Debat: Why the pop up hype can't save our cities https://www.failedarchitecture.com/why-the-pop-up-hype-isnt-going-to-save-our-cities/

1. Debat:
“Why
the
Pop-­‐up
Hype
Isn’t
Going
to
Save
Our
Cities”
With
support
of
GC
De
Platoo,
Bar
Eliza,
Sinterklaas
&
Odisee

2. |

3. |
The
cult
of
pop-­‐urbanism

4. |
Modest
in
size
Stedelijke
interventies:
’Bottom-­‐up’,
‘tactical’,
‘guerilla’
or
‘pop-­‐up’
urbanism

5. |
Focused
on
one
specific
locality
Stedelijke
interventies:
’Bottom-­‐up’,
‘tactical’,
‘guerilla’
or
‘pop-­‐up’
urbanism

6. |
Implemented
by
freelancing
spatial
practitioners,
small
companies
or
collectives
Stedelijke
interventies:
’Bottom-­‐up’,
‘tactical’,
‘guerilla’
or
‘pop-­‐up’
urbanism

7. |
Temporary
and
characterised
by
the
flexible
(re-­‐)use
of
structures
and
materials
and
organised
the
DIY-­‐way
Stedelijke
interventies:
’Bottom-­‐up’,
‘tactical’,
‘guerilla’
or
‘pop-­‐up’
urbanism

8. |
•
Critical
about
the
idea
of
‘urban
acupuncture’
(to
the
wider
impact
a
local
intervention
can
have):
Effect
remains
limited
to
the
most
local
scale
• Scalability
• Active
and
tightly-­‐knit
group
of
inhabitants
#1
:
the
actual
impact
of
these
projects
is
often
overestimated

9. |
• Possible
negative
impact:
‣ A
segregating
effect:
only
the
skilful,
the
networked
and
the
capable
‣ Socially
exclusive:
Those
who
need
it
most
remain
cut
off.
#1
:
the
actual
impact
of
these
projects
is
often
overestimated

10. |
• ‘Do-­‐it-­‐yourself’-­‐urbanism
stepped
in
where
devastating
cutbacks
created
voids
“By
celebrating
these
projects
aren’t
we
simply
distracting
from
the
lack
of
structural
public
provision
in
these
areas
–
and
worse
still,
normalising,
even
glorifying,
its
absence?”
Ella
Harris
and
Mel
Nowicki
in
The
Guardian
#2
projects
are
filling
in
the
gaps
left
by
negligent
(local)
governments

11. |
•
The
efforts
of
the
pop-­‐
and
bottom-­‐uppers
will
probably
boost
an
area’s
reputation,
creating
cultural
value
and
usually
upping
property
values
as
well.
#3
Gentrification

12. |
• Incidental,
isolated
and
dependent
on
institutional
good-­‐will,
and
will
therefore
have
a
hard
time
becoming
an
actual
counterpower.
• The
future
development
of
cities
will
be
a
power
game,
and
incidental
interventions
by
citizens
with
spare
time
will
not
have
enough
leverage
to
enforce
structural
change.
#4
No
actual
‘counterpower’
Parckfarm
project:
a
‘spontaneous,
participatory
experiment’

13. •
In
3/4/5
groepen
•
Bespreek
per
groep
de
stelling
(10
min):
1.
Zoek
argumenten
contra
,onderbouw
ze
en
illustreer
a.d.h.v.
voorbeelden
2.
Zoek
argumenten
pro
en
onderbouw
ze
en
illustreer
a.d.h.v.
voorbeelden
3.
Formuleer
je
eigen
mening
en
onderbouw
dit
•
Per
stelling
presenteert
één
groep
de
argumentatie
(5min),
de
andere
reageren.
Debat
a.d.h.v.
5
stellingen

14. Stelling
#1
De
impact
van
stedelijke
interventies
is
beperkt
tot
de
directe
omgeving.

15. Stelling
#2
Stedelijke
interventies
werken
sociale
uitsluiting
in
de
hand.

16. Stelling
#3
Stedelijke
interventies
moedigen
de
overheid
aan
om
zich
verder
terug
te
trekken,
meer
te
besparen
en
minder
verantwoordelijkheid
op
te
nemen.

17. Stelling
#4
Stedelijke
interventies
worden
door
projectontwikkelaars
misbruikt
als
tactiek
om
de
huur
en
aankoopprijzen
de
hoogte
in
te
jagen.

18. Stelling
#5
Stedelijke
interventies
zijn
een
dubbel
op
een
hete
plaat.
Deze
‘schattige’
initiatieven
kunnen
geen
structurele
verandering
teweegbrengen
.