Temporary Use as a Participatory Placemaking Tool to Support Cultural Initiatives and Its Connection to City Marketing Strategies—The Case of Athens

Nicholas Karachalis

doi:10.3390/su13041652

Abstract

For many cities, abandoned or underused spaces pose a major challenge, but temporary use is being manifested as a tool that can offer solutions. So-called “meanwhile spaces” provide opportunities for city officials to create the conditions for the cultural economy to be supported while simultaneously meeting urban regeneration goals and supporting city marketing purposes. In European cities, such as Berlin, Ghent, Nantes, and Bremen, there are examples where “temporary urbanism” is being incorporated into mainstream policy and is forming part of the city’s identity and tourism promotion. Temporary use is discussed in the context of current challenges facing European cities (austerity crisis, unemployment, refugee crisis, lack of affordable housing or office space). In this paper, the focus is on the creative sector. More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked discussion on how temporary use can cover a community’s needs. In this contextual framework, the scope was to explore the conditions under which temporary use becomes an effective policy tool and discuss management issues and difficulties that may arise. A description and analysis of the particularities of initiatives that were implemented in Athens compared to the ones in other European cities are presented. This paper is partly based on the works of the Athens URBACT Refill project, which included an extended consultation process with local stakeholders. Further field research was conducted regarding how temporary use initiatives with a cultural focus have been managed and the way the relations between owners, managers, and users were formed. Feedback from users and stakeholders’ representatives is presented. The key findings refer to the evaluation of the approaches used in temporary use initiatives with a cultural focus, the future perspectives, and the difficulty with drawing early conclusions on the effectiveness of these initiatives and the impact on the reputation of the city. Finally, the discussion is linked with promoting Athens as a city that allows experimentation by citizens’ groups and cultural initiatives in the context of temporary interventions.

Highlights

Temporary use strategies as part of urban planning practices and local strategies are receiving increased attention, especially in the context of the discussion on the response to the socio-economic challenges many cities are facing worldwide
The emergence of social and solidarity economy initiatives is recognized as a key image of Athens and, to some extent, this development can be linked to temporary use
As in the case of Berlin in the 1990s, Athens could be entering its own “golden age of temporary use”: The municipality, the grassroot communities, and central government agencies have been involved in experiments using abandoned buildings

Summary

Introduction

Temporary use strategies as part of urban planning practices and local strategies are receiving increased attention, especially in the context of the discussion on the response to the socio-economic challenges many cities are facing worldwide. Grassroots movements and temporary use are part of this narrative, including spontaneous interventions organized in the city Under this contextual framework, the paper seeks to explore how local stakeholders (city officials, public bodies, communities) in Athens are responding to the need for a coherent and effective strategy for temporary use and what dilemmas arise during its planning and application. The paper seeks to explore how local stakeholders (city officials, public bodies, communities) in Athens are responding to the need for a coherent and effective strategy for temporary use and what dilemmas arise during its planning and application It draws on the way temporary use is determining the reputation of Athens, with reference to the official city marketing campaign and promotion material of Athens [36]. The discussion draws on conclusions from an extended study overview, participation in open discussions/consultation meetings, observations, and in-depth interviews from key informants

Temporary Use as a Placemaking Tool in European Cities

Experimenting with Temporary Use in Athens

Findings

Conclusions and Takeaways for Planning and Policy