Temporality extended
By: Bogna Anna
Tags: City Planning, Cities, Urban Planning, Architecture, Tactical Urbanism

Suzuko Yamada Architects — reconfigurable house, Tokyo (Dezeen)

I got hooked on tactical urbanism during my studies a few years ago. Tactical urban interventions, meaning usually quickly executed, low cost temporary changes in the urban environment with the potential of a longer lasting impact. To illustrate, the simple example of tactical urbanism action is a Park(ing) Day, held all over the world and originated in San Francisco, US. A day when activists, artists, local community or urbanists take over parking spaces, occupying them by temporary arrangement, let it be benches, plants or a table tennis, any unusual for a parking space activity. This initiative is supposed to bring attention to the use of urban space, spark ideas on how the space could be reclaimed for other purposes, potentially being an impulse for people to go out, get more visible and active there. Or, in someone elses words: “The purpose of Park(ing) Day is to raise awareness about the need for civic space in urban areas and to promote a discussion about the overall use of space in densely populated cities across the globe.” (source)

That time during my master’s, I was engaged in tactical urbanism actions around Copenhagen, thinking that temporality can be a good approach for unstable and uncertain times. This kind of doing, and trying things out in action is also very much in line with my personal approach to life. I would rather make a move and modify on the go than stay for a long time and contemplate where, what and how. In Copenhagen, using public space as a playground of try and experimentation is at least somewhat existing practice. Containers under Bispeengbuen, wooden pavilions, exhibitions in a public space are used to activate certain areas, bring life or test some solutions without risking misplaced investments. City in this way becomes an open laboratory, a space for experimentation and play. Well, I am not really claiming that the city of Copenhagen is being developed in this way, but at least there are some attempts here and there.

Shifting this process of temporary urban intervention 360 degrees, we can ask, why not to welcome temporary structures as a part of the landscape and give them the right to stay for longer? Why do we always strive for building things that are robust (like these all over brick blocks) instead of planning for a change, which we seem to acknowledge. We could use less resources, making stuff less permanent (like wooden pavilions, quick green areas, paths, roads). Doesn’t it sound like a sustainable practice?

Why do we want planners to plan for years and years ahead, and not for NOW?

In a city like Copenhagen, we could probably afford more of these temporary urban interventions, allowing the city to grow more from bottom-up, checking things out and avoiding long term commitments. It seems that unlike within tech, in architecture, urban planning and construction, we still strive to create, what will last for many next generations.

An amazing project of Japanese Suzuko Yamada Architects brings something fresh, allowing to see temporality in a new light. Architects use scaffolding as a base for the design of the residential building in Tokyo, in a brilliant way using the flexibility of this structure to let it adapt to the residents. That’s pretty genius and it looks good too! (more about this project here)

Currently, we are faced with a lot of temporary constructions everywhere. Flooded by white (at least in Denmark they are white) tents of test centers. An example of something that was supposed to be around for short and became a regular part of our urban landscape. Of course that is also something, which we would rather not need to embrace.

The question here is how can we use resources wisely and make the most of permanency and temporality, which are both at play in our cities? There are many ways. We have seen how smartly and beautifully we managed to transform lifeboats and other materials used by refugees, which would otherwise be a huge waste (for example these backpacks if you haven’t heard about similar responsible design yet).

What about our fixation on the permanency of urban landscape? Can we do something about that?

Why don’t we for example allow things to rot and damage at their own pace, and instead we constantly replace old with new, that we hope will last longer?

Suzuko Yamada Architects — reconfigurable house, Tokyo (Dezeen)

In the end, we talk so much about the uncertainty of tomorrow. Whenever we touch upon sustainability, it reveals that the key to resilience lies not in permanency, but in the flexibility and the ability to change.

Why do we so often take the opposite direction in urban and architecture practice?

What we make quickly, we want to get rid of quickly. We value and desire assets that stay long, but it takes long to construct them — sometimes so long that they are completely useless at their completion time — I could roll out a vast field of too many examples here of architecture and urban projects, roads, airports, office buildings, which took ages to get constructed and when they finally got finished, they stayed completely empty, as they appeared to be unnecessary, because times and circumstances changed.

Let’s stay adaptable. Maybe we can make things happen quicker, be more responsive, and let them stay longer, let them stay for good if they turn out to work well. Let’s bring some innovation in how we approach the art of establishment and construction of our cities, or is it too bold to say?