The Factor Determining Effective Modelling of the Urban Spatial Transformation Process Based on Temporary Use

This article focuses on examining contemporary urban transformation processes, which involve temporary land use. The concept of temporary use, the research subject, is based on a definition formulated by Bishop and Williams [1]. Temporary use involves the time-limited usage of space (development, usage, event organization), which signifies purposeful action in the area with the assumption of concluding a particular form of use. A correct understanding of the term “temporary use” is crucial for its effective implementation.

Temporary use differs from the concept of urban intervention, which denotes a spatial event that may be part of a broader process but can also be a spontaneous, singular action carried out without a wider context of spatial events. The described temporary use is significant as a strategic action in the whole context of urban transformations.

Many urban areas require transformation, changes in previous land use, or even new development. The planning approach to revitalizing areas has undergone a shift. Presently, there is a requirement for dynamic adaptation to evolving circumstances. As a result, the notion of durability and permanence, which have long been indicators of prosperity and excellence, has often undergone a radical change [2]. Temporality, tested directly within the urban planning structure as a reflection of cultural transformations [3], has become a significant alternative to durability and permanence. Consequently, the phenomena occurring since the turn of the 20^th and 21^st centuries are now called “liquid modernity” [4]. Bauman employed this term instead of the commonly used “postmodernism”, which, in his view, implied “abandoning modernity and being on the other side” [5], failing to acknowledge the pursuit of modernity utilizing existing practices and achievements. In this way, Bauman attempted to confront what is original and continuous in the contemporary historical background. A characteristic feature of this phenomenon is the “lack of anchoring” and the lack of references to values such as identity, worth, or capital, as well as the “absence of boundaries”, including consumption, geopolitical, trade, and communication boundaries [6]. Temporality occupies the space created by these uncertainties at the intersection of what is now and what will soon be different. At the same time, it aligns with the need for flexible management and response and continuous adaptation of spaces to meet new economic, political, social, and environmental expectations and conditions. The design and urban planning aim to ensure resilience to contemporary dynamics of change. This requires an approach in which the implementation of new solutions is related to both spatial solutions and urban space management [7]. On the other hand, such a combination is a distinctive feature of a revitalization strategy that employs temporary use as a tool.

In modernism and postmodernism, urban planning was associated with creator’s vision; it strongly correlates with infrastructure aspects and strategic and multidisciplinary approaches [8]. Bernard Tschumi describes contemporary spatial design as a dynamic synthesis of diverse factors. He compares it to the creation of a film, where in addition to set design, actors, lighting, and plot are crucial [9]. Ewa Rewers mentions a similar concept, viewing urban events not only as experiences of urban space but as programmable and actively used spaces [10]. Temporary use of space enables the introduction of new variables: time, users, and programs [11].

In scholarly discourse, accompanied by political and societal interest, a distinct theme emerges that narrows down the range of described good practices of temporary use [12, 13] and focuses on its strategic purpose [14, 15]. The strategic approach goes beyond infrastructural spatial development and incorporates management, planning, social participation, and other elements used to achieve long-term results. A particular research area addressed in this article is the application of temporary use as a tool or element of spatial transformations in a strategic context. This means that it involves a context-bound and multidimensional process of spatial development. The key lies in actions that prepare the space for its intended function, harness its potential, interact with the surrounding environment, and capitalize on the advantages of its location to infuse it with operational potential, which, as James Corner suggests, is even more crucial than compositional design [16]. Strategies that utilize temporary use aim to harness this potential and convert it into a sustainable spatial, social, and economic element. Therefore, they can be pivotal in an integrated approach to comprehensive urban revitalization [17].

Pioneers of strategic thinking on temporary use include Philipp Oswalt, Klaus Overmeyer, and Philipp Misselwitz, who introduced a typology of urban strategies [18]. In the strategic context, the goals of temporary use and its connection to specific locations are also examined [19]. Urban policies and operational actions reflect the significance of the topic. However, more research on strategic approaches is necessary regarding assumptions and their progression, fundamental effects, and effectiveness in achieving the intended objectives. A systemic approach to processes and examining the broader impact of temporary use on space over the long term is necessary [20].

The purpose of the conducted research was to examine the structure of urban transformation processes in which temporary use is one of the elements. The design of an effectively functioning spatial transformation process, which achieves its goals and impacts the environment over time and space, was referred to as a model. The research task involved: identifying the elements of the process in selected cases, determining the intermediate and long-term goals of temporary use and its role in the process, and analysing the connections between temporary use and other elements of the transformation process. The research findings can guide planning, constructing, and managing urban transformation processes with effective temporary-use applications.

The research method employed for this study involved a critical expert comparative analysis of implemented or ongoing processes using deductive research. The cases were selected according to established criteria, allowing for preliminary selection and identification of practices potentially effective in achieving sustainable urban transformations and long-term outcomes.

As a result, the study identified characteristic indicators of the processes contributing to the effectiveness of the transformation. These indicators aim to identify elements of management, strategy, design, and planning the course of change to:

Maximize the positive effects of the conducted actions after the completion of temporary interventions within the area;

The temporary use of spaces presents significant challenges for empirical research due to its limited duration. Therefore, based on the analysis of existing data, case studies were conducted using a desk research method [24, 25]. Both during the initial case selection and in-depth analysis, we primarily utilized available scientific literature, as well as journalistic texts, descriptions provided on the websites of designers or contractors, and internet forums. Data were verified by consulting diverse sources. The data particularly focused on describing specific events, stakeholders involved in the process, and spatial implementation descriptions. Based on this information, we established the chronology and details of each process stage. While some cases had more data, to ensure comparability, we employed defined data criteria illustrated in graphical representations of the processes (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

Stages of the macro transformation process of the former Tempelhofer Feld airport in Berlin. The diagram presents a graphical method of illustrating the steps and elements of the transformation process. The chart has been prepared for all four selected cases

Figure 2.

Comparison of simplified process models of selected cases

An essential assumption of the research was to analyse cases with high potential for effectiveness in long-term spatial transformation outcomes. To achieve this purpose, we made a selection based on general theoretical criteria - the essential criteria (C) derived from the assumptions arising from the synthesis of critical scientific discussions on the effectiveness of strategic temporary use in urban transformations:

C1: Temporary use is a significant (influencing the course of the process) element within broader transformations.

We based the case qualification for further study on fulfilling all criteria. To select practices for in-depth analysis, we examined approximately fifty temporary spatial interventions for fulfilling essential criteria C1, C2, C3, C4, and C5. These criteria enabled us to exclude or classify cases as part of a broader transformation process, indicating their potential effectiveness in achieving sustainable spatial transformation outcomes. A standardized process model is challenging to identify because it is continuous and often unfinished, and the evaluation of results may vary depending on the priorities adopted. The conditions present in a specific space also vary. The selected processes for in-depth study do not represent exemplarily conducted cases but exhibit essential characteristics for initiating and sustaining the process. Their potential often depends on external factors such as funding, legal, political, or social situations. Therefore, the further case studies did not find and construct a repeatable process but identified mutually supportive elements that reinforce effects or lay the foundation for subsequent spatial interventions.

The analysed cases displayed similarities and differences in the organization of the process. The similarities pertain to the logical construction of process chronology and the staging of activities following similar patterns. The activities of the studied processes can be grouped thematically and include: (1)

Area research (AR): including assessments of historical value and technical condition of objects and areas, social research, environmental assessments, potential pollution evaluations, and assessments of economic, business, and functional value.

A characteristic of processes in which temporary use plays a significant role is the continuous intermingling of stages, parallelism of actions, and process management. Differences include the intensity of interconnections between activities, duration of individual scenes, sequence of implementation, repeatability of stages, direct or indirect utilization of obtained results for shaping subsequent steps, proportions between permanent and temporary solutions, and soft versus infrastructural actions, methods of achieving set goals, the form of management focusing on top-down coordination or leaving decision-making within grassroots movements, and the combination of both management forms. A common element is unpredictability or inability to entirely subordinate the process to a rigid planning or design structure. At the same time, a differentiating factor is an openness to this unpredictability or utilizing only selected developed outcomes while disregarding the rest. The manner of social participation also dramatically influences the course of the process. Solutions based on grassroots decision-making require greater flexibility from coordinators and introduce more dynamism in the chronology and planned structure of the process. Still, they may result in ineffective financing and excessive prolongation of certain stages or the absence of permanent solutions. Top-down coordination introduces the risk of missing the opportunities of the potential of temporary use. Effective, sustainable, and coherent integration of grassroots and top-down solutions, temporary and permanent, is the key to building effective transformation processes.

Temporary use adds a new dimension to the chronology of transformation processes, bringing in multidimensional activities that stem from long-term activation and the initiation of service before the end of the duration of the spatial transformations. Vibrant activation necessitates the simultaneous implementation of multiple actions and a flexible and tactical approach to managing and coordinating the transformation process. By analysing the progress of the studied spatial transformation processes, we can observe that critical factors, such as the purpose of temporary use, timing, duration, or systematic repetition, control the impact of temporary use on planning and strategic changes in land use, as well as the method of initiating and managing temporary solutions, significantly influence the course and form of these processes.

Each of the examined cases represents a unique approach from different challenges, transformation goals, and local economic, social, and spatial conditions. For the Allen and Pike Street process, temporary use is a primary determinant and the core of transformations. It plays a crucial role in shaping the desired spatial and functional changes. The process begins from the bottom up, driven by solid social engagement that aims to improve the safety and functionality of the road corridor and its surroundings. Temporary use, in the form of prototypes of planned spatial-organizational solutions, results from the initial stage of activation and vision creation and directly preceding permanent development. It is implemented twice - the first use introduces low-budget solutions and tests the effectiveness of the intended directions, such as narrowing the road or applying street furniture in the median. The second phase introduces prototypes of specific spatial solutions that closely resemble the final development and are systematically enhanced or transformed into permanent solutions, such as enduring infrastructure with the intended design. Temporary use is applied as a testing method, and prototyping developed solutions directly influences the final form. The firm reliance on temporary use as the foundation and progression of the process is also characteristic of the Tempelhofer Feld transformations in Berlin. However, its function is different and evolves. In the initial period lasting several years, temporary use entails the free utilization of space while introducing a new quality - pioneering projects in the form of small spatial structures used by residents according to their ideas and intentions [35, 36, 37]. These grassroots initiatives are created within predetermined frameworks and based on an established strategy that involves collaboration between city authorities and experts. They have been shaped in response to immediate needs and evolving circumstances. In this case, temporary use is not to test solutions that will assume a permanent final form but to establish land-use principles and possibilities. Initially, temporary use is a solution to bridge the gap between the expired function and the new development. Later, it becomes a permanent collaboration between the local government and residents [38, 39, 40]. In the Berlin case, temporary use directly influences the final form and can result in changes to infrastructure plans due to significant social effects [41, 42, 43].

Carlsberg Brewery in Copenhagen and 100 Union Street in London differ. Temporary use is applied there to activate the area in the long term, where the ultimate spatial form is determined during the initial stage of the transformation process. In both cases, the ultimate spatial form needs to be deferred or requires a long implementation phase. Leaving the area unused for an extended period could result in its deterioration. However, temporary use in these two processes extends beyond mere activation and fills the gap between the expired and the ultimate form of development. Temporary use is an internal, managed micro-process involving elements such as temporary allocation of formal spaces, event organization, facility rentals, and collaboration with residents. The goal is to create a vibrant area that revitalizes the neighbourhood and transforms its negative image into a new quality and brand [44]. To accomplish this, temporary use is organized and structured through meticulously planned stages. The results of previous activities are used to reinforce the impact of subsequent actions, the forms of which depend on the earlier results. The planning and management process is dynamic and flexible. Despite the absence of a direct link to the final development, temporary use is a crucial element of the transformation process and plays a vital role in achieving the desired transformation goals.

In the case of Carlsberg Brewery, temporary use is implemented through a series of sequentially executed projects that develop various public spaces within the adjacent area transforming. The temporality of these spaces is based on the assumption of a defined finite duration in a given location. The participation of the community in shaping the vision and implementing the development is crucial [45].

The 100 Union Street model represents a scenario where temporary use takes the main stage in the transformation process. While it may not directly influence the final spatial form, temporary use enables the successful realization of investments and activates the neighborhood, thus supporting a broader revitalization process. In the case of 100 Union Street, the initiative is driven by the private sector, which facilitates intervention on private land and provides necessary support and infrastructure for the initial temporary implementation. The initial implementation sets a chain of cyclic temporary spatial projects dynamically supported by accompanying events. Subsequent interventions build upon and complement the established network of connections. The role of social network analysis on participation and placemaking leveraging the positive effects of previous implementations. The process consists of short-lived but highly dynamic stages that follow one another annually. Each step prepares the groundwork for future actions and consumes the potential of previous interventions. The chain of events creates a coherent process coordinated by experts and activists. Social involvement in this process does not primarily focus on determining spatial forms, as this responsibility lies with specialists [46]. Instead, it focuses on project implementation and creative utilization [47].

There are many strategies for shaping processes, but we can divide the characteristics of processes that determine their effectiveness into necessary (essential) factors aligned with the adopted selection criteria (C1-C5) and complementary factors (F1-F19). The essential factors are fundamental and common to all temporary use processes. Instead, we must tailor the complementary factors to the existing conditions and defined goals. Based on examining four cases, we have identified the following complementary factors:

(F1) Multiple focal points of action: At different stages, the process is supported or organized by various stakeholders, government bodies at multiple levels, multidisciplinary expert teams, neighbourhoods groups, residents, and users. Collaboration and cooperation are the basis for action.