUS and the other tenants will be able to remain as more “permanent” redevelopment plans
go into effect, nor that the “mark” they’ve made will necessarily translate into future uses. Their task in
the interim, is to make this portion of the city successful enough as a ‘place’to warrant subsidization, or
perhaps alternative modes of investment that sustain the renewed energy these small-scale coalitions
have created. Yet allowing top-down hierarchies to be temporarily short-circuited, so that bottom-up
forces can also participate in the practice of city making is understandably going to make investors and
officials nervous to leave open so many variables. To quell these fears: ZUS founders Elma van Boxel and
Kristian Koreman make a compelling case that an incremental approach can actually be quite sensible.
They claim:“testing is a preventative measure against utopian failure.” It is in fact less risky than deriving
grand proposals purely from market driven predictions, wagered upon an increasingly uncertain
economic future. They advocate instead, for a more adaptive approach that trades in [master] “plans”
for“scripts”– to build upon existing potentials as a“base”for future development. Due to the long time
lag required to finance and construct large-scale development projects they argue instead of waiting 20
years to build a city:
“why not start achieving your ambitions in a single day?”
They don’t envision these transformations as a direct alternative to the city’s long term plans, but see
it as a way to test ideas through low cost interventions such as the Luchtsingel (designed for a 15 year
lifespan), which can be learned from, and improved upon before manifesting into a more permanent
form.
“… stacking these layers of tested ideas will finally compose a city fabric that is
physically and mentally interwoven from the start.” – Elma van Boxel and Kristian Koreman
Source: http://www.zus.cc/work/urban_politics/index.php?1=y
Poster by ZUS, at Rotterdam International
Biennial, 2012.
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
67

citizen led planning
Map View from the “flying carpet”
Park Fiction, Hamburg
Planning phase (1994 – 2003)
Project completed in 2005
Initiated: Christoph Shaefer and Margit Czenki (local artists)
Owner: city of Hamburg

a “planning container” was located on site in
the mid nineties.
a series of festivals brought members of the community together around
“infotainment” programs, aimed to educate the public about urban planning issues.
The Park Fiction efforts began back in 1995, in
response to an announcement of the city’s plans
toselltheonlyplotoflandinSaintPauliwithdirect
access to the waterfront to a developer intending
to build luxury housing. This clear-cut example of
neoliberal privatization (consistent with the city’s
broader policy of auctioning off publicly held
land to the highest bidder), triggered a group of
local artists led by Christoph Shaefer and Margit
Czenki to mobilize an opposition movement.
But instead of a protest – they threw a party.
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
69
Versed in theoretical texts by Lefebvre and Rem Koolhaas, the initiators merged art and
politics, into what proved to be a powerful combination. They spent time extensively
documenting the cultural value of the neighborhood, and located a “planning container”
as mission control for an on site parallel planning process funded by the “art in public
space”program of the city’s culture department. Over the course of several years they held
festivals in situ (at the time, only a hillside with patches of grass), encouraging residents to
not only fill out questionnaires describing what they would like to see on the site, but also
rolled out an“action kit”with art supplies, and asked them to draw or paint their ideas. The
organizers referred to this gamification of the planning process, as a“collective production
of desires.”

questionnaires
Images from the Park Fiction Archive, 27 Fischmarkt, Hamburg, courtesty of Christoph Schaefer

Action kit
a portable planning studio was opened up at events
to prompt design input from community members
Resident contributions
many ideas submitted by the community were directly incorporated into the final design
collective “production of desires”
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
71

political struggle
unsolicited billboard displaying the residents’ design...
key stakeholders
church
squatters
local school
NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE
The fact that squatters fought for years to attain property rights for
the adjacent block in the 1980’s provides an important backstory, that
gave the Park Fiction site an inherent political advantage. The latent
network of alliances these former squatters had made between key
institutions in the neighborhood, i.e. the local church and elementary
school, were readily reactivated through the catalyst Park Fiction
initiators provided, in order to reify a broader coalition of support.
Someresidentscontributedeclecticideassuchasaflyingcarpet,andmetal
palm tree sculptures, which actually worked their way into the final design.
After years of stalled progress by the city to uphold their tacit agreement
to make the park a reality, the Park Fiction team resorted to publicity
tactics such as erecting a makeshift billboard on site that displayed the
neighborhood’s collectively designed vision for the site. Officials quickly
called for the billboard’s removal, citing safety violations. However, armed
with a compelling narrative and bolstered by a deep network of support
within the community, representatives of Park Fiction argued their case,
and after drawn out negotiations the city modified the billboard to make
it“official.”
...the city eventually responded to their demands and
paid for the park, which was completed in 2005

the park has become an incredibly popular destination, and its
unique story is common knowledge in Hamburg.
PARTICIPATION SPILLOVER EFFECTS
The park was a site-specific design project as
well as social project, with measurable spillover
effects into to the surrounding area. Christoph
Shaefer points to many anecdotal examples such
as a Tabaco shop owner with a secret passion for
watercolorpainting,whoproudlybegandisplaying
his artwork in his shop after participating in
Park Fiction events. Though trivial in isolation,
compounded we can imagine many of these slight
shifts in behavior and expectations as constituting
a significant social tranformation.
Tabaco store art
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
73
Park Fiction was an unsolicited art/design project
that acquired weight as a political statement, not
through its graphic respresentation or a pro-forma
analysis projecting a high financial return, but by
demonstrating its social value through a compelling
narrative of broad citizen participation. The role
of space itself can be said to have played a pivotal
role in stitching together and sustaining a social
resistance movement, which continues in various
forms nearly twenty years after its conception.
Park Fiction initator, Christoph Shaefer
explained that the continual use of the
”park” (before it was a park), made it a
“social reality.”
Through interim use, a curated “infotainment”
program afforded a dynamic mixing of creative
energies. This multitude of voices, Margit Czenki
explained as constituting a space in which
“art and politics made each other more
clever.”
Source: “Spatial Agency” http://www.spatialagency.net/database/
park.fiction

INTERIM USE
Instead of leaving under utilized lots unoccupied until conditions are ready for long-term
investment, property owners often lease the space out, or negotiate land use agreements for temporary
use. These uses may include food trucks, farmers markets, festivals, or even cultural events. This category
excludes entertainment complexes and retail uses (covered in the entrepreneurial category), to focus
instead upon the role of vendors, artists, and small cultural organizations. For vendors, temporary use
arrangementscanprovidethemtheopportunitytooccupydesirablelocationswithouttheheavyexpense
of leasing out a“brick and mortar”store. The food truck model for instance has become an increasingly
popular way for aspirational restaurateurs to take risks, by testing unconventional themes. It’s a path of
incremental growth that starts with building a customer base first (and enough start up capital), that
may often lead to a restaurant or store later. For property owners there is a double incentive to generate
revenue while strategically planting the seeds for future economic opportunities. By attracting crowds
to an overlooked destination, they can incrementally shift public perceptions about a site before moving
ahead with long-term plans.
The former Tempelhof airfield was opened as
a public park in 2010. In the interim period
before the final park design is implemented, a
wide range of D.I.Y. experimentation has been
permitted, some of which was showcased in
the 2012 “World is Not Fair” expo. The platform
gave artists, performers, and everyday people
an opportunity to build structures that explored
alternative modes of social engagement.
Though these interventions were temporary,
the event opened up a space of creativity and
playfulness that can leave a lasting memory and
spark the public’s imagination about the future
possibilities of the park.
The London Legacy Development Corporation for instance, has helped finance a small art and
architecture collective’s transformation of a former sign making shop into a pop-up cinema. However,
the donation is not purely to advance the arts: the owner also wants to familiarize the public with this
formerly industrial zone (just south of the Olympic Park) before breaking ground on a large mixed use
development project in late 2013. Unlike a fleeting event such as theTempelhof expo, significantly more
time and volunteer labor goes into improving a space like Sugarhouse Studios (knowing full well they
can only use it for one and a half, to two years). Assemble self-consciously operates with a mind-set that
their work temporary. The intentionally makeshift aesthetic of the furniture even fetishes this reality,
adding an aura of authenticity via a visual reminder each element was assembled by hand. Furthermore,
the informal boundaries between spaces contributes to a more seamless overlap between the theater,
pizza restaurant, café, gallery, and lecture space. This model of gifting space to artists and architects can
be a very successful technique for sparking networks of shared interests to quickly congeal together and
create a strong sense of place. However, the downside to this pop-up community model, is that it needs
to keep moving every few years to the next industrial area slated for redevelopment, rather than setting
down roots in a particular neighborhood.
Tempelhof Airfield, Berlin
“The World is Not Fair”expo (Summer 2012)
Airfield decommissioned (2008)
Re-opened as a public park (2010)
D.I.Y. World’s Fair organized by Raumlabor Sugarhouse Studios by Assemble (Spring 2012 – TBD 2013)
A pop-up cinema, restaurant, and event space. For more information see http://assemblestudio.co.uk/.

CATEGORIES
Hybrid
Entrepreneurial
Design Build/
Installation
Interim Use
Arrangment with
landowner that
authorizes temporary
use.
Catalyst
Grassroots
Organization
Squatter
Settlement
unauthorized
short-termlease
tacitacceptance/
shortduration
established
institution
fullyfunded/
semi-permanent
squatter activity
city or large
developer
entrepreneur/
interim use
grassroots/
artist/architecture
collective
75
Sugarhouse Studios
(Assemble)
Tempelhof Airfield
Mauerpark
fleamarket

weekend market as a catalyst to activate public space
FLEAMARKET
PARK
Seamless pedestrian circulation between the
park and market enhances the vitality of both
programs.
The park/market brings in huge crowds on Sundays, which often spill out
and patronize local restaurants and businesses after a day at the park.
View from the fleamarket looking toward the park
Performers set up throughout flea market
Mauerpark fleamarket, Berlin
Mauerpark: publicly owned (1993 – present)
Fleamarket: privately owned (2004 – present)
CASE STUDIES // INTERIM USE

market activity spills out to occupy the entrance steps, and portions of the park
Street vendors at park entrance stepsView from main lawn looking toward south entrance
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
77
Mauerpark occupies a massive area, formerly part of the “death strip” along the
Berlin wall in Prenzlauerberg (a neighborhood that has become very trendy in the
past ten years). At face value the park appears much like any other; however its
unique mix of programmatic elements and landscape features fosters a dynamic
mixing of activities. On Sundays the park becomes an event, drawing crowds
from all over the city, with the key constitutive element of this vitality – a flea
market. The market brings a critical mass of visitors and forms a synergy between
other destinations like the ‘Bearpit Karaoke’ show. These moments of intensity
occupying different ends of the park enable a multiplicity of itineraries between.
Much of the park’s vitality arises because these diverse programs are not clearly
bounded, but blur together, intermingling passive recreation, entertainment, and
informal economic activity. The market is directly adjacent to the park, and allows
many points of entry, facilitating a steady stream of visitors moving between the
two. Street performers set up in locations throughout the park and within the flea
market space. The market itself also spills out beyond the stalls, to occupy the
entrance steps, and into some portions of the park.

karaoke ampitheater
performances
FUTURE OF MAUERPARK
Acknowledging the important role the market plays in
enhancing the overall vitality of the park (as well as contributing
economic multiplier effects to surrounding restaurants and
businesses with increased foot traffic on weekends) does not
change the fact the land is privately owned, and the potential
revenue for the given parcel is far greater as luxury housing
than if left accessible to the public. For several years the owner
has entertained various development proposals, which have
prompted the non-profit organization‘Friends of Mauerpark’to
join forces with the ‘Mauerpark Foundation for a World Citizens
Park,’ in hopes of raising enough money to purchase the flea
marketproperty inorder topreserveits current use,and formally
integrate it with the park.
to see and be seen
impromptu performances
Many are compelled to show off for their
friends, or grab the attention of strangers
along the quieter circulation routes.
buskers
Musicians congregate along the main route,
often prompting small audiences to form.
professional
musicians
basketball
ampitheater
dispersed
performances
within the
fleamarket
impromptu
performances

play
park as stage a large hillside along the eastern edge of the park looks out onto the lawn, creating a natural
ampitheater for watching the activities below.
people watching
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
79

DESIGN BUILD
In the US, the University of Alabama (with the Rural Studio) and Parsons New School for Design
incorporate design build studios as a key component of their architecture curriculums. The model
falls under a similar category as habitat for humanity aid programs, in which outside expertise is
brought in to empower those in underprivileged communities. The following selected case studies
by contrast, rather than following the more established design build template predominately aimed
atdeliveringbasicneedssuchasshelter,usevolunteerlaborandaffordableconstructiontechniques
to create pop-up venues focused on fostering novel cultural experiences. Though these examples
are only installations, we might learn from the ways artist and architecture collectives creatively
transform under utilized sites into exciting destinations. A key to the spontaneous vitality they are
able to generate, is the direct connection the initiators who conceive of, construct, and program
the spaces have with the end users. This can lead to more collaboration between those designing/
constructing a space and the artistic content producers (Practice), as well as boost the popularity
of an event using established online networks to bring large crowds out to unexpected locations
(Exyzt).
a gas station converted into a cinema
process
(images: http://assemblestudio.co.uk/)
after
before
Cineroleum, London
by Assemble
Installation: 2010

CATEGORIES
Hybrid
Entrepreneurial
Design Build
/Installation
Artist/Architecture
collective enlists
volunteer labor to
construct temporary
structures.
Interim Use
Catalyst
Grassroots
Organization
Squatter
Settlement
unauthorized
short-termlease
tacitacceptance/
shortduration
established
institution
fullyfunded/
semi-permanent
squatter activity
city or large
developer
entrepreneur/
interim use
grassroots/
artist/architecture
collective
81
Folly for a Flyover
(Assemble)
Union Press
(Public Works)
Lido Beach (Exyzt)
BT5 parking garage
(Practice)
Cineroleum
(Assemble)
programmed by
community

Nomadic placemaking is a relatively new
phenomenon on the rise in London, Paris, and
Berlin. A Paris based group, Exyzt, fluctuating
between 5-10 individuals, moves to interstitial sites
in multiple European cities to produce alternative
forms of collective experience, that fall outside
the standard cultural silos. They camp on site
and usually spend about a week constructing
their fantasies into environments that facilitate
completely unstructured festival atmospheres. The
communal experience the design/builders share
through the process of constructing these spaces
appears as important to them as the final unveiling
and celebration that follows.
For their Southwark Lido project, they constructed
a pop-up beer garden under the arches of an
elevated railway – with a little sand, a swimming
pool, and wooden canopies they created an urban
beach. The owner has been supportive because
it brings visitors to the site and sparks the public
to consider more imaginative possibilities about
what could be there. However, those that live in
the immediate area often have little or no direct
nomadic placemaking
Southwark Lido Beach, London
by Exyzt (Paris based design build collective)
Installation: summer 2008 and 2012
CASE STUDIES // DESIGN BUILD
Gathering spaces under the arches
relationship to these interventions, that only last a
week to several months. The organizers rely heavily
upon online social media platforms to attract
people from locations throughout the city. Part of
the excitement is intrinsically tied to the knowledge
these surreal experiences are well outside of one’s
everyday reality, and exist as fleeting moments.
The de-familiarization of an overpass or parking
garage from utilitarian infrastructure into an edgy
destination is part of what charges these spaces.
Therefore, they might naturally resist formalization
as permanent (quasi) public interventions, since the
novelty of the experience will inevitably wear off.

Practice, a London based architecture collective
transformed portions of an under utilized parking garage
into a popular cultural destination. Using low cost, sound
absorbent materials (straw bales) they constructed an
auditoriumandapop-uprestaurantoutofreclaimedwood
on the roof. The entire garage also periodically becomes a
canvas for artists to set up installations. This is an example
where the designers of temporary interventions have
expressed a desire to affect longer-term change. Through
the iterative process testing various uses on site, they’ve
also developed a long-term vision that would transform
the garage into a community center. However they lack
the financial means and political backing to do so. This
sentiment is actually quite common; yet only in the rare
exception an intervention becomes so beloved it cannot
be removed without major political resistance, these
“claimed” spaces are generally scraped away once the
real estate market is ripe for development. The long term
challenge then, is how to ensure the robust and inclusive
qualities incubated during an interim period persist as a
space evolves into more formalized manifestations.
Union Press was installed a few blocks from Lido Beach.
Though this collective of artists sometimes works with
Exyzt, they employ a very different approach. Public
Works by contrast, seek extensive engagement with
local communities through public art interventions that
encourage public contributions, such as impromptu
publications, in the case of Union Press. This installation
also aspired to revive the memory of the role the
printing industry once played in the area, in hopes of
sparking residents to imagine counter narratives to the
growing number of high-end housing and office tower
developments, rapidly erasing this historic legacy.
Union Press, London
by Public Works (art and architecture collective)
Installation: summer 2012
BT5 Parking Garage, London
by Practice (London based design build collective)
Installation: summer 2009 and 2011
Frank’s Cafe (on the roof)
Straw bale Auditorium
Poetry in the square Information kiosk/D.I.Y. publishing
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
83

pop-up event space under a highway overpass
Folly for a Flyover, London
by Assemble (design and architecture collective)
Partners: 68 local businesses and community organizations
Owner: London Legacy Development Corporation
Constructed with the help of 200 volunteers in 2011
t & Contact: CREATE 2011 (Anna Doyle), The Barbican (Katrina Crookall)
s & Delivery: 2010 – 2011
ery Partners: CREATE, The Barbican, muf architecture/art and 68 local businesses and groups.
Assemble’s Folly for a Flyover is an example of an art project/
eventspacethatsignificantlyengagedwiththelocalcommunity
to leave a lasting mark after their work was through. Built with
the help of 200 volunteers in four weeks, and only £ 40,000 – the
folly activated a derelict site under an overpass to house a café
and event space. While the cinema was a destination drawing
in an influx of hip outside visitors to this quiet neighborhood on
the outskirts of London (similar to Exyzt’s work), the organizers
also coordinated with 68 local organizations to program the
space with everything from knitting circles to orchestras.
After the installation phase materials from the folly went to a
nearby school, and some have been reused on site to house a
temporary bike shop. The owner of the property (LLDC) is now
working with an architect (MUF) to envision longer-term plans
for how the site might better link with nearby green spaces and
and remain in active use as a public amenity.
(source: http://assemblestudio.co.uk/)

The project was funded by LLDC to improve public perceptions of the site and involve the community in a
process that will inform a permanent design intervention linking new residential areas to greenspaces.
(ImagescourtesyofAssemble:info@assemblestudio.co.uk)
Context Process

ENTREPRENEURIAL
In this category of temporary use, land is leased to small-scale entrepreneurs to experiment
with profit making ventures. Given the relatively modest cost of construction, low risk, and
often advantageous locations, temporary retail and entertainment venues can actually
become quite lucrative scenarios. Box Park is an example of an innovative re-use of shipping
containers as a mini-mall, strategically located along a narrow plot of land directly adjacent to
a popular transit hub. The project activates a site that would otherwise remain exclusively for
parking or as an empty lot surrounded by a chain link fence until longer-term development
moves ahead. Meanwhile, temporary retail brings in revenue, shifts perceptions about the
site, and contributes to the success of surrounding businesses by bringing in more foot
traffic to the area. The model is also advantageous to retailers because the lease terms are
more flexible than “brick and mortar” establishments. After Box Park was initiated in late
2011, “cargotecture” pop-ups have rapidly spread to many other cities around the globe;
underscoring how in the era of trendspotting blogs, it does not take long for good ideas to
transmit and morph into variations on the same theme. The Badeschiff in Berlin is another
case illustrative of the ways trends (such as floating pools) often appear around the same
time in multiple locations (New York for instance, also unveiled a floating pool in 2007).
temporary Spaces along the Spree River
Source: Denton, Jill. Urban Pioneers: Berlin city development
through interim use. (Berlin: Jovis, 2007)
a floating pool in the Spree River
pop-up mini-mall made from reused
shipping containers
Box Park, London (2011 – present)
Badeschiff, Berlin (2004 – present)

CATEGORIES
Hybrid
Entrepreneurial
Property is leased for
a highly themed, but
low cost profit making
venture.
Design Build/
Installation
Interim Use
Catalyst
Grassroots
Organization
Squatter
Settlement
Morchenpark
unauthorized
short-termlease
tacitacceptance/
shortduration
established
institution
fullyfunded/
semi-permanent
squatter activity
city or large
developer
entrepreneur/
interim use
grassroots/
artist/architecture
collective
89
Kater Holzig
Bar 25
prototyping
event
Kater Holzig
prototyping
event
Morchenpark
prototyping
Bar 25
prototyping
event
Holzmarkt
(proposal)
Strand Bar Mitte
Beach Mitte
Oststrand
Badeschiff
Box Park

Hexenkessel Ampitheater
(run by the same operators as Strandbar)
Berlin’s unique history as a failed financial super power turned successful center of culture
(withanabundanceofvacantland),hasmadeitparticularlyconduciveasatestbedfortemporary
use experiments. There have been several recent migrations of pop-up uses, such as urban
beaches. The trend that started with Strandbar Mitte, has continued eastward along the Spree
River. More recent destinations include Yaam and Oststrand. Yet unlike these other venues
(which will likely only be temporary), the Strandbar might be an exception that persists in the
long-term future. The synergy formed between a directly adjacent amphitheater (operated by
the same company) and its prominent location across from Museum Island has made it such a
popular destination, the informal aesthetic might ultimately become a viable alternative to a
“permanent”landscaping design.
Weather Map of Temporary Use in Berlin
Source: Urban Pioneers: Berlin city development through interim use
the first beach bar in Berlin (now there are over thirty)
Strandbar Mitte, Berlin (2004 – present)
CASE STUDIES // ENTREPRENEURIAL

Initiators in front of the former Bar 25
CONTEXT
Other popular temporary uses along city
owned waterfront sites have been the
proliferation of sprawling nightlife venues such
as Bar 25. In the mid 2000’s this particular
nightclub reached international acclaim as
one of the top counter cultural destinations in
Berlin. However, in 2010 (after seven years in
operation), they were evicted by BSR (the EU
waste management company) to make way
for a large-scale development. But the club
operators simply relocated to a site across the
river, to transform an abandoned factory into
an even grander, multi-level, highly themed
labyrinthian entertainment complex.
MEDIASPREE
The significance of this story is that the
operators of the two nightclubs were able to
build upon their long-standing reputation as
preeminent providers of nightlife activities
in Berlin, to attract a wide range of investors
to into enter into a cooperative ownership
agreement, and win the highest bid (with a
$63 million dollar proposal) to purchase the
former Bar 25 site.
The former Bar 25 parcel is just one piece
of the controversial Mediaspree, 440 acre
redevelopment plan. Though the billions
of dollars invested here (largely from
transnational corporations) will certainly
boost the economy, there have been almost
no public amenities brokered in return. This
perceived insensitivity to local interests has
triggered massive protests, which have also
served as a platform for voicing discontent
about rapid gentrification processes
occurring throughout the city.
beach bar founders turned big time developers
Holzmarkt, Berlin
Initiators: Christoph Klenzendorf and Juval Dieziger
operators of Bar 25 (2003 –2010) and Kater Holzig (2011–present)
Owner: BSR until the fall 2012 Holzmarkt bid
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
91
Kater Holzig (across the river from Bar 25/Holzmarkt site)
Rendering of Mediaspree masterplan
Mediaspree protests

PROPOSAL
Contextualized within the larger political landscape, the Holzmarkt proposal
(by the Bar 25 founders) for a period of time, became the symbolic frontline for
what was widely perceived as a battle to preserve Berlin’s cultural identity. By
bolstering the impression the Holzmarkt was a project created by and for the
localcommunity,theorganizerswereabletoharnesspoliticalsupportandattract
investors. High-income generating programs such as a hotel were required to
economically compete with the other development proposals. However, the
organizers’larger agenda was to respond to the desires emerging out of existing
social networks (accustomed to cultural uses along the waterfront), to include a
mix a programs outside investment would not otherwise produce.
PROGRAM
+ hotel
+ restaurant
+ music venue
+ theater/cinema
+ live/work spaces
+ start-up incubator
+ student housing
+ kidszone
+ park and gardens
+ urban farming
The overall complex is organized around the concept of a village, with references
to the historical use of the site as a Timber Market (Holzmarket in German). They
propose low-income student housing, a fabrication lab adjacent to live/work
spaces, urban agriculture, cultural and entertainment offerings, and a public
park.
CASE STUDIES // ENTREPRENEURIAL
6
2020
Plattform für Kreative
2020
Holzmarkt
Plattform für Kreative
Club Hotel
Eckwerk
Village
Restaurant
Mörchenpark
Holzmarktstrasse
that combines garden and habitat. Nature and
agriculture, as well as a public boardwalk on the
Spree are further links between north and south.
Successful strategies and content from already
completed projects are combined with the
expertise of a strong partner to the hybrid, which
uses the existing planning legislation quantitatively
and qualitatively.
A place to work, relax, study and live - a start-up
center, habitat, market place and tourist magnet in
one.
The Holzmarkt is an urban field of tension. In the
northern area, the right for urban development
will be used innovatively. Sustainable design and
flexible use as well as free optional areas will set
new standards. The S-Bahn bridge dominates
the ensemble. The arches will be opened. The
boardwalk connects the north with the southern
part of the 18,000m² area, which unites Holz
(Timber) and the Markt (Market) in the true sense
of the word. This forms a counterpoint to the
massive urban development in the north. Village,
club, restaurant, theaters are mostly built of natural
materials and are embedded in a public park
Rendering of Eckwerk (small business incubator)
Section
Concept plan

MORCHENPARKCOLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP
BOTTOM-UP URBANISM
93
Morchen (fairy tale) park and garden concept illustration
3
zmarkt is also reflected in the
e committed to the principles
democratic economy activity.
ety, founded by the initiators
o retain especially the creative
nterests. It also provides the
shape and participate for
nd supporters. The Holzmarkt
ociety enables transparency
nt of the city of Berlin. In a
sustainable financing model
estors are attracted. With the
e cooperative structure, we
and scope for reaction for
pment and financing in order
ions.
ve Model
Eckwerk
The cooperative financing model is open for anyone to take partial
ownership in the overall project (with shares beginning at 25,000 euros).
The initiators also set up a platform for incorporating citizen input during
the visioning process for the public spaces, with the Morchenpark Festival
held in summer 2012. Held in situ, the event was intended to raise
awareness about the project, and serve as an opportunity to test the kind
of atmosphere and types of use that might ultimately be incorporated
into the final design.
Source: http://www.gukeg.de/
A festival was held on the site in May 2012 to test ideas for the park

밑으로부터 도시계획 (Bottom Up Urbanism)

밑으로부터 도시계획 (Bottom Up Urbanism)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to 밑으로부터 도시계획 (Bottom Up Urbanism)

Similar to 밑으로부터 도시계획 (Bottom Up Urbanism) (20)

More from Seongwon Kim

More from Seongwon Kim (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

밑으로부터 도시계획 (Bottom Up Urbanism)