René Boer and Mark Minkjan strongly criticize the "pop-up" or bottom-up hype on the 'failed architecture' website, in their article "Why the pop-up hype isn't going to save our cities", refering to, amongst other initiatives, the Parc Farm project at t&t in Brussels.
"These projects might in fact have a segregating effect, since it is only the skilful, the networked and the capable who manage to connect and involve themselves such that they are in a position to reap the benefits of a particular opportunity. Those who need it most, such as the elderly, the disabled or the socially challenged, remain cut off."
Is this critique typically Dutch (participatiesamenleving) or British (big society) or do we have to start worrying in Brussels as well? Read their article and tell us what you think!
"These projects might in fact have a segregating effect, since it is only the skilful, the networked and the capable who manage to connect and involve themselves such that they are in a position to reap the benefits of a particular opportunity. Those who need it most, such as the elderly, the disabled or the socially challenged, remain cut off."
Is this critique typically Dutch (participatiesamenleving) or British (big society) or do we have to start worrying in Brussels as well? Read their article and tell us what you think!
Some extracts of the article "Why the pop-up hype isn't going to save our cities":
" ‘By celebrating these projects’, wondered Ella Harris and Mel Nowicki in The Guardian, ‘aren’t we simply distracting from the lack of structural public provision in these areas – and worse still, normalising, even glorifying, its absence?’
(...)
even if these ‘tactical’ interventions function properly and have some positive effect, their dependence on volunteers or incidental subsidies, make them highly vulnerable: they might pop-off as quickly as they popped-up.
(...)
There is a strong need however, to (re-)politicise these practices, connect them to other initiatives and wider (political) movements while at the same time allowing them to adopt a more adversarial approach in relation to the spatial business-as-usual.
(...)
Only then can (local) governments be forced to firstly provide all people, and not just the connected ones, with the services they need, secondly to counter the current dominance of the market over spatial production and finally to create an arena where people can co-decide over the future of our cities. ‘It’s democracy, stupid!’ "
" ‘By celebrating these projects’, wondered Ella Harris and Mel Nowicki in The Guardian, ‘aren’t we simply distracting from the lack of structural public provision in these areas – and worse still, normalising, even glorifying, its absence?’
(...)
even if these ‘tactical’ interventions function properly and have some positive effect, their dependence on volunteers or incidental subsidies, make them highly vulnerable: they might pop-off as quickly as they popped-up.
(...)
There is a strong need however, to (re-)politicise these practices, connect them to other initiatives and wider (political) movements while at the same time allowing them to adopt a more adversarial approach in relation to the spatial business-as-usual.
(...)
Only then can (local) governments be forced to firstly provide all people, and not just the connected ones, with the services they need, secondly to counter the current dominance of the market over spatial production and finally to create an arena where people can co-decide over the future of our cities. ‘It’s democracy, stupid!’ "