Debat: Why the pop up hype can't save our cities
-
Upload
frederik-lamote -
Category
Education
-
view
73 -
download
1
Transcript of Debat: Why the pop up hype can't save our cities
Debat: “Why the Pop-‐up Hype Isn’t Going to Save Our Cities”
With support of GC De Platoo, Bar Eliza, Sinterklaas & Odisee
|
|
The cult of pop-‐urbanism
|
Modest in size
Stedelijke interventies: ’Bottom-‐up’, ‘tactical’, ‘guerilla’ or ‘pop-‐up’ urbanism
|
Focused on one specific locality
Stedelijke interventies: ’Bottom-‐up’, ‘tactical’, ‘guerilla’ or ‘pop-‐up’ urbanism
|
Implemented by freelancing spatial practitioners, small companies or collectives
Stedelijke interventies: ’Bottom-‐up’, ‘tactical’, ‘guerilla’ or ‘pop-‐up’ urbanism
|
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
|
• 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
|
• 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
|
• ‘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
|
• 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
|
• 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’
• 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
Stelling #1
De impact van stedelijke interventies is beperkt tot de directe omgeving.
Stelling #2
Stedelijke interventies werken sociale uitsluiting in de hand.
Stelling #3
Stedelijke interventies moedigen de overheid aan om zich verder terug te trekken, meer te besparen en minder verantwoordelijkheid op te nemen.
Stelling #4
Stedelijke interventies worden door projectontwikkelaars misbruikt als tactiek om de huur en aankoopprijzen de hoogte
in te jagen.
Stelling #5
Stedelijke interventies zijn een dubbel op een hete plaat. Deze ‘schattige’
initiatieven kunnen geen structurele verandering teweegbrengen .