Original Article

How to contribute to urbanity when the city centre isgone: a design-directed exploration of temporary publicopen space and related notions of urbanity in apost-disaster urban environment

Andreas Wesener

School of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Environment, Society and Design, Lincoln University,PO Box 85084, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand.E-mail: andreas.wesener@lincoln.ac.nz

Abstract The paper explores concepts of temporary public open space and related notions of urbanity in apost-earthquake urban environment. The sudden absence of the familiar physical urban constituents, the builtenvironment and public open spaces, is an extreme and disturbing experience. The residents of Christchurch(New Zealand) have been in such a situation since 2010/11 when a major earthquake and a series of devastatingaftershocks turned the city centre into rubble. Following the earthquakes, Christchurch has become a ‘‘transi-tional’’ city characterized by ongoing demolitions, new constructions and temporary urban spaces that keep onchanging as time passes. The paper examines students’ design proposals for a temporary public open space inChristchurch’s post-earthquake city centre and explores concepts of urbanity in a post-disaster situation wheredefining spatial components such as adjacent buildings do not exist anymore.URBAN DESIGN International (2017). doi:10.1057/s41289-017-0053-9

Keywords: Urbanity; post-earthquake; temporary urbanism; public open space; Christchurch

Introduction

Urbanity is a multi-dimensional and often norma-tive and intangible concept that refers to urbanqualities, experiences and lifestyles. Althoughoften appropriated by urban designers and plan-ners, notions of urbanity go beyond the confinedrealm of the planning professions (Lees, 2010,p. 2302). As a social construct, urbanity hastraditionally been discussed from three comple-mentary perspectives:First, conceptualised as an urban way of life,

urbanity includes processes of emancipation fromnatural and social constraints in the hope for abetter life, for example by escaping political,cultural, social or economic repressions and race-, gender- or religiously motivated discrimination(Siebel, 1994; Haußermann and Siebel, 1987).Compared to the constraining conditions of rural

life, urban ways of life anticipate differentiatedneed structures, choices between various forms ofliving, activities and experiences, opportunities tokeep distance from others and actively selectdesirable social contacts. In addition, cities providea broad choice of employment opportunities,cultural services and educational offers (Schneider,1990, p. 22).Second, conceptualised as an aesthetic and

sensory experience, urbanity refers to ‘‘the unex-pected that is produced by, or comes out of, theurban. Urbanity concerns emotions, randomnessand chance, complexity and difference, contradic-tions, and the social’’ (Lees, 2010, p. 2302). Urbanlife includes experiences of grittiness, unkempt-ness, disorder and contradiction (Siebel, 1994).Unexpected random encounters with strangersand the meeting of difference (Lefebvre, 1991) areinherent to urban life and, experienced as exciting

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN Internationalwww.palgrave.com/journals

or confrontational, create tensions between phys-ical closeness and social distance. The excess ofintensive and rapidly changing stimuli mightevoke the infamous ‘‘blase attitude’’ (Simmel,1950 [1903]) considered unique to metropolitanlife. With regard to sensory experiences, urbanityis also concerned with urban atmospheres orambiances that are ‘‘felt’’ rather than ‘‘understood’’in a cognitive way (Hasse, 2008; Kazig, 2008;Thibaud, 2015; Griffero, 2013). In an urban context,atmospheres are noticeable, but transitory quali-ties that may capture people’s senses in particularsituations. Although not directly attached tomaterial objects, atmospheres do rarely existwithout physical space and have been consideredas a powerful ‘‘link between space and sensitivity’’(Bohme, 2013, p. 27).Third, conceptualised in relation to urban devel-

opment, form and the built environment, ‘‘theimportance of urbanity lies in the ways engage-ment with difference is spatially framed’’ (Dovey,2016, p. 14). In that sense, urbanity refers to urbandesign and architectural qualities including pro-portionality, multi-functionality, mixed-use, clar-ity, functionality, walkability, comfort,accessibility and local distinctiveness (Schneider,1990, p. 22). In addition, urbanity has been relatedto the (physical) presence of history, culturalheritage and related concepts of collective memory(Siebel, 1994). Modernist urban design and plan-ning ‘‘with its practices of monofunctional zoning,the ruthless eradication of the vernacular andwidespread sights of repressive architecture hasimpacted on […] the normative essence of ‘urban-ity’’’ (Groth and Corijn, 2005, p. 505). Designprinciples that intend to achieve urbanity (Lees,2010, p. 2307; Montgomery, 1998, p. 114) corre-spond often to compact city models (Blotevogelet al. 2008, p. 283) and best-practice urban designprinciples (e.g. Carmona et al, 2010).It has been argued that in the context of post-

Fordist ‘‘far-reaching economic and societalrestructuring and increasing competition betweenlocations’’ including changes of lifestyle and socio-spatial structures, ‘‘New Urbanity’’ concepts gaininfluence: ‘‘[E]specially in the context of urbanrestructuring, the micro level [is] the area within,which new urbanity finds expression’’ (Blotevogelet al, 2008, p. 283). Against this backdrop, ‘‘NewUrbanity’’ has been related to ‘‘postmodernistheterozoned spaces, such as work-play, live-workand play-live, which offer a fine-grained densenetwork of uses’’ (Lees, 2010, p. 2303). In capitalslike London or Berlin, the economic value of

urbanity has been estimated about $1 billion peryear (Ahlfeldt, 2013). Notions of urbanity haveaccordingly found their way into developers’glossaries (e.g. HafenCity Hamburg GmbH, 2016).The social value of ‘‘New Urbanity’’ has been

controversially discussed, in particular withregard to unequal power relationships and corre-sponding commodified and socially segregatedurban landscapes (Kamvasinou, 2015; Groth andCorijn, 2005), which have been considereddestructive:

‘‘[…] all we can do is to try and plan thoseelements of urbanity that are less elusive, andto make sure that we try hard not to sanitisethe urban in the process. We need to allowspace for the threatening, menacing city ofdisorder that is painful, shocking, but also soalluring (the gritty urbanity that ironicallyattracted pioneer gentrifiers leading downthe line to a sanitising form of gentrification).It seems to me that this is the urbanity thatwe are currently destroying to our cost witha form of sim-urbanity, a sterile form of theurban where nothing is unexpected, whereadventure, possibility, urban stimuli andsensory experience are both stifled andscripted, not naturally occurring.’’(Lees, 2010, pp. 2306–2307)

Critical voices that questioned such concepts ofurbanity looked for ‘‘‘alternative’ definitions ofurbanity’’ (Kamvasinou, 2015, p. 3) able to nurture‘‘the ‘lived’ and the contradictions that constituteurban life’’ (Groth and Corijn, 2005, p. 521). Basedon Lefebvre’s (1996[1968]) ‘‘the right to the city’’and related discussions around twenty-first cen-tury urban (re-)development practice (Stickells,2011; Harvey, 2008; Purcell, 2002), temporary usesof (vacant) urban spaces have been considered ashaving ‘‘the potential to re-center urban vacantland as a critical element of the processes thatcreate urbanity and urban life’’ (Nemeth andLanghorst, 2014, p. 149). The ‘‘[…] spontaneous,organic evolutions epitomise a different notion of‘urbanity’’’ (Groth and Corijn, 2005, p. 506) includ-ing bottom-up governance processes, alternativeaesthetic experiences and public open spaces thatare ‘‘not exclusively bound to the logic of con-sumption […] for people from diverse segments ofsociety […]’’ (Groth and Corijn, 2005, pp. 509–510).While urbanity has commonly been discussed in

relation to large-scale urban redevelopment pro-jects (e.g. Lees, 2010), this study focusses on asmall-scale temporary urban design intervention.

Wesener

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

In recent years, small-scale (Gotz et al, 2015) and‘‘incremental’’ (Pinnegar et al, 2015; Dovey et al,2016) urbanism projects and their positive role forurban regeneration have gained increased atten-tion. Likewise, and perhaps related, the use ofvacant urban spaces for temporary activities –although far from being a new phenomenon(Bishop, 2015, p. 136; van Schaik, 2015; Oswaltet al, 2013, p. 9) – has inspired contemporaryurbanism trends such as ‘‘Do-It-Yourself (DIY)urbanism’’, ‘‘tactical urbanism’’, ‘‘guerrilla urban-ism’’, ‘‘participatory urbanism’’ or ‘‘everydayurbanism’’ (Fabian and Samson, 2016, p. 166).The paper is divided into four sections. It begins

with a discussion of temporary urbanism in thecontext of post-disaster situations followed by anoutline of context, goals, and method of thedesign-directed exploration. Section three analysesten selected design proposals for a temporarypublic open space, the runner-ups of a studentdesign workshop and competition. Section fourdiscusses the results in relation to concepts ofurbanity. The paper concludes with a discussion ofthe implications, opportunities and challenges forurban design(ers) with regard to temporary urban-ism and urbanity in post-disaster urbanenvironments.

Temporary Urbanism and Post-disasterDynamics

Around 15 years ago, the pioneering study ‘‘UrbanCatalysts’’ (2003), followed by publications such asSenatsverwaltung fur Stadtentwicklung Berlin(2007), inducted professional interest and aca-demic research into temporary urbanism (Fabianand Samson, 2016; Bishop and Williams, 2012,p. 4). Temporary projects have often been estab-lished in a context of urban disorder (Andres,2013, p. 759), particularly socio-economic slumpsand demographic changes in combination with anabundance of vacant urban spaces and weakplanning regimes (Colomb, 2012; Groth andCorijn, 2005). One the one hand, temporaryurbanism has been highlighted as a sociallyengaging practice (Tardiveau and Mallo, 2014)promoting inclusive, participative and non-for-profit projects (Andres, 2013, p. 763; Groth andCorijn, 2005, p. 521). On the other hand, itinaugurated a controversial discussion regardingits social, political and economic outcomes (Spa-taro, 2016) related to an inherent tendency to

generate gentrified, socially exclusive, and profit-oriented schemes (Fabian and Samson, 2016,p. 180; Bishop, 2015, p. 38; Oswalt et al, 2013,pp. 349–355). In that sense, concepts of temporaryurbanism and urbanity share similar opportunitiesand challenges.In Christchurch (New Zealand), temporary

urbanism evolved after another urban disorder,the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury Earthquakes.Notions of urbanity have a different connotationin post-disaster situations compared to othercontexts. Large-scale destruction, the suddenabsence of well-remembered physical structurespaired with continuous change but also newopportunities render many ‘‘traditional’’ defini-tions meaningless. Post-earthquake urban plan-ning and design in Christchurch – in particular inthe Central Business District (CBD) – weredirected by a new New Zealand central govern-ment agency, the Canterbury Earthquake Recov-ery Authority (CERA), that took comprehensivecontrol over Christchurch’s rebuild process (Swaf-field, 2013, p. 23). Parallel to the central govern-ment’s rebuild agenda, various organisationsdeveloped temporary projects, often financiallysupported by the local government (CCC, 2016).The scope of ‘‘transitional projects’’ that popped upafter the earthquakes attracted a wide range oflocal people and organisations (Carlton and Val-lance, 2013; Bennett et al, 2012), internationalmedia (e.g. Anderson, 2014; Bergman, 2014), andtourists through features in ‘‘Lonely Planet’’ andinternational newspapers’ travel sections (e.g.Badham, 2014; New York Times, 2014). ‘‘GapFil-ler’’, one of the largest post-earthquake communityorganisations that implements and manages tran-sitional open spaces, addresses visitors by pub-lishing a regularly updated map of temporaryprojects and associated spaces in the central city(Gap Filler, 2016). Another popular group, ‘‘Green-ing the Rubble’’, has focussed on green landscapeprojects (Montgomery, 2012).Three distinguishable categories of temporary

open spaces have occurred in Christchurch since2010: First, private or public-private-partnership(PPP) projects with a commercial orientation.Conceptualised as ‘‘impermanent servicescapes’’(Finsterwalder and Hall, 2016, p. 238) these tem-porary retail and consumption facilities remain inplace until permanent structures can be re-estab-lished. A successful example is ‘Re:Start Mall’ inthe central city (Brand and Nicholson, 2016, p. 170;Finsterwalder and Hall, 2016, pp. 236–237).

How to contribute to urbanity when the city centre is gone

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

Second, temporary open spaces initiated bygovernment or non-government organisations aspart of their public or professional agenda. Exam-ples include temporary installations such as the‘‘Tree Houses for Swamp Dwellers’’ (Figure 1) byNew Zealand artist Julia Morison, commissionedby Christchurch City Council (CCC) and con-structed for the SCAPE Public Art event (2013) ortemporary street furniture (Figure 2), commis-sioned by CCC and designed by ‘‘F3 Design’’(2012). The design project discussed in this paperbelongs to this category.Third, transitional community-initiated open

spaces (CIOS), produced by local communities orcommunities of interest in post-earthquakeChristchurch (Wesener, 2015). These bottom-upinitiatives have been established by communityorganisations such as ‘‘GapFiller’’ or ‘‘Greening theRubble’’ and supported by voluntary workers.Examples include ‘‘The Commons’’, (Gap Filler,2015; Figure 3), a public open space that hasaccommodated various temporary projects includ-ing the famous Pallet Pavilion (Gap Filler, 2014) orthe Fitzgerald Avenue temporary communitygarden (Montgomery et al, 2016).Temporary projects in Christchurch (Wesener,

2015) have been praised for urban design benefits,for example by ‘‘putting the ‘public’ back into

public space, to counter the late twentieth centurymaladies of mass surveillance and commercial-ism’’ (Brand and Nicholson, 2016, p. 174; cf.Mayer, 2010, pp. 26–27). The apparent absence ofconflict between producers and users of tempo-rary open spaces, regulators and landowners isbased on the specific post-disaster context wheremutual benefits are high and potentials for conflictlow. However, a scenario where regulators andlandowners use (or abuse) temporary projects forcommercially oriented redevelopment interestsand interrupt community-oriented developmentis also thinkable (Wesener, 2016).

Design-Directed Exploration: Context, Goalsand Method

The paper follows a single case study approach toexplore concepts of temporary public open spaceand related notions of urbanity in a post-earth-quake urban context where space-defining phys-ical components have been lost. It raises questionsabout how design helps envision such spaces. Inaccordance with Van Wynsberghe and Khan(2007), the paper defines case study not bymethod, but interest in a ‘‘revelatory case’’ (Yin,2014, p. 52) based on a unique contextual situation.

Figure 1: ‘‘Tree houses for swamp dwellers’’ by Julia Morrison. Photograph: Author.

Wesener

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

Figure 2: Temporary street furniture. Photograph: Author.

Figure 3: The commons. Photograph: Author.

How to contribute to urbanity when the city centre is gone

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

Following Stake (2005, pp. 445-447), the studyexplores a particular case rather than to generalisebeyond it. However, even if the study cannot bereplicated directly in a different context, it pro-vides new insights and directions with regard totemporary place-making for other post-disastersettings.The case study is an urban alleyway in

Christchurch’s central city, called ‘‘Press Lane’’.Before the 2010/11 Canterbury Earthquakes,Christchurch’s historical city centre includednumerous alleyways, called ‘‘lanes’’. In 2007,Christchurch City Council developed a ‘‘LanesPlan’’ (CCC, 2007) as part of the ‘‘Central CityRevitalisation Project’’ and, in collaboration withexternal design consultants, a ‘‘Lanes DesignGuide’’ (Church et al, 2007). The ‘‘Lanes Plan’’document defines lanes as ‘‘[…] paths, streets, oraccessways which are secondary to main routes orstreets within the City. They may be known asservice lanes, alleyways, or rights of ways. Theyare primarily open to the sky and enclosed by

buildings on both sides for the majority of theirlength, although some of the lanes are partiallybuilt-over’’ (CCC, 2007, p. 9). At the time ofpublication, the document’s goal was to create‘‘[a]ttractive and vibrant lanes that provide safeand convenient pedestrian corridors and whichbecome popular mixed use destinations for inner-city residents and Central City visitors’’ (CCC,2007, p. 11). The ‘‘Lanes Design Guide’’ intended to‘‘[f]acilitate the implementation of the Lanes Planin a consistent and coherent manner’’ (Churchet al., 2007, p. 2) by providing best-practiceguidelines for the design and implementation ofurban laneways in Christchurch. Jan Gehl’s (2009)pre-earthquake public life study of Christchurchemphasized the city’s need to develop a better andmore attractive pedestrian network to support aless car-dependent traffic system. The reportdescribed the central city lanes as a ‘‘fantasticpotential for strengthening the public realm andincreasing pedestrian opportunities’’ (Gehl Archi-tects, 2009, p. 13). Most material evidence of lanes

Figure 4: Press Lane and surrounding environment, 24 February, 2011. Aerial image: Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand License. Crown Copyright reserved.

Wesener

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

have been erased after the earthquakes and theiruse as pedestrian shortcuts has often been pre-vented by fences that closed off sites for securityreasons. However, the idea of public laneways hascontinued into post-earthquake urban designschemes (Brand and Nicholson, 2016, p. 171).Press Lane is a narrow strip of publically owned

land that connects Cathedral Square and Glouces-ter Street in the heart of Christchurch’s CBD.Before the 2010/2011 earthquakes, the alley wasspatially defined by the adjacent, mainly historicalbuilt environment. The area was severely affectedby the earthquakes and all but one neighbouringbuilding (Novotel Christchurch) were damaged.Figure 4 shows an aerial photograph of the areataken shortly after the 6.3 magnitude aftershock on22 February 2011 that caused 185 casualties andwide-spread damage to the urban built environ-ment and infrastructure. The photograph depictsthe damaged Christchurch Cathedral in the south-west and a collapsed heritage building with debrisscattered around in the southeast corner of Press

Lane (red contour). Other neighbouring buildingsare still standing but had to be demolishedsubsequently due to the severe damage. Figure 5depicts the same situation in early 2016. Thedemolition of damaged buildings created numer-ous vacant urban spaces. Press Lane, after itsneighbouring buildings were flattened, lost itsspatial definition. It is now hardly recognisable asan urban alleyway (Figure 6).In 2015, the School of Landscape Architecture

(SOLA) at Lincoln University (New Zealand)launched a collaborative urban design workshoptogether with Christchurch City Council (CCC)staff. Thirty-five second-year Bachelor of Land-scape Architecture (BLA) students worked on atemporary public open space project as part oftheir studio-based design curriculum using PressLane as a study site. The workshop ran over4 weeks including 5 h of tutorials per week and adesign competition with the goal to implement thewinning proposal on site as a temporary installa-tion, facilitated and funded by CCC. The project

Figure 5: Press Lane and surrounding environment, 2016. Aerial image: Environment Canterbury, Christchurch City Council(canterburymaps.govt.nz). Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand License.

How to contribute to urbanity when the city centre is gone

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

drew on ideas from the Lanes Plan which intendedto increase the connectivity, walkability andattractiveness of the central city; however, trans-lated into the new post-disaster context wheretraditional perceptions of urbanity have been lostdue to the physical destruction.This design-directed exploration of a temporary

public open space in a post-disaster environmentaddressed a number of design questions: How dowe transform a spatially unrecognisable alleywayinto a defined public open space with the help oftemporary interventions, which might becomepermanent at some point? How do we define anurban alleyway spatially and socially when thesurrounding built environment and the socialactivities associated with it are gone? What designelements could be utilised to create a distinctiveurban sense of place?Students explored such questions with regard to

functions, activities, materiality and sensory expe-riences. They studied the functional role of PressLane not only as a pedestrian shortcut and servicelane for the adjacent hotel, but also as a visuallyemphasized connector between ChristchurchCathedral to the south and the slowly evolvingperforming arts precinct to the north, and as anurban activity and experience space. Which func-tions could go beyond the ‘‘traditional’’ role of an

urban alleyway? How do we design for them?Another discussion revolved around suitable ver-tical and horizontal design elements that coulddefine the space temporarily (Table 2).Assisted by SOLA tutors and a CCC urban

designer, students developed different designproposals. The iterative design process was basedon sketches and drawings that captured theevolution of an imagined temporary public openspace in a post-disaster urban environment. Tenworks were pre-selected and judged by a designpanel that included members of the design pro-fessions, community organisations includingGreening the Rubble and Gap Filler, LincolnUniversity, and CCC. The panel nominated awinning entry with the goal to further developand implement the design proposal.The results of the design process are analysed on

the basis of ten design proposals – the runner-upsof the design competition – and then discussed inrelation to concepts of urbanity based on fiveviewpoints outlined in the introductory discussion(urban way of life; aesthetic and sensory experi-ence; urban development, form and the builtenvironment; ‘‘new urbanity’’; ‘‘alternative’’ formsof urbanity) and a related set of three indicators foreach of the viewpoints (Table 1). Indicators wereselected with regard to the discussed literature

Figure 6: Press Lane from south side. Photograph: Author.

Wesener

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

and on the basis of their considered relevance fortemporary public open space in post-disasterurban environments.

Results

The design brief required the retention of PressLane’s primary function as a pedestrian shortcutbetween Cathedral Square and Gloucester Streetand service lane for vehicular access to the rear ofthe hotel from the southern gateway. However,students were encouraged to explore new ways ofdefining and emphasizing the space as a keyconnector between two relevant urban nodes.Some design proposals suggested design themesincluding interactive design features that enablevisitors and passers-bye to engage with the spaceand change it, at least temporarily. In this case, thenotion of temporality was addressed in a doublesense: First, by the space itself as a temporaryinstallation; second, by the ability to activelyengage with the space and change it. Otherssought to design for different sensory experiencesincluding both ‘‘situated’’ and ‘‘transient’’ site-based activities (cp. Carmona, 2014, p. 22). Thefollowing analysis of ten students’ design propos-als looks particularly at aspects that go beyond a‘‘business-as-usual’’ functionality of urban alley-ways. The discussion of related design driverssuch as functionality, visibility, spatial definition,usability, interactivity and sensory experiences hasbeen subsumed under three eminent key func-tions: Press Lane as a visually emphasized

connector, as an interactive space and as anexperiential space. Although discussed withinthese distinct categories, most proposals showoverlaps across the three key functions.

Visually emphasized connector

In the absence of defining spatial elements such asneighbouring buildings, most design proposalsput a particular emphasis on the visual recognitionand spatial definition to increase the visibility ofPress Lane. The following three examples illustratedifferent approaches to design Press Lane as avisually emphasized connector between twoimportant urban nodes. S5’s work focussed onthe core function of a laneway by explicitlyreducing the space to a pedestrian shortcut with-out explicit situated activities. The proposal drawsstrongly on the visibility aspect by defining thespace vertically along the eastern edge with thehelp of a high, gold painted timber fence, illumi-nated at night, and horizontally as permeableconcrete paving that follows the pattern of thefence (Figure 7). The proposal features interactivedesign elements for passers-bye to control andchange the lighting at night.S9 proposed a colourful visual connector and

experiential space following a surrealism themeincluding playful objects such as mushroom-shaped seats and psychedelic lighting. The placecaters for both transient and situated activities. It isdefined vertically by seating, vinyl grass and lampposts and two horizontally defining layers in form

Table 1: Concepts of urbanity and set of selected indicators related to the context of temporary public urban space in post-disasterurban environments

Viewpoints on urbanity Indicators

1. Urban way of life 1.1. Accommodating different needs; providing choices for different activities and experiences1.2. Possibilities for cultural enrichment; educational opportunities1.3. Emphasis on tolerance, mutual consideration and open-mindedness in urban public spaces;allowing space for the poor and socially marginal or divergent

2. Aesthetic and sensoryexperiences

2.1. Opportunities for randomness and chance; unexpected encounters with strangers2.2. Encountering complexity and difference; possible experiences of grittiness, unkemptness, dis-order and contradiction

2.3. Possibilities for urban phenomena that are ‘‘felt’’ rather than ‘‘understood’’; noticeable transitoryqualities that may capture people’s senses

3. Urban design andarchitectural qualities

3.1. Multi-functional, mixed-use, walkable, pedestrian-friendly space3.2. Proportionality, spatial definition and clarity, accessibility, comfort, safety3.3. Local distinctiveness; presence of history, cultural heritage

4. ‘‘New urbanity’’ 4.1. Lifestyle and consumption-oriented4.2. Socially exclusive; shutting off disorderly and threating elements4.3. Staged experiences; excluding unexpected experiences and stimuli

5. ‘‘Alternative’’ forms ofurbanity

5.1. Socially balanced community-oriented places5.2. Opposed to commercialism and exclusive consumption5.3. Spontaneous, organic bottom-up processes that allow for participatory urban design

How to contribute to urbanity when the city centre is gone

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

a mixed asphalt-rubble surface that reminds of thepost-quake destruction, cloud-shaped objects andflower-shaped lamps overhead. The design pro-vides day and night usability for different usergroups. While the playful objects invite familieswith children at daytime, the exuberant lightingscheme attracts theatre visitors at night and guidestheir way to the evolving performing arts precinct.Another example of a strongly emphasized

visual connector is S3’s work, a vertically definingaluminium frame that simulates root structures incombination with green coloured surface materialsfollowing a ‘‘50 shades of green’’ theme. Theproposal, although distinctively visible, sheltersthe visitor to a certain extent from the surroundingenvironment and provides a sensory experience ofenclosure, typical for an urban alleyway, however,very different with regard to the enclosing designelements. Theme-related seating and lighting sys-tems intend to create a safe, welcoming andcomfortable atmosphere with opportunities forboth transient and situated activities. Ecologicalfeatures such as a rain garden and green roofs addan educational value to the proposal.

Interactive space

A frequently addressed functional aspiration instudents’ proposals was to enable and encouragespatial interaction within the newly designedtemporary laneway. Ideas and concepts of howto interact with the space were various and rangedfrom stand-alone features, like S5’s control oflighting, to fully blown schemes. An example forthe latter is S1’s interactive experience space. Thespace is dedicated to one dominant theme – music– that encourages visitors to experiment withdifferent instruments and sounds. Various instal-lations can be played creating different soundsand noises. The space is vertically defined by arange of designed elements including aluminiumarches, aluminium poles in concrete-filled tyresserving as a frame for hanging bells, timber archesin form of a stylized half of a gigantic guitar,movable timber dividers and a metal tunnel in theshape of a trumpet. A coloured concrete floorequipped with floor lighting provides a continu-ous horizontal definition. The space, visuallydistinct and functionally active, challenges

Figure 7: S5’s proposal draws strongly on the visibility aspect by defining the space vertically along the eastern edge with the help of ahigh, gold painted timber fence that can be illuminated at night.

Wesener

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

traditional concepts of an alleyway. It lacks thetight enclosure and overarching functionality as ashort cut. Instead, it provides a relatively openspace; defined by vertical elements, however notfully enclosed by them, it is a space that encour-ages situated interaction and to a lesser degreetransient activities.S6 suggested as well a relatively openly defined

spacewith opportunities for interactive experiencesin form of theatre performances and ‘‘light andshadow plays’’ at night (Figure 8). The space isspatially defined by timber arches, arranged inregular linear intervals resembling an installation in‘‘The Commons’’ (Gap Filler, 2015; Figure 3). How-ever, the arches appear successively destructedfrom both entrances of Press Lane to the middle ofthe alley. In themiddle, theyhave entirely dissolvedto make room for a stage used for performances.The ironic play with another post-earthquake tem-porary space and the focus on theatrical activity as aform of taster close to the performing arts precinctcreate a culturally active place with opportunitiesfor surprises and random encounters. In that sense,S6’swork responds, on the one hand, to ‘traditional’notions of urbanity. On the other hand, it conveysan unconventional design concept for a lanewaywith plenty of opportunities for situated activities.Interactive environmental-educational design

elements were also at the core of S2’s proposal.The vertical spatial definition of the space includesa timber wall with holes for water bottles collectedby the users for recycling, a ‘‘bug hotel’’ and‘‘Socio-Nature Planters’’ that act as ‘‘pollinatorhabitat, a seat, recycling bins and alley markers’’.Horizontally, it is defined by a permeable surfaceconsisting of recycled car tyres and granite chipsand timber decking. Users can actively influencethe visual appearance and functionality of thespace, for example by adding bottles with

coloured water or interact with the pollinators.The laneway provides a relaxed and playfulambiance including plenty of opportunities forsituated activities.S7, the winner of the design competition, pro-

posed a welcoming public open space with acomfortable microclimate on hot summer days(Figure 9). Coloured liquid chalk pans visualisevisitors’ walking routes when they pass by. S7noted: ‘‘Press Lane becomes a living map. Thesechalk pans can be avoided and brush stripslocated at both ends of the lane allow pedestriansto wipe the chalk off their feet if they wish’’. Thespace is vertically defined by steel posts withconcrete footings, planted timber walls, plantersand seating. Overhead sails with bird silhouettesand pedestrians’ footprints on the concrete surfaceoffer horizontal spatial definition. The rhythmi-cally arranged elements provide a pleasant senseof enclosure without becoming impermeable andoppressive. Although primarily conceptualised asa pedestrian shortcut based on the traditionalfunctionality of an urban alleyway, S7’s workprovides plenty of opportunities for intimatesituated activities and interactivity that allowspassers-bye to engage with the space and leaveliterally their own traces beyond the space itself. Itconnects Press Lane with its surrounding urbanenvironment in a subtle yet playful way until thenext rain shower washes all traces away.

Experience space

Being located in the middle of vacant dusty urbansubdivisions, filled with rubble and used as carparks, temporary spaces are opportunities toprovide positive, reflective or contemplative sen-sory experiences in an otherwise often grim post-

Figure 8: S6’s proposal suggests a relatively openly defined space with opportunities for interactive experiences in form of theatreperformances and ‘‘light and shadow plays’’ at night.

How to contribute to urbanity when the city centre is gone

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

disaster environment. S8 conceptualised PressLane as a reflective but playful space that evokesdifferent sensory experiences. Design details fol-low a scheme that reflects the past – Christchurchbefore and shortly after earthquakes – in thesouthern part and an imagined future in thenorthern part of Press Lane. Movable planterswith tall grass, sculptured lamps and colouredwalls define the vertical boundaries of the space.Different colour schemes and illuminated features(either black and white or colourful) and pave-ment patterns support the design theme (past/fu-ture). The space is designed as a pedestrianshortcut; however, towards the northern part,interactive features such as a ‘‘shadow wall’’ orbicycle-powered illuminations provide situatedand playful activities.S10 emphasized the destructive forces of the

earthquake and created a contemplative andmemory-evoking retreat that visually engageswith the cracks, deformations and subsequentvegetation that overgrew formerly active andnow vacant urban spaces. The alleyway is definedvertically by a combination of illuminated rubble-filled gabion walls and planting. While keepingthe original rubble as a thematically importantfeature, S10 added planters and plants to thesetting. The combination of hard and soft materi-als creates a distinctive, defined and intimatespace that offers different sensory experiences atday and night. It is a calm space; planter-seatsinvite visitors to rest and reflect.

Another calm retreat from the surroundingdestruction was proposed by S4. The work followsa water-inspired theme featuring a combination ofgreen and blue design elements (Figure 10). Theresulting space provides a strong feeling of enclo-sure through the vertically defining ‘‘wall ofwater’’, a steel-frame installation that pumps upcollected storm water and lets it trickle down fromthe top of the frame like a translucent curtain. Atnight, light projected onto the water wall illumi-nates the alleyway. Visitors can get emerged intothis space and experience the sight, sound andtouch of water through different water featureswithout being distracted by the surroundingenvironment. On the south side, potted trees andshrubs provide a temporary vertical spatial defi-nition. Horizontally, the space is defined by awooden pallet boardwalk, a planted storm watergarden and several fountains. Particular activitiesare not foreseen; the space remains open towardsdifferent uses and has, due to the lack of seating, amainly transient character.

Discussion

Urbanity as an urban way of life

All design proposals addressed a variety of needsand included choices for various activities andexperiences at daytime. The majority of worksincluding S4, S5, S6, S8, S9 and S10 put also a

Figure 9: S7, the winner of the design competition, proposed a welcoming public open space with a comfortable microclimate on hotsummer days. Coloured liquid chalk pans visualise visitors’ walking routes.

Wesener

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

particular emphasis on night-time experiences.Night-time activities are a typical urban phe-nomenon. However, the earthquakes reduced cul-tural or entertainment amenities in Christchurch’scity centre which tends to becomes empty after5 pm. Night uses are therefore particularly relevantfor post-disaster urbanity. Some spaces encouragenight-based urban experiences including light fea-tures (e.g. S4, S8, S10) and activities such as theatreor music performances. Proposals such as S1’smusic-themed and S6’s theatre-themed space weredesigned with particular cultural or educationalactivities in mind that can be used at day and night.The spaces encourage people to visit at night andcontribute to more activity and associated experi-ences of urbanity after 5 pm.Proposals that follow distinct design themes and

encourage particular activities might reduce thenumber of possible tolerated activities. However,they also intensify cultural and educational experi-ences for visitors. Spaces with a lesser degree ofthematic focus such as S5’s or S7’s work arepotentially more open to a greater variety of users

and experiences. They also allow for the presence ofindividuals and social groups whomight not (wantto) participate in pre-defined activity schemes.

Aesthetic and sensory experiences

The aesthetic and sensorial qualities described instudents’ design proposals range from contempla-tive such as S10’s memory-evoking experientialspace, to relaxed-comfortable including subtledesign schemes such as S2’s or S7’s works, to activeand playful including a multitude of stimuli andatmospheric manipulations such as S9’s psychede-lic scheme or S8’s colourful light installations. S3’sand S4’s themed spaces suggested calm retreatsincluding sensory experiences connected to waterand urban green. The narrow gap between S4’swater walls (Figure 10) conveys, for instance, afeeling of confinement similar to that of an urbanalleyway. However, the sight, sound, movementand translucence of the spatially defining designelement transform the atmosphere and make the

Figure 10: S4 proposed a water-inspired theme featuring a combination of green and blue design elements.

How to contribute to urbanity when the city centre is gone

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

space experientially distinct. Spaces were generallydesigned to remain accessible at day and night withdifferent opportunities for atmospheric experi-ences. Across proposals, the range of situated andtransient site-based activities provide variousopportunities for random and unexpected encoun-ters with strangers.It could be argued that proposals with a less

explicit thematic orientation might hold greaterpotentials for diverse user groups and unantici-pated experiences including grittiness andunkemptness. Themed spaces such as S1’s pro-posal might encourage staged rather than unex-pected experiences. However, the experience ofdifference and related emotions (including fear orfeelings of safety) are also greatly influenced bythose who use the space. The presence andfrequency of visitors and passers-by creates dif-ferent degrees of passive surveillance that mayinfluence behaviour and related positive or nega-tive experiences.

Urban design and architectural qualities

With regard to urban design and architecture,students proposed generally pedestrian-friendlypublic open spaces that often included multiplefunctions. The spatial re-definition as an alleywayin the absence of any neighbouring physical

structures was a major challenge and proposalsvary significantly in terms of permeability, mate-riality, and functionality of vertical and horizontalspatial definitions (Table 2). Often, vertical spatialdefinitions include functional elements such asseating, lighting, planting or theme-based designfeatures. Notions of urbanity with regard to localdistinctiveness, history and cultural heritage wereaddressed by explicit architectural cues toChristchurch’s past such as in S8’s and S10’swork. Some design proposals (e.g. S6 and S9)respond to the surrounding urban environmentlike the nearby theatres; others integrate designfeatures that respond to a particular environmen-tal, cultural, educational, or sensorial theme with-out explicit connections to the surrounding urbanenvironment (S1; S2; S3; S4). Such proposalssuggest that new functions and experiences couldbecome complementary to existing ones, and addto the total spatial experience over time.

‘‘New urbanity’’ and ‘‘alternative’’ formsof urbanity

These two novel notions of urbanity are discussedtogether because they are somehow connected andmight be considered polarities or extremes.Notions of ‘‘New Urbanity’’ have been criticisedfor their social exclusivity and gentrified aesthetics

Table 2: Proposed vertical and horizontal temporary spatial definitions for Press Lane

Student(anonymised)

Definition of space

S1 Vertical: aluminium arches; aluminium poles in concrete filled tires with hanging bells in between; timberstructures (arch; notes; moveable dividers); trumpet tunnel

Horizontal: coloured concrete floor; floor lightingS2 Vertical: planter/seat combinations; BYO/green walls; bike racks

Horizontal permeable driveway (recycled car tyres; granite chips; lawn); timber deckingS3 Vertical: Root structures (concrete base; light aluminium frame)

Horizontal: Green hard and soft surface materialsS4 Vertical: Water wall (north side); potted trees and shrubs (south side)

Horizontal: wooden pallet boardwalk; storm water planting; water featureS5 Vertical: illuminated steel tube/gold painted timber fence (‘‘golden threads’’)

Horizontal: Permeable patterned concrete pavingS6 Vertical: timber arches with climbing plants; strips of planting; planters; wooden screen behind hotel

Horizontal: timber arches (overhead); pavingS7 Vertical: steel posts with concrete footing; timber walls (planted); planters; seating

Horizontal: overhead sails with bird silhouettes; chalk pans on surfaceS8 Vertical: planters with tall grass; sculptured lamps; coloured wall

Horizontal: paving (following pre-post-earthquake theme)S9 Vertical: seating; grass; flower lamp posts

Horizontal: cloud shaped objects and flower-shaped lamps overhead; asphalt/rubble surface (reminding ofdestruction)

S10 Vertical: illuminated gabion wall; plantingHorizontal: combination of rubble and planting

Wesener

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

that shut off disorderly elements of the urbanexperience, create sanitised pseudo-urban settingsand exclude unexpected experiences and stimuli.‘‘Alternative’’ forms of urbanity, on the other hand,have been connected to the ‘‘right to the city’’movement, community-based decision-making,bottom-up governance, and alternative social-eco-nomic and aesthetic experiences.Notions of ‘‘New Urbanity’’ and ‘‘alternative’’

forms of urbanity raise also questions about therole and contribution of the (urban) designer. Inthe case of ‘‘New Urbanity’’, the ‘‘traditional’’ roleof urban designers and architects as hired consul-tants who sell their design expertise to commercialdevelopers or government agencies remainsuntouched. Planning and design processes areusually top-down with the occasional participa-tion of civil society actors as part of planningpolicies. The design outcomes are sometimespredictably and well-suited for an exclusive groupof clients. They have been critiqued – as discussedabove – as a ‘‘form of sim-urbanity, a sterile formof the urban’’ (Lees, 2010, p. 2307). In our study,the ‘‘client’’ (CCC) who is also the owner of thesite, did not encourage the design of exclusivespaces that would shut off certain user groupsdeliberately. Students were encouraged to designfor accessible and inclusive spaces; design propos-als avoided commercialism and exclusive con-sumption facilities. However, students designedcritically for a range of different people – not withthem.In the case of ‘‘alternative’’ forms of urbanity, the

role of the consulting urban designer is less clear.The general idea of a bottom-up process is that theproducers of urban spaces – who are often also theusers (Wesener, 2016) – design and develop thespaces together. Design expertise might informthis process, but the influence of external consul-tants is limited and their advice is not alwaysconsidered. The minimized role of design consul-tancy raises questions about the quality of thedesign process and its outcomes. In addition,funding for external design experts might belimited in such projects. If bottom-up urban designbecame an accepted alternative to ‘‘traditional’’design processes, what would be the role of theprofessional urban designer or design consultant?How could high quality urban design be main-tained within changing governance constellationsand grassroots development processes?In the context of the design-directed exploration

in this study, ‘‘alternative’’ forms of urbanity could

not be sufficiently addressed. Students’ designproposals were ‘‘commissioned’’ (however,unpaid) and due to processual limitations (collab-oration between a tertiary education institutionand a local government agency; restricted timeframe) not based on bottom-up governance, com-munity participation or collaborative designapproaches.

Conclusions

The paper discussed urbanity as a social constructfrom five different viewpoints while placing it intothe context of post-disaster urban environmentsand temporary urbanism. It explored concepts andvalues of urbanity and post-disaster ‘‘transitional’’public open space in Christchurch through thework of young designers. The range of students’design proposals for a currently invisible urbanlaneway exemplifies that urbanity can be inter-preted and experienced in various ways and fordifferent urban situations including post-disastersettings.Like with every study, the scope of inquiry had

certain limitations. ‘‘Alternative’’ forms of urbanitywere discussed; however, could not be adequatelyaddressed due to the nature of the project that hada rather ‘‘traditional’’ character including a ‘‘client’’(CCC) and ‘‘design consultants’’ (students). This isparticularly regrettable in the context of temporaryurbanism where much emphasis has been put onbottom-up governance.Design professionals and students who – like in

our case – collaborate with governmental or non-governmental organisations must therefore beaware of their critical role in interpreting conceptsof urbanity through their design proposals. Theseare often constrained by design programmes andbriefs developed by the client. It remains in theresponsibility of the designer to critically interpretsuch programmes. Is the urban designer able toaddress ‘‘key transitional processes that shapecommunity resilience and how communities copewith environmental and social change at the locallevel […]’’ (Wilson, 2012, p. 78)? Or are they, aspreviously accused, simply the ‘‘unreflective hand-maiden of capital accumulation and commodifica-tion of the built and natural environment’’ (Gunder,2011, p. 191)? This is possibly not primarily aquestion of disciplinary ownership, but rather ofcritical reflection about the core values that help usdecide how and for whom we design.

How to contribute to urbanity when the city centre is gone

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

As Jon Lang (1994) observed many years ago: ‘‘Theact of applying our knowledge, of moving from apositive observation to a normative statement – theact of designing – is still a value-laden political actand always will be’’ (p. 357). That urban design is apolitical act was demonstrated by our case. After theworkshop, the further development of the winningproposal from the design to the implementation stagetook place together with the student; however,behind closed doors. This was possibly due toexpectations that residents, adjacent land owners ordevelopers might interfere with the process or rejectthe proposal. The city council advised her collabo-rating academic partner not to release information tothe local press and more than a year later – at thetime of writing this paper – detailed informationabout the workshop or the winning design proposalhave not been made public.Despite such setbacks, the paper demonstrates

how a new generation of designers was able toenvision post-disaster urbanity through variousspatial definitions, aesthetic and sensory experi-ences, day and night uses, and situated andtransient activities. Students made use of thevarious opportunities and constraints offered bya small but important central post-earthquakeurban site. They proposed exciting spaces thatallow for a broad diversity of sensory experiencesand encounters of difference. Such experiences are,arguably, the soul of urbanity.

Acknowledgement

The copyright in figures 7–10 is duly acknowl-edged as the work of the student contributors inthis article, who share their image copyright withLincoln University, and who are anonymised forthe purpose of this study.

References

Ahlfeldt, G.M. (2013) Urbanity. London: Spatial EconomicsResearch Centre (SERC), London School of Economics. SERCdiscussion paper 136.

Anderson, C. (2014) Christchurch: After the earthquake, a cityrebuilt in whose image? The Guardian, January 24. http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/jan/27/christchurch-after-earthquake-rebuild-image-new-zealand, accessed 26 July 2016.

Andres, L. (2013) Differential spaces, power hierarchy and collab-orative planning: A critique of the role of temporary uses inshaping and making places. Urban Studies 50(4): 759–775.

Badham, V. (2014) Three days in Christchurch, New Zealand –travel guide. The Guardian, 28 February. http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2014/feb/28/three-days-christchurch-new-zealand-travel-guide, accessed 28 October 2015.

Bennett, B., Boidi, E., & Boles, I. (2012) Christchurch: TheTransitional City Pt IV. Christchurch: Freerange Press.

Bergman, J. (2014) After earthquakes, a creative rebirth in Christchurch. New York Times, April 4. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/travel/after-earthquakes-a-creative-rebirth-in-christchurch.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw, accessed 12 July 2016.

Bishop, P. (2015) From the subversive to the serious: Temporaryurbanism as a positive force. Architectural Design 85(3): 136-141.

Bishop, P. and Williams, L. (2012) The Temporary City. London:Routledge.

Blotevogel, H.H., Danielzyk, R. and Hohn, U. (2008) Newurbanity in metropolitan regions. Erdkunde 62(4): 283-285.

Bohme, G. (2013) Atmosphere as mindful physical presence inspace. Oase 91: 21–32.

Brand, D. and Nicholson, H. (2016) Public space and recovery:Learning from post-earthquake Christchurch. Journal ofUrban Design 21(2): 159–176.

Carlton, S. and Vallance, S. (2013) An Inventory of Community-Led and Non-governmental Organisations and Initiatives in Post-earthquake Canterbury. Lincoln: Faculty of Environment,Society and Design, Lincoln University.

Carmona, M. (2014) The Place-shaping continuum: A theory ofurban design process. Journal of Urban Design 19(1): 2–36.

Carmona, M., Tiesdell, S., Heath, T. and Oc, T. (2010) PublicPlaces Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. Oxford:Architectural Press.

CCC. (2007) Central City Lanes Plan. Christchurch: ChristchurchCity Council, http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/CentralCityLanesPlan2008-programmes.pdf, accessed 6 July2016.

CCC. (2016) Transitional city recovery funding. https://www.ccc.govt.nz/culture-and-community/community-funding/earthquake-funds/transitional-city-funding/, accessed 6July 2016.

Church, T., Styles, S., Banks, K., Kneale, N., Murray, C.,Marshall, A., Niven, S., Wilkie, A., Burdon, P., Roers, M.,Charles, M. and Nicholson, H. (2007) Central City Lanes Report:Lanes Design Guide. Part 6 of 7. Christchurch: Boffa Miskell andChristchurch City Council. https://cccgovtnz.cwp.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Rebuild/Strategic-Plans/lanesdesignguide-programmes.pdf, accessed 6 July 2016.

Colomb, C. (2012) Pushing the urban frontier: Temporary usesof space, city marketing, and the creative city discourse in2000 s Berlin. Journal of Urban Affairs 34(2): 131–152.

Dovey, K. (2016) Urban Design Thinking : A Conceptual Toolkit.New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Dovey, K., Pike, L. and Woodcock, I. (2016) Incremental urbanintensification: Transit-oriented re-development of small-lotcorridors. Urban Policy and Research 35: 261-274.

F3 Design. (2012) Temporary Street Furniture | CCC |Christchurch | 2012. http://www.f3design.co.nz/temporary-street-furniture-ccc/, accessed 3 July 2015.

Fabian, L. and Samson, K. (2016) Claiming participation: Acomparative analysis of DIY urbanism in Denmark. Journal ofUrbanism 9(2): 166–184.

Finsterwalder, J. and Hall, C.M. (2016) Disasters, urban regen-eration and the temporality of servicescapes. In C.M. Hall, S.Malinen, R. Vosslamber and R. Wordsworth (eds.) Businessand Post-disaster Management: Business, Organisational andConsumer Resilience and the Christchurch Earthquakes. London:Routledge, pp. 230–248.

Wesener

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

Gap Filler. (2014) The Pallet Pavilion (#22). http://www.gapfiller.org.nz/summer-pallet-pavilion/, accessed 26September 2014.

Gap Filler. (2015) The Commons. http://www.gapfiller.org.nz/the-commons/, accessed 1 July 2015.

Gap Filler. (2016) New Updated Gap Map!. http://www.gapfiller.org.nz/updated-gap-map-2016/, accessed 6 July 2016.

Gehl Architects. (2009) Christchurch 2009: Public Space PublicLife. Christchurch: Christchurch City Council.

Gotz, C., Cooper, I. and Paskaleva-Shapira, K. (2015) Small-scale projects and their potential for urban regeneration:Experiences from Eastern Germany. Economic and BusinessReview 17(2): 203–222.

Griffero, T. (2013) The atmospheric ‘‘skin’’ of the city. Ambiances– International Journal of Sensory Environment, Architecture andUrban Space. http://ambiances.revues.org/399, accessed 26July 2016.

Groth, J. and Corijn, E. (2005) Reclaiming urbanity: Indetermi-nate spaces, informal actors and urban agenda setting. UrbanStudies 42(3): 503–526.

Gunder, M. (2011) Commentary: Is urban design still urbanplanning? An exploration and response. Journal of PlanningEducation and Research 31(2): 184–195.

HafenCity Hamburg GmbH. (2016) Glossary. http://www.hafencity.com/en/glossary/glossary-s-z.html#urbanity,accessed 23 June 2016.

Harvey, D. (2008) Right to the city. New Left Review 53: 23–40.Hasse, J. (2008) Die Stadt als Raum der Atmospharen. Zur

Differenzierung von Atmospharen und Stimmungen. DieAlte Stadt 35(2): 103–116.

Haußermann, H. and Siebel, W. (1987) Neue Urbanitat. Frank-furt: Suhrkamp.

Kamvasinou, K. (2015) Temporary intervention and long-termlegacy: Lessons from London case studies. Journal of UrbanDesign. doi:10.1080/13574809.2015.1071654.

Kazig, R. (2008) Typische Atmospharen stadtischer Platze: Aufdem Weg zu einer anwendungsorientierten Atmospharen-forschung. Die alte Stadt, 35(2): 147-160.

Lang, J. (1994) Urban Design: The American Experience. NewYork: Wiley.

Lees, L. (2010) Commentary: Planning urbanity? Environmentand Planning A 42: 2302–2308.

Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.Lefebvre, H. (1996[1968]) The right to the city. In E. Kofman

and E. Lebas (eds.)Writings on Cities. Cambridge MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 147–159.

Mayer, M. (2010) Civic City Cahier 1: Social Movements in the(Post-)Neoliberal City. London: Bedford Press.

Montgomery, J. (1998) Making a city: Urbanity, vitality andurban design. Journal of Urban Design 3(1): 93–116.

Montgomery, R. (2012) Greening the Rubble in Christchurch:civic ecological reclamation efforts during a crisis. LincolnPlanning Review 3(2): 3–13.

Montgomery, R., Wesener, A. and Davies, F. (2016) Bottom-upgovernance after a natural disaster: A temporary post-earthquake community garden in central Christchurch, NewZealand. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research 28(3): 143–173.

Nemeth, J., & Langhorst, J. (2014) Rethinking urban transfor-mation: Temporary uses for vacant land. Cities 40: 143–150.

New York Times. (2014) 52 Places to Go in 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/01/10/travel/2014-places-to-go.html?action=click&contentCollection=Travel&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article, acces-sed 26 September 2014.

Oswalt, P., Overmeyer, K. and Misselwitz, P. (2013) UrbanCatalyst: The Power of Temporary Use. Berlin: DOM Publishers.

Pinnegar, S., Randolph, B. and Freestone, R. (2015) Incrementalurbanism: Characteristics and implications of residentialrenewal through owner-driven demolition and rebuilding.Town Planning Review 86(3): 279–301.

Purcell, M. (2002) Excavating Lefebvre: The right to the city andits urban politics of the inhabitant. GeoJournal 58(2–3): 99–108.

SCAPE. (2013) Tree Houses for Swamp Dwellers | 2013.http://www.scapepublicart.org.nz/treehouses-for-swamp-dwellers/, accessed 3 July 2015.

Schneider, H. (1990) Urbanitat als Planungsfaktor. SchweizerIngenieur und Architekt 108(1-2): 22-23.

Senatsverwaltung fur Stadtentwicklung Berlin. (2007) UrbanPioneers - Berlin: Stadtentwicklung durch Zwischennutzung(Temporary Use and Urban Development in Berlin). Berlin: Jovis.

Siebel, W. (1994) Was macht eine Stadt urban? Zur Stadtkultur undStadtentwicklung (Oldenburger Universitatsreden; 61). Olden-burg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universitat.

Simmel, G. (1950 [1903]) The Metropolis and Mental Life. In J.Lin and C. Mele (eds.) The Urban Sociology Reader. London:Routledge, pp. 23–31.

Spataro, D. (2016) Against a de-politicized DIY urbanism: FoodNot Bombs and the struggle over public space. Journal ofUrbanism 9(2): 185–201.

Stake, R. E. (2005) Qualitative case studies. In N.K. Denzin andY.S. Lincoln (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research,3rd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 443–466.

Stickells, L. (2011) The right to the city: Rethinking architec-ture’s social significance. Architectural Theory Review 16(3):213–227.

Studio Urban Catalyst. (2003) Urban Catalysts: Strategies forTemporary Uses – Potential for Development of Urban ResidualAreas in European Metropolises. Berlin: Studio Urban Catalyst.

Swaffield, S. (2013) Place, culture and landscape after theChristchurch earthquake. In H. Sykes (ed.) Space Place andCulture. Albert Park: Future Leaders, pp. 1–26.

Tardiveau, A. and Mallo, D. (2014) Unpacking and challenginghabitus: An approach to temporary urbanism as a sociallyengaged practice. Journal of Urban Design 19(4): 456–472.

Thibaud, J.-P. (2015) En quete d’ambiances. Eprouver la ville enpassant. Geneve: MetisPresses.

van Schaik, L. (2015) Pavilions, pop-ups and parasols: Are theyplatforms for change? Architectural Design 85(3): 8–15.

Van Wynsberghe, R. and Khan, S. (2007) Redefining case study.International Journal of Qualitative Methods 6(2): 80–94.

Wesener, A. (2015) Temporary urbanism and urban sustain-ability after a natural disaster: transitional community-initiated open spaces in Christchurch, New Zealand. Journalof Urbanism 8(4): 406–422.

Wesener, A. (2016) Post-disaster temporary urbanism: Ananalysis of the creation, use and benefits of transitionalcommunity-initiated open spaces in Christchurch, NewZealand. In: B.B. Beza and D. Jones (eds.) Peer-ReviewedConference Proceedings of the 8th International Urban DesignConference, 16–18 November 2015, Brisbane, Queensland,Australia. Nerang, Queensland, Australia: Association forSustainability in Business Inc., pp. 304–321

Wilson, G.A. (2012) Community Resilience and EnvironmentalTransitions. Abingdon: Routledge.

Yin, R.K. (2014) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5thedn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

How to contribute to urbanity when the city centre is gone

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International