differential spaces, power hierarchy and …...ago (brenner, 2000, p. 361). derelict areas when...

Differential Spaces, Power Hierarchy andCollaborative Planning: A Critique of theRole of Temporary Uses in Shaping andMaking Places

Lauren Andres

[Paper first received, May 2011; in final form, May 2012]

Abstract

Drawing upon collaborative planning theory and on the work of Lefebvre and deCerteau, this paper explores the multistage governance arrangements leading to theemployment of temporary uses as an instrument for regeneration in a context ofeconomic crisis. It contributes to a thorough understanding of the relations betweenthe power hierarchy and the strategy/tactics developed through a more or less inclu-sive collaborative process from place-shaping (weak planning) to place-making(masterplanning). By decrypting the different paths that can be taken by the colla-borative process, the paper demonstrates how temporary uses on differential spacesshape space from a use value point of view, influence and challenge the distributionof power and enable (temporary) occupants to acquire and sometimes sustain aposition in the place-making process.

1. Introduction

This paper critically examines the prolifera-tion of temporary use developments in dere-lict sites that have developed since the 1970sas a by-product of deindustrialisation andits associated urban and socioeconomictransformations. The use of such sites canbe defined as a set of practices with short-term return developed in a context of eco-nomic, urban or political disorder in a more

or less unplanned way. Their life-span variesfrom a couple of months to several years.While shorter-term uses are common,longer temporary uses are more unusualand relate to a blurred vision of redevelop-ment resulting from a set of deadlocks. Forexample, such uses include Lausanne’s Flondevelopment which had a range of artistic,cultural, leisure and commercial activities

Lauren Andres is in the School of Geography, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham,B15 2TT, UK. Email: [email protected].

Urban Studies at 5050(4) 759–775, March 2013

0042-0980 Print/1360-063X Online� 2012 Urban Studies Journal Limited

DOI: 10.1177/0042098012455719 at Biblioteca de Catalunya on October 15, 2014usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://usj.sagepub.com/

(Andres, 2008; Andres and Gresillon, 2011).Created in easily transformable formerwarehouses and garages, temporary useswere fostered by cheap rents and shortleases; the opportunity resulted from aseries of deadlocks in the planning systemleading to an alternative transformation ofthe district for approximately 10 years.Temporary cultural uses also flourished inMarseille during the 1980s and 1990s informer industrial buildings due to the severecrisis in the city’s economy and propertymarket (Andres, 2008, 2011). Such culturaldevelopments were facilitated by both anoversupply of abandoned buildings and byfinancial incentives offered by the munici-pality. In partnership with experienced art-ists, a cultural project known as La Frichewas developed. It progressively became awell-known flagship facility influencing thecultural landscape of Marseille and its urbanregeneration.

To date, interest in temporary uses hasbeen addressed through two main areas ofstudy: cultural spaces and squats (Grothand Corijn, 2005; Chatterton and Hollands,2003; Pruijt, 2003); and temporary eco-nomic and cultural activities in abandonedareas (Haydn and Temel, 2006; Oswalt,2005; Overmeyer, 2007; Urban Unlimited,2004). Only limited research (primarily inGermany) has questioned the potentialcontribution of temporary uses in a long-lasting process of urban regeneration as inLausanne or Marseille. Those that did(Urban Catalyst, 2003, 2007; Overmeyer,2007; BMVBS and BBR, 2008) explored thenature of temporary uses and their mechan-isms for establishment. They stressed thetechnical skills of temporary actors as wellas their self-initiative and creative spirit(Urban Catalyst, 2007 and Andres, 2011).However, the extent to which temporaryuses involve the specific distribution ofpower between sets of stakeholders within acollaborative process of transformation has

not been fully examined. Looking at suchtemporary uses is increasingly topical in acontext of austerity where former models ofregeneration and development are chal-lenged due to a changing real estate marketand economy. Besides being in-betweensolutions further to various deadlocks andcrisis, temporary uses can also stimulate theeconomy (i.e. giving free spaces to peoplein the hope that they can develop a profit-able business and thus expand and pay tax)or renew the urban environment.

This paper fills a gap in the literature byexploring the multistage governancearrangements that lead to the employmentof temporary uses as an instrument forregeneration. From a theoretical point ofview, it acknowledges the political, dialecticand complex nature of the planning processembedded in the problematic managementof actors with distinct powers and interestsand stresses the role of power relationshipsand conflicts in place-making (Healey,1997, 1998). Drawing upon collaborativeplanning theory (Healey, 1997, 1998) andon the work of Lefebvre (1991) and deCerteau (1984) on the political nature ofdifferential spaces and practices of everydaylife and its more contemporary interpreta-tions (see Round et al., 2008 and 2010),this paper contributes to the reinterpreta-tion of the institutional dynamics of urbanchange in diverse and conflict-ridden soci-eties. Reflecting on Brand and Gaffikin’sargument (2007, p. 283) that collaborativeplanning provides an ‘‘inclusive dialogicapproach to shaping social space’’ whilefeaturing contemporary issues including‘‘reduced certitudes and predictabilities .and . new modes of governance thatacknowledge the need to involve multiplestakeholders’’, this paper argues that tem-porary uses take place in singular and dif-ferential spaces (different from formalspaces) in a context of weak planning (asopposed to masterplanning) and that a

760 LAUREN ANDRES

at Biblioteca de Catalunya on October 15, 2014usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from


range of tactics and strategies are developedquestioning the power distribution along-side the multistage transformation and gov-ernance process.

This paper therefore questions the extentto which the relations between the powerhierarchy and the strategy/tactics developedin the temporary use of space shape a long-term collaborative process which can bemore or less inclusive. Furthermore, itdemonstrates how temporary uses impact-ing urban regeneration include a subtle shiftbetween a range of coping (or defensive, seeRound et al., 2008) space-shaping strategiesand tactics to a set of development-led(offensive, see Round et al., 2008) place-making strategies. This shift relies on thetransition of power relationships from acontext of crisis (weak planning) to a periodof stability (masterplanning). Whereascoping strategies and tactics are developedas a form of resistance to a context of dis-ruptions, offensive strategies are formalisedwith the purpose of redeveloping the sitewhile ensuring the legacy of temporary uses.The transformation of Flon and La Fricheare employed to support the discussion.Before exploring these examples, the papersets up the conceptual and theoreticalframework and concludes with a critical dis-cussion on the lessons raised by both casestudies and reflects on the theoretical con-tribution of the analysis.

The results presented in this paper arebased on empirical research from a fundedproject conducted in France andSwitzerland from 2004 and 2008 (Andres,2008) and regularly updated in the follow-ing three years through the participation inseminars, conferences and regular fieldtripsto both cities. This research included thecollection and the analysis of both second-ary and primary data in the form of docu-mentary reviews (a range of reportspublished by public bodies, academicpapers, laws and acts, planning guidance

and frameworks), semi-structured inter-views and participant observation. A totalof 51 interviews were conducted inMarseille and 44 in Lausanne between 2005and 2007; 10 additional interviews in eachcity were added in 2009/10 to update theresults. All interest-groups and users werecovered in the interviews, including currentand former policy-makers, planning offi-cers, cultural users, business tenants andresidents, representatives from publicbodies (for example, the DelegationRegionale des Affaires Culturelles inFrance), community groups, local journal-ists and academic experts.

2. Foundations of the Conceptualand Theoretical Framework

2.1 Urban Brownfields: Differential Spacesfor Temporary Practices

Healey argues that planning, as a governancepractice, aims to

address the difficulties created by the complex

co-locations of activities and their relations

and the impacts these co-locations generate

across space–time. It is a practice that is not

merely concerned with managing existing

relations but with imagining and opening up

future potentialities (Healey, 2007; cited in

Healey, 2009, p. 277).

Looking at temporary uses in periods ofchange is a means of imagining future trans-formation opportunities. Although tempo-rary uses can settle in a vast range of spaces,those influencing the regeneration agendaare commonly developed in derelict sites.These spaces provide different spatial reali-ties derived from complex urban changes.Temporary appropriations challenge theirtransformation by questioning the stake-holders’ co-location in the governance

TEMPORARY USES AND PLACE-MAKING 761



process. To stress the distinctiveness of thisenvironment, the concept of ‘‘differentialspace’’ (Lefebvre, 1991) is used.

Henri Lefebvre (1991) developed hisargument on the social and political natureof space in the context of social and eco-nomic changes (the 1960s and 1970s) whenthe ‘urban issue’ was at the core of the politi-cal agenda (Dikecx and Garnier, 2008). ForLefebvre, space is at the origin of and is lead-ing a transformation process. However,whereas space can be defined in terms of itsoperational and instrumental role, it alsoallows some leeway to generate emancipa-tive actions as a place of conflicts and as thecentral object of political struggle (Brenner,2000, p. 373). In this context of conflicts,appropriations are possible and challengethe operational, instrumental and controllednature of space (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 410).From a planning perspective, such conflictsmake more complex activities and stake-holders’ co-location as well as question thecollaborative governance process.

Developing the argument of conflict andcomplexity further, the concept of differen-tial space stresses the importance of space’sheterogeneity. Such spaces are opposed toan orderly vision of the city and relate tothe right to be different (Lefebvre, 1991, p.64). They sit within a focus on everyday lifepointing out the importance of spontane-ity, difference and disorder (Madanipour,1996). This position is concomitant withthat of de Certeau (1984, 1993), whosemain argument is to concentrate on every-day life, as opposed to an abstract visualisa-tion of the city. As noted by Dikecx andGarnier

requestioning the spatial dimension of poli-

cies and the political dimension of space . is

still topical to understand the new figures of

power on space in the context of a complex

contemporary urban environment (Dikecx and

Garnier, 2008, p. 14).

This period still witnesses

an even greater intensification of the contra-

dictory processes of globalization, fragmenta-

tion and reterritorialization to which

Lefebvre drew attention over two decades

ago (Brenner, 2000, p. 361).

Derelict areas when hosting temporary usescan be characterised as differential spaces(Ambrosino and Andres, 2008); they allowvarious appropriations as they are sub-mitted to a transformation trajectory, fromthe moment their initial activity has beeninterrupted. During this time-gap, thesedisconnected spaces are different and notordered by a planning strategy which itselflacks clarity. This period ends with a rede-velopment project questioning the future ofthese initiatives. Looking at these differen-tial spaces allows the questioning of thespatial dimension of everyday power rela-tionships, specifically between landowners,local authorities and temporary occupantsas well as the complex colocation of thesestakeholders and activities. It stresses thetensions in the more or less collaborativeproduction of space between users whoappropriated space and other actors, sup-posedly controlling the same space. Thesetensions take place during the transforma-tion trajectory of these derelict spaces froma period of weak planning to a stage ofmasterplanning.

2.2 Weak Planning, Masterplanning andtemporary uses

Temporary uses are encouraged by a contextof weak planning (Urban Catalyst, 2007) or a‘watching stage’ (Andres, 2011) which refersto a period during which the desired futurefor an area cannot be accomplished. Localauthorities and landowners, despite having anideal vision of redevelopment (particularlyfrom a financial perspective), cannot achieve

762 LAUREN ANDRES



it. Whatever the national planning frameworkis, it relates to the particular circumstances ofa neglected space for which the change of uses(through the adoption of a new plan) is notpossible due to a set of deadlocks: a weakproperty market (economic crisis or oversup-ply of derelict land), the financial non-viabilityof a redevelopment project (for various rea-sons including decontamination costs), strongdisagreements between stakeholders or plan-ning restrictions particularly towards land usemodification. It can be argued that weak plan-ning is a planning sub-system based on itstemporary status. It is defined by its complex,fluid, flexible and permissive character typicalof a context of crisis and disorder in the econ-omy, in the city and in the land use and devel-opment process. It is characterised by its lackof co-ordination, strategic guidelines, clearobjectives and control by any higher authority(Couch et al., 2005).

Weak planning is particularly fruitful forthe appropriations of differential spaces asthe boundaries between legal/formal andillegal/informal activities are blurred—as arethe distribution of powers between the dif-ferent stakeholders. While local authoritiesand market operators (landowners anddevelopers) are in a standby position, tem-porary occupants for a short period of timeare transferred the power and ability toshape the space. Such a temporary transferis acknowledged most of the time and isoften well thought of by decision-makers.Weak planning is therefore opposed tomasterplanning which relates to the processof designing and implementing a develop-ment vision for the site and beyond; itinvolves an entrepreneurial approach inwhich power in place-making (Healey,1998) has been reattributed to key decision-makers (particularly developers). The tran-sition from place-shaping to place-makingand its implications are indeed fosteringtensions.

Whereas top–down masterplanning relieson the ideas of permanence, stability, linear-ity and control and often has no means ofdeveloping non-commercially exploitableareas, more unplanned temporary uses canenable flexible, innovative and bottom–topapproaches which are not exclusively relatedto monetary values (Urban Catalyst, 2003).Temporary uses are connected to a set ofrestrictions and incentives. Restrictions referto deadlocks, whereas incentives includecheap rents, fewer constraints in term ofmaintenance, flexibility of uses and modu-larity of space (Drake, 2003), as well as dedi-cated funding and temporary leases. Hence,considering and supporting temporary usesis acknowledged as a tool to prevent vandal-ism and potentially revalorise land value(BMVBS and BBR, 2008); it can also beassumed that it may launch a process of cul-tural regeneration (Urban Catalyst, 2003;Andres, 2008).

The transition from weak planning tomasterplanning not only involves theformal shaping of a regeneration pro-gramme, but also the setting up of aformal collaborative process. Tensions andconflicts appear as power shifts from tem-porary place-shaping users to formalplace-making decision-makers. This pro-cess challenges the distribution of powersbetween various stakeholders. It raises theneed to recognise local knowledge by‘‘widening stakeholder involvement beyondtraditional power elites’’ (Healey, 1998, p.1531). This local knowledge is there in thehands of the temporary occupants.Obviously this shift questions how non-empowered actors manage to express theirviews and defend their ideas in a contextwhere flexibility and spontaneity are nolonger welcome. In this regard, the distinc-tion between strategies and tactics devel-oped by de Certeau (1984) providesanother dimension to the discussion.




2.3 Defensive and Offensive Strategies andTactics

Drawing on Giddens’ structuration theory,Healey (1997) argues that the iterative, dia-lectical and reflective nature of the colla-borative planning process involves thecreation of an arena where all voices cancome together. It allows changes while alsomaking it possible to ‘‘overcome the gravi-tational pull of existing powers’’ (Brand andGaffikin, 2007, p. 286). However, while thisnotes the importance of power relation-ships, the hierarchy of power in the uses oftemporary spaces is not fully explored, noris the nature of the actions they involve. DeCerteau’s argument (1984) on the differ-ence between tactics and strategies fillsthis gap.

Whereas strategies are developed within aprocess of calculation or manipulation ofpower relationships, tactics are ‘calculatedactions’ which ‘‘play on and with a terrainimposed on it and organized by the law of aforeign power’’ (de Certeau, 1984, p. 37). Inother words, ‘‘a tactic is determined by theabsence of power just as a strategy is orga-nized by the postulation of power’’ (deCerteau, 1984, p. 38). Tactics and strategiesdiffer from each other due to their scope andthe process by which they are formalised andimplemented. Strategies are related to deter-minism and regulation. They have an expli-cit aim in the production of space and therealisation of a set of objectives and of a spe-cific action plan. Tactics are much moreunco-ordinated; they have ‘‘no properlocus’’ and are not related to any generalstrategy. Tactics operate ‘‘in isolated actions,blow by blow’’; they ‘‘take advantage ofopportunities and depend on them’’ (deCerteau, 1984, p. 36). The ideas of adaptabil-ity and flexibility are central here as one ofthe key features of tactics is to be ‘‘mobile’’(p. 36). Additionally, whereas a strategy doesnot need to demonstrate its use and veracity,

a tactic needs to prove its efficiency overtime.

Various researchers have used the workof de Certeau to question strategies andtactics particularly in relation to the analy-sis of everyday informal practices andpower relationships. Round et al. (2008and 2010), drawing on the work of Allen(2004) have noticed that people can besimultaneously operating a range of tacticsand strategies. Discussing the informaleconomy in Ukraine and particularly thewide range of tactics developed in responseto the country’s economic marginalisationsince the collapse of the Soviet Union,Round et al. demonstrated that two formsof strategy can be noted

defensive strategies employed to ensure that

tactics can be maintained and offensive strate-

gies which aim to expand the control of eco-

nomic spaces (Round et al., 2008, p. 175).

Following de Certeau’s arguments, thispaper argues that strategies are a synonymfor conformity, rationality and interven-tionism. By producing a vision with a set ofobjectives for a space, it creates an actionplan for space transformation. Strategiesare put forward by stakeholders who have alandownership power and a decision-making power on the development processand on place-making. On the other hand,tactics are much more spontaneous andnon-determinist (with an absence of orfuzzy locus). They are based on the re-useand on the non-possession of space whoseregulation and control is ensured by otherstakeholders. Tactics do not imply a long-term vision as they are based on evolvingand opportunist practices. They are intrin-sically temporary, mobile and flexible. Theyneed to demonstrate their validity and theiruse to be acknowledged as such. However,in a similar fashion to Round et al.’s (2008)findings, this paper considers that these

764 LAUREN ANDRES



tactics can evolve towards strategies ifpower is given with regard to the futureand long-term development of the space.

Strategies and tactics are not automati-cally attributed to the two main sides of thetransformation process: decision-makersversus temporary occupants. The complexinteraction between these actors and theirimpact in shaping and reshaping spaces arenoticeable in the iterative characteristic ofcollaborative planning. Strategies and tacticsperformed as such evolve and can be devel-oped by the same actors in the arenas thatare consequently constructed. This distinc-tion can be explored further in a context oftransition between weak planning and mas-terplanning. It can be argued that the contextof weak planning favours defensive strategiesand tactics. These coping practices are ques-tioned during a transition process; they leadto further offensive strategies and, in some

cases, to defensive tactics. Such power rela-tionships are concomitant to the interactionsbetween the actors and the political, social,economic and urban context. Drawing onthis discussion, Figure 1 summarises the con-ceptual framework used to discuss the trans-formation of temporary uses.

3. The Transformation of Flon:From Marginalisation toGentrification

Flon is a derelict industrial district in thecity centre of Lausanne located 150 metresfrom the historical core. This private prop-erty of 5.5 hectares was initially erected as astorage yard in the 19th century. It startedto be underused in the 1950s (Racine, 1999;Andres, 2008, 2010) before finally beingredeveloped during the 2000s. Table 1

WEAK PLANNING &

PLACE-SHAPING

(Incentives,

Restrictions &

Deadlocks)

MASTERPLANNING

& PLACE-MAKING

(Tools &

Instruments)

Defensive

Tactics

Defensive

Strategies

Defensive

Tactics

Offensive

Strategies

(& Tactics)

More or less inclusive collaborative process

Transition and redistribution of power

Demonstration of validity &

shared powers

No distribution of power(s)

Local knowledge and power

distribution

Figure 1. The conceptual framework for the trajectory of transformation of temporary useson differential spaces.

Table 1. Key dates in the transformation of Flon

1950 Decline of industrial activities1986 First masterplan rejected by local referendum1993 Second masterplan not examined by the council board1999 Plan partiel d’affectation (current masterplan) approved1999–2004 Flon Vision 1 (first stage of the development strategy)2004 Flon Vision 2 (second stage of the development strategy)




points out the key dates of its transforma-tion. Following the rejection of a first mas-terplan in 1986 (Ville de Lausanne, 1986)in a local referendum, the city council, inconsultation with the owner, launched anarchitectural competition leading to a newmasterplan (Ville de Lausanne, 1993). Thistime the proposal was not supported by theowner or the tenants. In order to avoid anyfurther popular rejection, the municipalitydecided to reject the plan. Six more yearspassed before the current project of redeve-lopment began.

3.1 Planning Deadlocks, Conflicts of Powerand Opportunities for Temporary Uses

Flon denotes an unusual situation of weakplanning which existed until 1999 and istypical of Lefevre’s space of political strug-gle. Despite a constant demand for develop-able land, its redevelopment was on hold foralmost 50 years because of on-going plan-ning disputes between the private owner(LO Holding) and the city council. The dis-trict was classified as an industrial area; achange of land use into a mixed-use neigh-bourhood required a consensual agreementformalised in a masterplan ( known as aplan partiel d’affectation). Until the end ofthe 1990s, opposing visions of the economicoutcomes of the development and its generaldesign between LO, the municipality andthe tenants/civil society1 blocked any formalredevelopment (Racine, 1999; Andres, 2008;Ville de Lausanne, 1999). The respectivepowers of landownership and decision-making were cancelled out.

In this context, temporary activities wereconsidered by the landowner as an interimsolution to draw short-term incomes. Theseactivities significantly challenged the opera-tional, instrumental and controlled nature(Lefebvre, 1991) of the district which wassignificantly different from any other partsof the city. Its differential status as defined

by Lefebvre (1991) was perceived as unor-dered and provocatively ‘‘non-Swiss’’2 bythe tenants. At that time, incentives for tem-porary uses were economic (cheap rent andfavourable central location) and legal (flex-ible leases with no restrictions towardschanges made to warehouses). Interviewshave demonstrated that plans towards thepotential outcomes of these uses were notformalised by LO Holding when authoris-ing these leases. This tactic was aimed exclu-sively at securing incomes. A wide range oftemporary tenants settled (clothing andshoe shops, bars, nightclubs, art galleries).In this weak planning context, deprived ofany entrepreneurial approach or power inplace-making (Healey, 1998), the owner didnot exercise any control or restrictions onthe appropriations. As described by one ofthese temporary tenants

The landowner was OK to rent some units at

very interesting prices as long as people

agreed to do up their spaces (installing heat-

ing .). We had the authorisation to paint

the facxades, to organise barbecues.3

The city council on the other hand had nopower to interfere in the development ofthese temporary uses. In this environment,favouring what de Certeau (1984) refers toas a process of taking advantage of oppor-tunities, temporary occupants quicklydeveloped a set of tactics leading to organiccommunity-led regeneration. As the nega-tive image of the site shifted towards amore positive representation of Flon, thetemporary tenants driven by their feeling ofbeing part of an innovative and alternativeexperiment, started to build a ‘village in thecity’ named the ‘‘Flon-Flon’’. Local events(for example, an open cinema; see Figure 2)were organised and a set of communica-tion tools were used to promote Flon (forexample, the creation of a local newspa-per). The attraction of the district grew.

766 LAUREN ANDRES



It became well-known for its alternativecharacter as the ‘little Soho of Lausanne’(Peclet, 1994).

3.2 Dilemmas of Individual Tactics versus aConsensual Regeneration Strategy

The success of temporary uses in rebrand-ing the area was a catalyst for transition. In1998, LO Holding and the city councilstarted to acknowledge the outcomes oftemporary uses and made a point of endingthe area’s marginalisation (with its associ-ated illegal activities, notably drug dealingand drug use). LO Holding shifted itsvision from a tactic with financial out-comes to an offensive strategy of redevelop-ment collaboratively discussed with themunicipality. The outcome of its ‘postula-tion of power’ (de Certeau, 1984) and regu-lated vision was a development plan (PPA)(Ville de Lausanne, 1999) approved in1999. The municipality and the landowneragreed to take benefit of the temporaryuses’ outcomes to foster a long-term profit-able regeneration (Groupe LO, 1998; Villede Lausanne, 1999). In contrast to previous

periods, there were no leadership conflictsand power was more clearly distributed.The city council approved the generaldevelopment features and provided thelandowner with leeway to fulfil their eco-nomic objectives: ‘‘the credo was not to bedirective’’.4 This satisfied LO as the PPAwas ‘‘a good plan with a very good flexibil-ity of development’’.5

This arrangement nevertheless involvedmanaging the legacy of temporary uses,particularly the trendy image of the district,while securing civil consent. The planaimed to respect ‘‘the double vocation ofthe district: a perfectly central area and aslightly unusual space with a particularcache’’ (Groupe LO, 1998, p. 2). A balancebetween the little Soho and the new Flonwas sought out to transform the area as aplace for cultural, creative leisure andtrendy activities. With this purpose, thestrategy of the owner followed a very con-trolled yet collaborative process includingcollective and individual meetings aimed tomake voices heard whilst limiting conflicts.‘‘We played the card of the community andthe marginalisation of the nasty ones and

Figure 2. The open cinema.




this worked’’.6 Apparently collaborative,the process was supposed to widen whatHealey (1998) describes as an arena involv-ing more actors than traditional powerelites. The negotiation was actually basedon ‘‘respect and a bit of pressure if needed.The aim of the struggle was to reach conci-liation’’.7 Through this, the municipality/LO Holding coalition prevented tenantsfrom defeating their scheme as the plan, onpaper, appeared as ‘‘respectful of the Flon-Flon while looking at the future’’.8

However, once the plan was approved,tenants started to face pressures due to theimplementation of the ‘‘Flon Vision 1 and2’’ (Groupe LO, 2005) and the progressiveeconomic gentrification of the district. Tokeep their voices heard, the remainingtenants9 used their internal and externalnetworks, as well as substantial press cov-erage to pursue the promotion of Flon andconsequently their activity. They also usedlegal pressures (slowing down the develop-ment process) to negotiate with the land-lord and defend their individual intereststhrough individual defensive copingtactics.

A shift from collective offensive tacticsrelying on organic, community-led regen-eration to individual and ad hoc defensivetactics therefore occurred. Yet these tacticsfailed to shift into strategies. Temporaryoccupants failed to be formally empoweredas the development locus evolved from onewhich preserved the alternative image toone which fostered a creative and high-specdistrict. Typically, drawing on Roundet al.’s (2008) conclusions, their offensivestrategy aimed at expanding the control ofthis highly profitable economic space. Asexplained by LO Holding

We collected enough benefits from the tradi-

tional Flon that we can still sell it with this

identity which is now more and more decla-

matory and less a reality.10

This strategic redistribution and displace-ment of tenants and the area’s gentrifica-tion are unsurprisingly criticised, but areaccepted by former temporary tenants

I am disappointed about the district. It is

becoming a sterilised and a has-been district.

However, from a commercial point of view, I

have no regret.11

4. La Friche: Fuzzy Boundaries,Empowerment and CulturalRegeneration

Marseille’s La Friche is a cultural spacelocated in a former tobacco factory whoseactivity ceased in 1990. Located in anindustrial district, the 8-hectare factory isdivided into three units. Unit 3 (La Friche)includes some warehouses, parking and aset of buildings. La Friche’s transformationresulted from an initial temporary re-use in1991 which was quickly sustained by theinclusion of the factory in the 313-hectareregeneration project Euromediterrannee. Itprogressively evolved within a succession ofdevelopment strategies as a key culturalfacility for Marseille (see Table 2). UnlikeFlon, La Friche is not a district as such andits transformation evolved more quicklytowards masterplanning through a morecollaborative process.

4.1 Crisis, Brownfields and TemporaryUses

During the early 1990s, Marseille wasunable to cope with the economic, socialand urban impacts of its industrial declineleading to a rise in unemployment, a loss ofpopulation and a deterioration of its image(Peraldi and Samson, 2005; Donzel, 1998).Likewise, the real estate market was unableto respond to the oversupply of brownfieldsites. Such a weak planning context was

768 LAUREN ANDRES



favourable for the development of tempo-rary uses on differential spaces. However,unlike other shrinking cities such asManchester, Liverpool and Berlin (Oswalt,2005; Couch et al., 2005), the city councilplayed an active role in supporting tempo-rary uses in order to limit the impacts ofdereliction (Peraldi and Samson, 2005;Andres, 2008). Unlike those in Flon, thesespaces were not central objects of politicalstruggle as described by Brenner, but pro-vided an alternative to what Lefebvre(1991) describes as an orderly vision of thecity. Through this defensive and small-areastrategy, incentives were a freedom tochoose the most appropriate differentialspaces and indeed a political and financialsupport. A set of restrictions were alsoapplied particularly with regard to site reg-ulations and constraints (for example, con-tamination) as well as landownership.

In 1991, the site offered a favourableenvironment for the development of tem-porary uses. The landowner strategicallyconsidered temporary leases as a cheap wayto guard the area and speculate about itspossible purchase by the city council bypostponing his entrepreneurial approach.Supported by the municipality and theowner, who both then delegated theirpower of place-shaping, temporary culturaloccupants created the association known asSysteme Friche Theatre (SFT). From 1992,they developed a set of offensive tacticswhich soon became a formal strategy builton the idea of ‘‘alternative economic cul-ture’’.12 From this period, SFT

demonstrated its ‘postulation of power’ (deCerteau, 1984) in place-shaping and place-making. Its key objective was to transformthe temporary experiment into a sustain-able project and then to pursue its growthand recognition. In less than three years, LaFriche gained a local, national and interna-tional visibility (Mission de PrefigurationEuromediterranee, 1995; Ville de Marseille,1997). The shift from tactic to strategy wasoperationalised through the use of local,national and international networks, as wellas key well-known personalities (for exam-ple, the architect Jean Nouvel became presi-dent of La Friche from 1995 to 2002) whichsustained the place-shaping power delega-tion (Andres, 2011).

4.2 La Friche: a Flagship Project Sustainedthrough a Long-term Collaborative Process

The transition from place-shaping to place-making was concomitant with the integra-tion of La Friche in Euromediterranee. Inresponse to this, SFT developed a wide strat-egy of development: ‘‘a cultural project foran urban project’’ (SFT, 1996). However,this strategy essentially tackled the develop-ment of the cultural project, rather than ofthe area as a whole. The transition towardsmasterplanning involved a progressivepower redistribution between the munici-pality, Euromediterranee and the landowner(until the sale of the unit in 1998). WhereasSFT remained a key interlocutor, the marketoperators regained their role in redevelop-ing the two other units of the factory with

Table 2. Key dates in the transformation of La Friche

1990 Closure of the tobacco factory1991 Beginning of the temporary project in the factory1995 Inclusion of La Friche in Euromediterranee1998 Purchase of the factory by the city council2002 First masterplan2007 La Friche becomes a co-operative enterprise (Societe Cooperative d’Interet Collectif; SCIC)




new facilities dedicated to cultural and crea-tive industries. The creation of this newarena typically contributed to what Brandand Gaffikin (2007) refer to as an overcom-ing process of gravitational pulling powersin a collaborative perspective.

Such a sustained collaborative processbased on a shared distribution of powerbetween stakeholders with distinct objec-tives is unique. It rests on the use of LaFriche as a flagship project for Marseille aswell as the success of the project in being aleading ‘cultural brownfield’ in France andin Europe (Andres and Gresillon, 2011).However, the collaborative process has notbeen straightforward and SFT was forcedconstantly to demonstrate the outcome oftheir project and to repostulate their powerin place-making. This was made through aset of initiatives (first cyber cafe, for exam-ple) and various cultural events and localpartnerships (for example, with schools)(Andres, 2011). La Friche’s voice was there-fore heard widely in the arena of culturaland urban development (Ville de Marseille,1999, 2001). The juxtaposition of theseactions in addition to the project’s growingvisibility was finally acknowledged by themunicipality: ‘‘La Friche has produced anoverall project that is not only a bohemianartistic project: it contributed to the urbanand economic renaissance of the city’’.13 Theunit was bought in 1998 by the city council.Whilst power in place-making becameshared between the city council and SFT, thenature and components of the collaborationand of the overall strategy of redevelopmentwere not. The first step was the adoption ofa local masterplan (l’Air de ne pas y toucher,Bouchain, Systeme Friche Theatre, 2002,2005) aimed at preserving the unique char-acter of La Friche (literally meaning inFrench ‘brownfield’). The second consistedof the transformation of the association SFTinto a co-operative enterprise in 2007. A 40-year lease was signed with the municipality

who thereby transferred all powers to theex-temporary occupants (Ville de Marseille,2007a, 2007b, 2008).

This evolution was the final outcome inthe recognition of the value of the projectand its utility for the city council. ‘‘Itensures a sustainable development to theproject with more reliable legal guarranteesand a viable economic functioning’’.14

Furthermore

Even if the city council is still involved in the

project, it gives much more opportunities to

La Friche to access to further funding oppor-

tunities and be more free to finance its proj-

ect of development.15

On the other hand, the city as a whole con-tinues to benefit from the recognition of LaFriche which, for example, is one of the keycultural facilities of Marseille Provence 2013European Capital of Culture. It is ‘‘a hub ofcreativity representing an urban communitywhilst still maintaining its status as a culturalincubator’’ (Marseille Provence 2013, 2008).Therefore, despite the fact that this (ini-tially) temporary experience has had feweffects on the local redevelopment of the dis-trict, it has highly impacted the cultural andurban development of Marseille through along collaborative (Healey, 1998) and offen-sive (Round et al., 1998) process of sharedpower and strategies from place-shaping toplace-making.

5. Discussion and Conclusion

The transformations of Flon and La Fricheare typical of two distinct trajectories ofregeneration that can overall be consideredas successful, even if not without theirdownsides. In both cases, temporary useshave been a project-proof tool (UrbanCatalyst, 2007) to develop a strategy of eco-nomic and cultural development. However,

770 LAUREN ANDRES



although criticised for its economic gentri-fication, the benefits of Flon regenerationon the overall city centre are noticeable.These outcomes are far less explicit for LaFriche. The cultural regeneration even cre-ated a stronger division between the formerfactory and the industrial district (Andres,2011; Bertoncello, 2006). However, the roleof La Friche in the cultural development ofMarseille has been significant.

Indeed, the legacy of temporary uses andthe footprint of the differential spaces inboth cities have been singularly differentdue to a set of factors. First, the differentlocalisation (central versus peri-central)and the nature of the ownership (privateversus public) have of course impacted thetrajectory taken by both cities. Flon has fol-lowed a common path of economic gentri-fication16 typical of central and upper-middle-class areas with a bohemian charac-ter and initially low-rent properties (seeHackworth and Smith, 2001; Lees, 2000and 2003; Ley, 1996 and 2003; Smith, 2002;Wyly and Hammel, 2001; Cameron andCoaffee, 2005). It is exemplary of the thirdwave of gentrification

that pioneers a comprehensive class-inflected

urban re-make . including recreation, con-

sumption, production and pleasure as well as

residence (Smith, 2002, p. 443).

In comparison, the transformation of LaFriche has generated an increasing gapbetween the former factory highly subsi-dised by public/private funding and theworking-class district left outside urbanpolicy funding until 1999 (AGAM, 2003).Gentrification, although not impossible,will take much more time (Bertoncello,2006; Andres, 2011).

Secondly, the distribution and balance ofpower in the shift from place-shaping toplace-making in Marseille and the way SFT

has been able to develop and implement adevelopment strategy (as opposed to a tacticof organic-led regeneration) has impactedthe nature of the collaborative masterplan-ning process. Both differential spaces havebeen spaces of contrasting frictions andconflicts: very limited in Marseille yet over-whelming in Lausanne. In both spaces,power distribution was channelled by asmall number of empowered stakeholdersin a strategically constructed but collabora-tive process. La Friche’s voice and its localknowledge have rapidly been acknowledgedas an asset leading to a progressive transferof place-making power. In Flon, there havenever been any intentions to empowertenants. On the contrary, the strategy ofattracting new tenants (such as La Fnac)was a way to build a counter-group of non-conflictual tenants. Referring back to deCerteau’s theory (1984), the transforma-tions in both La Friche and Flon have beenguided by the calculation and manipulationof power relationships. Whereas calculationhas been central in Marseille, manipulationand control have been crucial in Lausanne.

The paper therefore brought anothertheoretical framework to the analysis of theprocess of empowerment and the explana-tion of the way power is used and exploitedby stakeholders in different public policyarenas; as such this is not so innovative asdeveloping new frameworks has been ‘‘a keyand common aspect of the debate of partic-ipation and collaboration in planning’’(Bailey, 2010, p. 317). However, much ofthe previous work on partnership, empow-erment and participation in planning (seefor example, Atkinson, 1999; Brownill andCarpenter, 2007; Bailey, 2010) has focusedon the end-point of the collaborative pro-cess; it has questioned public participationand participatory democracy once a matterwas already set up in the agenda of publicpolicies. By looking at temporary uses and




arguing that the weak planning contextinterferes in the transformation of the dif-ferential spaces by: starting to shape thespace particularly from a use value point ofview; influencing and challenging the distri-bution of power; and, enabling (temporary)occupants to acquire and sometimes sustaina position in the place-making process, thepaper has informed the different paths thatcan be taken by the collaborative process.

The evolution of La Friche denotes a posi-tion of inclusivity (Ansell and Gash, 2007;Andres and Chapain, 2012) towards the formertemporary occupants and a co-construction ofthe cultural regeneration project based on thelocal knowledge of these actors and their abilityto demonstrate the relevancy of their place-shaping actions and place-making strategy(and be empowered as such in both cases).The transformation of Flon, on the otherhand, arises from the common use of tem-porary activities in regeneration and gentri-fication within a far less collaborativeprocess. Tenants’ voices were heard but notlistened to and they were barely empoweredwithin the process except in the shortperiod at the beginning when they catalysedthe change and had the freedom to use andshape the district and warehouses to theirown ends.

The inputs of the everyday life theoryand the social and political nature of spacetherefore bring to the collaborative theoryinsights to grasp the complexity of theactors’ hierarchy and power distributionwhen evolving in a context of non-conformity and flexibility. It informs theparticipatory planning debate, but throughthe analysis of end-users who have alreadybeen active in shaping the transformationof such differential spaces from the begin-ning of their transformation trajectory.Bridging these theories while looking attemporary uses enriches the everyday anal-ysis of how, in the current economic con-text, ideas for setting-up ‘pop up’ or

‘meanwhile’17 projects and activities (suchas temporary shops and cafes in Britishshopping malls and high streets) are oppor-tunities worth exploring. Such initiativestypically point out how the legacy of tem-porary uses has been acknowledged whendefensive tactics shift to offensive strategiesonce the cultural capital of these tactics hasbeen noted and these ideas have been usedas a transformative catalyst.

Notes

1. Switzerland is a direct democracy. Plan pro-posals can be submitted to local referendato secure and validate civil consent. In addi-tion, citizens under certain circumstancescan require a referendum.

2. Interview, March 2006, with a tenant whosettled in the district in 1989.

3. Interview, January 2006, with a tenant of aunit since 1990.

4. Interview, February 2007, with the formerdeputy mayor in charge of planning.

5. Interview, June 2007, with LO projectdirector.

6. Interview, July 2007, with LO communica-tion consultant.

7. See note 6.8. Interview, January 2007, with a tenant set-

tled in Flon since 1989. Please note thatsuch a view was shared by the majority ofinterviewees.

9. A certain number of small businesses leftFlon either displaced by the new develop-ments or unable to face the rent increase.In this regard LO strategically negotiatedwith the most visible and high-profiletenants in order to maintain them and pre-serve accordingly the ‘alternative’ image ofthe site. However, simultaneously, LOattracted a set of non-independent tenants(for example, La Fnac and Migros).

10. Interview, June 2007, with the LO commu-nication consultant.

11. Interview, July 2008, with tenant settled inFlon since 1990.

12. Interview, September 2007, with the formerdirector of SFT/La Friche.

772 LAUREN ANDRES



13. Interview, May 2009, with the formerdeputy mayor in charge of cultural policy.

14. Interview, April 2009, with a member ofSFT involved in the process of creating theSCIC.

15. Interview, May 2009, with a planning offi-cer (city council).

16. There are no residents except for a coupleof lofts included in one of the latestdevelopments.

17. See: http://www.meanwhile.org.uk/.

Funding

Part of this research was funded through a PhDStudentship offered by the French Ministry ofResearch.

References

AGAM (2003) Grand projet de ville: pole deprojet la Belle de Mai: dossier technique pourla reunion du 2 juin sur la synthese des rencon-tres thematiques. Marseille.

Allen, J. (2004) The whereabouts of power: poli-tics, government and space, GeografiskaAnnaler B, 86, pp. 17–30.

Allen, J. (2006) Ambient power: Berlin’s Potsda-mer Platz and the seductive logic of publicspaces, Urban Studies, 43, pp. 441–455.

Ambrosino, C. and Andres, L. (2008) Friches enville: du temps de veille aux politiques del’espace: acteurs informels, planification etmutabilite urbaine dans le Quartier Berriat aGrenoble, Espaces et Societe, 134, pp. 37–51.

Ansell, C. and Gash, A. (2007) Collaborativegovernance in theory and practice, Journal ofPublic Administration Research and Theory,18, pp. 543–571.

Andres, L. (2008) La Ville Mutable. Mutabilite etReferentiels Urbains: Les Cas de Bouchayer-Viallet, de la Belle de Mai et du Flon. Phdthesis, Universite Pierre Mendes France,Grenoble.

Andres, L. (2011) Alternative initiatives, culturalintermediaries and urban regeneration: thecase of la Friche (Marseille), European Plan-ning Studies, 19(5), pp. 795–811.

Andres, L. and Chapain, C. (2012) The integra-tion of cultural and creative industries intolocal and regional development strategies in

Birmingham and Marseille: towards a moreinclusive governance?, Regional Studies,DOI:10.1080/00343404.2011.644531.

Andres, L. and Gresillon, B. (2011) Culturalbrownfields in European cities: a new main-stream object for cultural and urban policies,The International Journal of Cultural Policy,DOI:10.1080/10286632.2011.625416.

Atkinson, R. (1999) Discourses of partnership andempowerment in contemporary British urbanregeneration, Urban Studies, 26, pp. 59–72.

Bailey, N. (2010) Understanding communityempowerment in urban regeneration andplanning in England: putting policy andpractice in context, Planning Practice andResearch, 25(3), pp. 317–332.

Bertoncello, B. (2006) La Friche de la Belle deMai a Marseille: une vitrine dans un quartierpopulaire, Patrimoine de l’Industrie, 2, pp.59–68.

BMVBS (Bundesministerium fur Verkehr, Bauund Stadtentwicklung) and BBR (Bundesamtfur Bauwesen und Raumordnung) (2008) Theimpact of temporary use of land and buildingson sustainable urban development. Werkstatt,Bonn.

Brand, R. and Gaffikin, F. (2007) Collaborativeplanning in an uncollaborative world, Plan-ning Theory, 6, pp. 282–313.

Brenner, N. (2000) The urban question as a scalequestion: reflections on Henri Lefebvre,urban theory and the politics of scale, Interna-tional Journal of Urban and Regional Research,24(2), pp. 361–372.

Brownill, S. and Carpenter, J. (2007) Increasingparticipation in planning: emergent experi-ences of the reformed planning system in Eng-land, Planning Practice and Research, 22(4),pp. 619–634.

Cameron, S. and Coaffee, J. (2005) Art, gentrifi-cation and regeneration: from artist as pio-neer to public arts, European Journal ofHousing Policy, 5(1), pp. 39–58.

Certeau, M. de (1984) The Practice of EverydayLife, transl. by S. Rendall. Berkeley, CA: Uni-versity of California Press.

Certeau, M. de (1993) Walking in the city, in: S.During (Ed.) The Cultural Studies Reader, pp.151-160. London: Routledge.

Chatterton, P. and Hollands, R. (2003) UrbanNightscapes: Youth Cultures, Pleasure Spacesand Corporate Power. London: Routledge.




Couch, C., Karecha, J., Nuissl, H. and Rink, D.(2005) Decline and sprawl: an evolving typeof urban development observed in Liverpooland Leipzig, European Planning Studies,13(1), pp. 117–136.

Dikecx, M. and Garnier, J. P. (2008) Editorial,Espaces et Societe, 134, pp. 14–18.

Donzel, A. (1998) Marseille: l’Experience de laCite. Paris: Anthropos.

Drake, G. (2003) This place gives me space: placeand creativity in the creative industries, Geo-forum, 34, pp. 511–524.

Groth, J. and Corijn, E. (2005) Reclaimingurbanity: indeterminate spaces, informalactors and urban agenda setting, Urban Stud-ies, 42(3), pp. 503–526.

Groupe, LO (1998) l’avenir du Flon. Groupe LoHolding, Lausanne

Groupe, LO (2005) Le Flon multiplie la vie.Groupe Lo Holding, Lausanne.

Hackworth, J. and Smith, N. (2001) The chang-ing state of gentrification, Tijdschrift voorEconomische en Sociale Geografie, 92, pp.464–477.

Haydn, F. and Temel, R. (2006) TemporaryUrban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of the CitySpaces. Basel: Birkhauser.

Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shap-ing Places in Fragmented Societies. London:Macmillan.

Healey, P. (1998) Building institutional capacitythrough collaborative approaches to urbanplanning, Environmental Planning A, 30, pp.1531–1546.

Healey, P. (2007) Urban Complexity and SpatialStrategies: Towards a Relational Planning forour Times. London: Routledge.

Healey, P. (2009) The pragmatic tradition inplanning thought, Journal of Planning Educa-tion and Research, 28, pp. 277–292.

Lees, L. (2000) A reappraisal of gentrification:towards a ‘geography of gentrification’, Prog-ress in Human Geography, 24, pp. 389–408.

Lees, L. (2003) Super-gentrification; the case ofBrooklyn Height, New York City, Urban Stud-ies, 40(12), pp. 2487–2510.

Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space.Oxford: Blackwell.

Ley, D. (1996) The New Middle Classes and theRemaking of the Central City. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Ley, D. (2003) Artists, aestheticisation and thefield of gentrification, Urban Studies, 40(12),pp. 2527–2544.

Lloyd, R. (2005) Neo-Bohemia: Art and Commercein the Postindustrial City. London: Routledge.

Madanipour, A. (1996) Urban design and dilem-mas of space, Environment and Planning D,14(3), pp. 331–355.

Marseille Provence 2013 (2008) European Capitalof Culture: application form. Marseille Prov-ence 2013, Marseille.

Mission de Prefiguration Euromediterranee(1995) Synthese au 30/06/1995. Marseille.

Oswalt, P. (2005) Shrinking Cities. Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz.

Overmeyer, K. (Ed.) (2007) Urban Pioneers:Temporary Use and Urban Development inBerlin. Berlin: Jovis.

Peclet, J. C. (1990) Une place pour Lausanne, Flon90, 24 heures.

Peclet, J.-C. (1994) Lausanne, le Flon: une vic-toire a courte vue, L’hebdo, 15 September.

Peraldi, M. and Samson, N. (2005) GouvernerMarseille: Enquete sur les Mondes PolitiquesMarseillais. Paris: La Decouverte.

Pruijt, H. (2003) Is the institutionalization ofurban movements inevitable? A comparisonof the opportunities for sustained squattingin New York City and Amsterdam, Interna-tional Journal of Urban and Regional Research,27(1), pp. 133–157.

Racine, J. B. (1999) Lausanne entre flux et lieux,vous avez dit ‘moyenne’?, in: N. Commerconand P. George (Eds) Villes en Transition, pp.147–186. Paris: Anthropos.

Round, J., Williams, C. and Rodgers, P. (2008)Everyday tactics and spaces of power: therole of informal economies in post-SovietUkraine, Social & Cultural Geography, 9(2),pp. 171–185.

Round, J., Rodgers, P. and Williams, C. (2010)The role of domestic food production ineveryday life in post-Soviet Ukraine, Annalsof the Association of American Geographers,100(5), pp. 1–15.

SFT (Systeme Friche Theatre) (1996) Friche laBelle de Mai: un Projet Culturel pour un ProjetUrbain. La Friche, Marseille.

Smith, N. (2002) New globalism, new urbanism:gentrification as global urban strategy, Anti-pode, 34, pp. 427–450.

774 LAUREN ANDRES



TAUP, Bouchain, P. and Systeme Friche Theatre(2002) L’air de ne pas y toucher: Assistance amaıtrise d’ouvrage aupres de la Ville de Mar-seille. La Friche, Marseille.

TAUP, Bouchain, P. and Systeme FricheTheatre (2005) L’air de ne pas y toucher:Modification architecturale et urbaine de l’ilot3 de la Friche de la belle de Mai. La Friche,Marseille.

Urban Catalyst (2003) Strategies for temporaryuses: potential for development of urban resi-dual areas in European metropolises. StudioUrban Catalyst, Berlin.

Urban Catalyst (2007) Patterns of the unplanned,in: K. Franck and Q. Stevens (Eds) LooseSpace: Possibility and Diversity in Urban Life,pp. 271–288. London: Routledge.

Urban Unlimited (2004) The shadow city. UrbanUnlimited, Rotterdam.

Ville de Lausanne (1986) Plan d’extension au lieudit Gare du Flon. Lausanne.

Ville de Lausanne (1993) Plan partiel d’affectationau lieu dit ‘Gare du Flon’. Lausanne.

Ville de Lausanne (1999) Plan partiel d’affectation‘plate-forme du Flon’. Lausanne.

Ville de Marseille (1997) Marseille, la culture aucœur: une ambition municipale. DirectionGenerale des Affaires Culturelles, Marseille.

Ville de Marseille (1999) Ilot 2, Site SEITA: poleaudiovisuel multimedia de la Belle de Mai: dossiertechnique simplifie. Ville de Marseille, Marseille.

Ville de Marseille (2001) Marseille 2002–2020: laculture au cœur du debat: schema culturel de laculture. Direction Generale des Affaires Cul-turelles, Marseille.

Ville de Marseille (2007a) Extrait des Registresdes Deliberations du Conseil Municipal no. 07/0417/cess: seance du 19 mars 2007. Marseille.

Ville de Marseille (2007b) Extrait des Registresdes Deliberations du Conseil Municipal no. 07/0843/cess: seance du 16 juillet 2007. Marseille.

Ville de Marseille (2008) Extrait des Registres desDeliberations du Conseil Municipal no. 08/0211/ehcv: seance du 1 fevrier 2008. Marseille.

Wyly, E. and Hammel, D. (2001) Gentrification,housing policy, and the new context of urbanredevelopment, Critical Perspectives on UrbanRedevelopment, 6, pp. 211–276.

Zukin, S. (1988) Loft Living: Culture and Capitalin Urban Change. London: Radius.




http://usj.sagepub.com/Urban Studies

http://usj.sagepub.com/content/50/4/759The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0042098012455719

2013 50: 759 originally published online 13 August 2012Urban StudLauren Andres

Role of Temporary Uses in Shaping and Making PlacesDifferential Spaces, Power Hierarchy and Collaborative Planning: A Critique of the

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Urban Studies Journal Foundation

can be found at:Urban StudiesAdditional services and information for

http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://usj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Aug 13, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Feb 13, 2013Version of Record >>

at Biblioteca de Catalunya on October 15, 2014usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Biblioteca de Catalunya on October 15, 2014usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from


http://usj.sagepub.com/content/50/4/759

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.urbanstudiesfoundation.org/

http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://usj.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://usj.sagepub.com/content/50/4/759.full.pdf

http://usj.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/08/10/0042098012455719.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



differential spaces, power hierarchy and …...ago (brenner, 2000, p. 361). derelict areas when...

Documents