Following on from the previous blog…
Tonkiss outlines how these alternative productions of urban space* are not just about making do for the time being, their ‘rigged up’-ness is an integral component of their existence, these projects are pragmatic: they are contingent upon the circumstances in which they’ve arisen and are about making something valuable here and now. Those producing these alternatives are aware of the criticism that by working in an area, they might merely be paving a way for gentrification, however Tonkiss points out ‘co-optation…is not simply a danger spotted by sharp-eyed and disabused social critics; it is a condition of the work these practitioners do if they want to make space’.
I’m very interested in the value of the temporary and ephemeral nature of these productions and how these grounded everyday Makeshift city spaces can offer room for the imagination and offer innovative potential, ‘…an urbanism of minor practices, small acts, ordinary audacities and little anti-utopias that nevertheless create material spaces of hope in the city’.
Image credit: Sarah Spanton – photo of Le 56
* Fran Tonkiss (2013), ‘Austerity urbanism and the makeshift city’, City, 17(3), 312-324.