Governance of temporary use

Pop-up shops, street festivals, food trucks, flash mobs, street protests, temporary homes for refugees – temporary urbanism appears in various forms and seems to be a common, deliberate or unplanned practice in cities worldwide. Terms like ‘do-it-yourself urbanism’ (Iveson, 2013), ‘tactical urbanism’ (Lydon and Garcia, 2011), ‘guerilla urbanism’ (Hou, 2010) or ‘participatory urbanism’ (Wortham-Galwin, 2013) have made their way into the academic mainstream to make sense of the added value of such local, individual and creative urban practices (Fabian and Samson, 2016; Iveson, 2013). Temporary use as one of the various forms of temporary urbanism fits the aforementioned criteria and as such has gained enormous scholarly attention recently. Although a rather young research field (Bishop and Williams, 2012), a tangible discourse on temporary usage has been established, particularly within the field of critical urban research. Recent literature especially questions temporary use as an implied ‘win-win’ solution to vacancy and argues that such bottom-up, civic based, informal tools are undergoing increased instrumentalisation, professionalisation and institutionalisation (see Andres, 2013; Honeck, 2017; Madanipour, 2018; Németh and Langhorst, 2014). On admitting that the planning discipline has been suffering from inadequate instruments and concepts catered towards long-term development, the growing interest of urban policy makers and real estate developers in interim and creative usage transforms former spontaneous and informal activities drastically.

This paper contributes to the existing research focusing on the instrumentalisation of creative strategies not only for neighbourhood upgrading but also for image polishing of private real estate companies. It does so by evaluating present governance structures and provides insight into practices of local governments. It not only discusses interest conflicts but also alliances of temporary-use projects when they are integrated strategically in urban development plans as against when they have a more independent standing. Fabian and Samson (2016) have similarly applied these perspectives to do-it-yourself (DIY) urbanism in Denmark. With a focus on the aestheticisation of social life, they argue that bottom-up initiatives are ‘much too often swallowed up on a strategic level by financial interests and traditional master planning’ (Fabian and Samson, 2016) and highlight the need for planners to learn from such DIY practices and urban activism in different ways. Above all, they conclude with a fundamental demand for DIY activism to be integrated as an equal partner in planning processes. Iveson (2013) assesses DIY urbanisms from the perspective of the right to the city in a comparative approach of the cities Sydney, New York and Madrid arguing that such practices do not constitute a democratic urban politics. Patti and Polyak (2015) on the contrary critically examine the transformation of temporary use into an urban regeneration strategy by reviewing municipal policies and approaches in different cities. Based on their research, temporary use can act as a precursor of a more inclusive planning system, where ‘bottom-up initiatives meet public development strategies of administrations’ (Patti and Polyak, 2015).

Planning practices have undergone profound changes when considering stakeholder and actor involvement. Top-down planning has increasingly been replaced by co-operation and participation. The theory of governance removes the logic of the state having the power, resources and ability to manage complex requirements of society by steering through hierarchical structures (Benz, 2004; Frey, 2009, p. 78; Gerometta et al., 2005; Oswalt et al., 2013, p. 112; Swyngedouw, 2005). Governance processes explore new ways of collaboration between private and public, formal and informal institutions and actors. Governance should therefore not be mistaken by bottom-up urban development, but rather understood as creating a successful and balanced process between market players, municipality/city/state and civil society. It is the negotiation process which is able to produce social innovation (Gerometta et al., 2005; Moulaert et al., 2007). However, participation practices have oftentimes been praised as successful collaborations within planning processes, which needs to be critically discussed. Participation is indeed highly socially selective and does not represent co-creation in many ways, which makes this a largely outdated concept today. Rather, it is being implemented after decisions have already been made. It has indeed been realised that these existing strategies and approaches do not meet contemporary societal changes and challenges (De Roo and Silva, 2010; Portugali, 2000; Teisman et al., 2009).

This paper scrutinises governance structures of two different projects as well as their embeddedness within the respective policy arrangements and legal frameworks. Based on the methodology of actor-centred institutionalism (Mayntz and Scharpf, 1995), the analysis focuses on the interrelatedness of actors (government, private real estate developers, property owners, intermediate bodies, individuals), their resources (investment capital, land, knowledge, social and creative capital, authority), motivations (societal responsibilities, neighbourhood improvement and upgrading, profit maximisation, pragmatic action) as well as their forms of relation (social contact, contract, economic exchange, obligation), deconstructing existing network structures. A comparative approach is being applied to highlight different governance structures within temporary projects. It therefore provides insight into alternative approaches to local, creative, bottom-up and informal urban development tactics by critically examining means and motivations of the actors involved. The discussed cases are ‘CREAU’ in Vienna, Austria, a temporary use of former horse stables, initiated by a private real estate company and the concept of ‘Wächterhäuser’ in Leipzig, Germany, which has been a consistent practice since the early 2000s, when the city was suffering from structural vacancy after the German reunification.

Temporary use is by no means a new phenomenon (Bishop and Williams, 2012, p. 35; Blumner, 2006; Oswalt et al., 2013, p. 9). More so, temporality is inherent to urban development considering the dynamic processes of urban growth. However, temporary urbanism has been gaining serious dynamic as an innovative urban planning strategy in recent years. A common definition of temporary use has not been established, rather questioned by scholars (see Haydn and Temel, 2006, p. 64; Németh and Langhorst, 2014) ‘especially since all uses can be considered temporary, with some just lasting longer than others’ (Németh and Langhorst, 2014). It is therefore crucial to understand the difference between uses which are organically temporary (i.e. signing a lease for x years) and interim projects or uses in derelict or vacant spaces. There are two major strands shaping the discourse on temporary use. First, they represent a research object in cases of urban shrinkage or economic decline (see e.g. Madanipour, 2017; Németh and Langhorst, 2014; Rall and Haase, 2011). Second, their creative nature has been discussed critically (see e.g. Andres, 2013; Colomb, 2012; Honeck, 2017), especially since temporary use has started to appear in growing and prosperous cities.

Temporary use can appear in many forms and shapes. The similarity, which acts as a prerequisite for temporary use, is vacancy. Reasons for vacancy are manifold. In general, three forms can be distinguished: structural vacancy, vacancy as a result of speculation and what Verlič (2015) calls ‘healthy’ vacancy (‘Healthy’ vacancy appears due to fluctuations on the real estate market due to people moving homes and therefore is crucial for its functioning (Verlič, 2015)). Apart from this distinction, temporal buffers properties face in between reconstruction or rezoning phases must not be forgotten. The production of vacant spaces underlies many processes on the macro, meso as well as micro level. Deindustrialisation, globalisation, flexibilisation of working hours and ways of working, as well as neoliberal politics and crises of overproduction have been discussed as reasons by many scholars (Bishop and Williams, 2012, p. 23; Hirschmann, 2014; Madanipour, 2018; Németh and Langhorst, 2014; Patti and Polyak, 2015). Additionally, individual preferences and logics need to be addressed. Pluralised ways of life, residential multilocality or online shopping can affect spatial configurations (Bishop and Williams, 2012, p. 26). Traditional retail businesses cannot keep up with such rapid changes. Furthermore, complex ownership structures can be a reason for vacancy (MA 18, 2013a, 2013b). These different forms and reasons produce unused spaces within specific market sectors, which need to be highlighted as well. Vacancy on the housing market has to be approached differently than office spaces, ground floors or former industrial areas. However, temporary uses have been applied in all mentioned contexts.

Considering the origin of temporary use, it is commonly referred back not only to informal space appropriations in times of ‘weak planning’ (Andres, 2013), but also to occupations and other illegal activities on derelict sites and wastelands (Colomb, 2012). They are considered unplanned tactics in contrast to long-term strategies (Lydon and Garcia, 2011; Oswalt et al., 2013). As the literature analysis reveals, these spontaneous interim uses have overtime been undergoing a transformation of governance structures, resulting in an increased level of professionalisation as well as complexity. This is particularly due to a rise in the number of actors involved, ranging from individuals to property owners, real estate developers, intermediate actors and policy makers (Grube, 2010).

In theory, the temporal use of space can be seen as an ecological method within the exploitation cycle of real estate, as vacant buildings deteriorate much quicker than used ones (Németh and Langhorst, 2014). Also, rents of vacant spaces are usually below market prices (Andres, 2013) or consist of running costs only in exchange for giving life to otherwise forgotten spaces. These characteristics have not only attracted a specific group consisting of creatives and artists very quickly, but also produced a hegemonic narrative, portraying temporary use as a win-win solution for people dependent on cheap rents, property owners as well as the city profiting from lively neighbourhoods (BMVBS & BBR, 2008, p. 114; O'Callaghan and Lawton, 2016).

This work is empirically grounded through two in-depth case studies that are analysed comparatively. They provide an understanding of how and what decisions in the field of temporary use are being made by various actors on the one hand and how different local governments react to such projects on the other. A comparative case study approach allows revealing similarities as well as differences of how such informal practices are being managed, facilitated or impeded.

Decision making within urban development underlies complex processes, subjective interests, different resources, power relations and policy frameworks. For this comparative research, actor-centred institutionalism (Mayntz and Scharpf, 1995) sets the methodological framework as it combines the analysis of actor networks and policy documents. First, a total of 27 documents (the analysis is based on the interpretation of strategic policy documents like urban development plans, governmental agreements, building regulations as well as studies concerning creative industries, vacancy and temporary use specifically) published by the respective municipality, social partners and intermediary institutions have been analysed to help understand the framework as well as the public discourse with regard to interim use in Vienna and Leipzig. The aim is to understand to what extent such policies are stimulating or hindering civic involvement and DIY urbanism in the form of temporary use. Documents have been chosen according to their relevance to the topic and timeliness. Specific to the cases, strategic planning documents and concepts at the city level, building regulations in the form of building codes or heritage protection laws have been analysed accordingly. At the intermediary level, various studies and publications have been taken into consideration. The methodological approach of comparative case study analysis has been challenged at this point, as social partners, such as the Chamber of Labour or Chamber of Commerce, play an important role at the intermediary level in Austria, whereas they do not exist in this exact form in Germany and are rather represented in forms of unions, such as the labour union. Hence, the selection of documents has been adapted to the respective cases.

Second, the identification of actors, their role within the network, interrelatedness, their means and motivations show how policies are being implemented into practice. Therefore, nine qualitative in-depth interviews have been conducted with directly and indirectly involved actors. All (except one) interviews have been conducted face-to-face in the period from August 2017 to November 2017. The aim here is to reconstruct processes and explore governance arrangements that lead to the employment of temporary projects. Relevant interviewees were first hand-picked starting with the intermediary institutions, followed by snowball sampling (O'Leary, 2009). From this point, further interview partners could be traced until the point of saturation has been reached. The selection of interviewees included policy makers, project managers, local area management office employees, private associations representing the intermediary level and individual temporary users. Following semi-structured guiding questions, primary data were collected and analysed accordingly.

The fall of the Iron Curtain is certainly one of the most decisive moments in the history of the city because both the World Wars and the Iron Curtain had set an end to the period of growth until 1989/1990, when the city had become an important metropole for immigration (Bretschneider, 2015; Hatz, 2008; Seiß, 2013). According to prognosis, the city will reach the 2 million inhabitants mark right before the year 2030 (MA 23, 2014). With both the Social Democratic and Green Party in office since 2010 the orientation shifted towards ecological and participatory perspectives. Nevertheless, globalised city competition, economic crisis as well as demographic changes have affected urban policies moving towards a neoliberal direction (Seiß, 2013). Urban development projects are being progressively handed over to private investors, the construction of social housing had been put on hold for over 10 years and the rental law has undergone deregulation (Verlič, 2015, p. 48f). Within these processes, traditional ‘protective’ socio-democratic policies can turn out to be a curse and blessing at the same time. While new developments require increased flexibility and rapid responses, spontaneous, bottom-up and informal approaches to co-creation might fail due to rigid regulations.

The chosen documents in the Viennese case include the urban development plan 2025 (Stadtentwicklungsplan, STEP, 2025 (MA 18, 2014)), the Smart City strategic framework, government agreements of the year 2010 and 2015, official statements of the municipal government, the Viennese building code and specific heritage protection laws. Additionally, various publications of the municipal department for urban development and urban planning (MA 18, Stadtentwicklung und Stadtplanung) have been analysed (‘Werkstattbericht Perspektive Erdgeschoss (MA 18, 2011)’, ‘Werkstattbericht Lebendige Straßen (MA, 2013a)’, ‘Werkstattbericht Perspektive Leerstand (MA, 2013b)’). These documents provide insight into the local political framework. Also, a number of publications and studies carried out by social partners and intermediary institutions have been added to the selection (please see supplementary data). In total, 18 documents were analysed according to the topic of vacancy management and informal, creative interim uses. (These documents serve as sources for the following paragraphs).

The analysis portrays a rather fragmented view on temporary use in Vienna. First, the political discourse on the topic of interim use is very limited, which can be traced back to a limited political discourse on vacancy itself. In the very view cases in which interim use is being addressed in planning documents, the focus is primarily on the ground floor zone. The aim here is to ‘revitalise’ and ‘upgrade’ certain streets and neighbourhoods. With regard to temporary use as a solution to vacancy, no explicit political stance can be recognised. Residential vacancy as a topic is either not being addressed, or not being defined as a problem. Meanwhile, official data on vacancy is largely based on assumptions or partially precise calculation models. Governmental agreements however do talk about the need for an agency for temporary use (in the meantime, a public agency for temporary use has been established (Kreative Räume Wien) and acts as an intermediary actor who supports various individuals, creatives, artists in the search for vacant spaces), which should allow a better management of vacancy.

Studies which have been commissioned by the municipality, however, show a rather critical view on vacancy and the lack of its management in Vienna. A missing citywide and cross-departmental positioning is being addressed frequently and an inclusive and transparent strategy for vacancy management is being highly demanded within the analysed documents. Documents advise to move beyond traditional paths to facilitate the implementation of temporary use. Above all, the Viennese peculiarity of a very detailed and rigid administration, which is still partially rooted in patriarchal views, needs to be discarded. However, various documents also address a missing active urban population. The implementation of temporary use is dependent on different individual actors. As long as property owners are not willing to open up vacant spaces for interim uses, not much can be done, as property rights are clearly defined in Austria. In some studies, different approaches in other countries are being explained, where a municipality or city government does have the right to intervene in long-term vacancy. This however is not the case in Vienna, but would make the management of vacancy more efficient, according to studies.

Finally, many temporary projects face failure due to missing or inconsistent funding structures. Funding programmes seem to be mainly catering towards creative industries, commerce and high culture infrastructures, whereas the socio-cultural and social sector fall short of expectations.

The selected case study ‘CREAU’ is located in Vienna's second district, Leopoldstadt and is part of the area ‘Viertel Zwei’, which is being developed by the real estate developer IC Development GmbH. The area is situated in one of Vienna's former urban development zones, defined by the municipality in the urban development plan of 2005 (Stadtentwicklungsplan, STEP, 05). Since 2007, IC Development GmbH has been developing the area, which is supposed to grow until 2022 and mainly offers office and residential space in the high-priced segment. The year 2011 marks a significant moment in the process as the city of Vienna sold a large area, which had been used for trotting races since many years and owned by the city. Adjacent to the area ‘Viertel Zwei’, this space was of great interest to develop the area even further under the name ‘Viertel Zwei Plus’. Until 2011, Vienna's association for trotting race (Wiener Trabrennverein, WTV) had been leasing the grounds. The sale of this area attracted media attention, as it had been sold for a significantly low price (see die Presse, 2017; Falter in ORF, 2014).

The plans for this area include a couple of high-rise office and residential buildings, although some of the horse stables must be renovated true to the original due to their protection as historic monuments. For the rest of the horse stables, IC Development GmbH decided to implement a temporary-use project for which ‘NEST’, a private agency for temporary use had been hired. The idea was to give space to artists, creatives, craftsmen and event organisers. However, this meant that the association for trotting race had to be removed from this area.

The analysis of actors, their means and motivations and interrelatedness reveals a very fragmented picture of the project ‘CREAU’. Figure 1 shows the actor constellation which consists of nine actors with a very central position of the intermediary actor, Nest. However, the role of the intermediary actor varies: it is not being regarded as essential by the individual temporary user but indispensable by the property owner. ‘Nonetheless, there is a certain – fear would be the wrong word – caution towards temporary users and creatives, because you don't know for sure what they want. Because in general artists are a bit suspicious and might not follow all the rules’ (property owner, IC Development GmbH, 2017, translation by the author). This shows that the management of the project by the intermediary actor, Nest, is of great importance for the property owner, as it gives security and a certain guarantee that the project will proceed smoothly. At the same time, the property owner is dependent on the agency for temporary use, as they have the necessary contact with the cultural and creative sector. Therefore, Nest undertakes the role of the so-called ‘curator’ in this project. It is largely up to them to decide which temporary users will be invited to use the space. The relationship between the property owner and the intermediary actor as well as between the intermediary actor and the individual temporary user are regulated by a contract. With regard to means and motivations, Figure 1 shows a dominant motivation of ‘profit maximisation’ by the intermediary actor, the property owner as well as the individual temporary user. In the first case, this is rather self-explanatory, as Nest is a private agency interim use, largely dependent on monetary resources, although their interest and rather activism and social motivation for justice and the right to the city is quite visible: ‘(…)later the topic of space and how expensive it is became clear, but there is so much vacancy and you cannot get your hands on these spaces unless you have the necessary money for it. This is how we got interested in interim use’ (intermediary actor, Nest, 2017, translation by the author). Second, the property owner has interest in (future) profit maximisation, as the temporary project provides vital attention to the area, which has not been very present during the last years. They do portray themselves as ‘enabler’ and ‘innovative’ in terms of inviting temporary users to be part of the urban development process. However, it needs to be highlighted that this project has been managed internally by a project manager who had been previously largely involved in the cultural sector. Therefore, it is unsure if the temporary project would have been possible if there had been someone else in charge. Nevertheless, the property owner, IC Development GmbH benefits greatly from this project when it comes to their image: ‘(…)They are quite smart. Not only because it improves their image, but also because they now have relationships to a sector, they did not have any contact with before’ (city, municipality department for urban development and urban planning, MA 18, 2017, translation by the author). Third, the individual temporary user is understandably motivated by profit maximisation as well. To expand their small businesses, cost issues are of great importance, but visibility is needed as well. Figure 1 shows the relationship of ‘economic exchange’ between the property owner and the temporary user, as business collaborations have been established between them. Paired with low costs for the use of space, it can be concluded that the temporary user profits greatly from this project.

Many of the relationships in this constellation are based on contracts setting the criteria for the form of use as well as other specifics. These contracts are based on negotiations between the property owner (real estate company) and the intermediate actor whereas individual users had no say in the discussions and are bound to the established criteria leaving little to no room for adjustments. Additionally, the intermediate actor is a user of the space as well, therefore present at all times. Summing up, these structures show a strong tendency of hierarchical governance. This is due to many factors. First, the city administration does not directly support the intermediate actor (in the meantime, a public agency for temporary use and vacancy management has been established, albeit not equipped with any monetary resources for action), and is rather viewed as an obstacle hindering the process. Second, the real estate company follows specific market-related interests, which strongly contrast with the logic of the temporary-use concept. Third and final, the intermediate actor has received payments from the real estate company for the implementation of a creative temporary project. The role of the intermediate actor as ‘mediator’ or ‘communicator’ has therefore been expanded by the ‘contractor’. The case study also shows that administrative and bureaucratic obstacles have enabled unauthorised actions within the temporary project to keep it going: ‘We had to wait quite a long time for an authorization (…) A lot of the events had to be carried out illegally (…), which happened involuntarily. (…) But we couldn't cancel everything because of our agreement with IC (IC Development GmbH is the real estate company, who initiated the temporary use in this case)’ (intermediary actor NEST, 2017, translation by the author).

In 2010 the New York Times listed Leipzig as one of the ‘places to go’ (NY Times, 2010). Since then the city received titles such as the ‘New Berlin’ (Engelhart, 2014), a ‘better Berlin’ (‘besseres Berlin’, Bild Zeitung, 2012, translation by the author) or ‘Hypezig’ (Berliner Zeitung, 2017) in various magazines and in social media. The discourse on shrinking processes and the ‘perforated city’ (‘perforierte Stadt, Lütke Daldrup, 2003, translation by the author) seem to be replaced by the trendy and attractive. Indeed, the city has been experiencing population growth again since 2006, which reminds of the period before the Second World War when Leipzig was one of the fastest growing industrial cities worldwide (Wolff et al., 2017). After the Reunification of Germany, Leipzig lost around 20% of its population within the time period of only 10 years (Stadt Leipzig, 2015). This process required action of not only the federal government and the city administration, but the civil society as well to retain a certain level of life quality. Aside from urban restructuring programmes (most importantly ‘Stadtumbau Ost’), which were implemented to lower the rate of vacancy that had reached a peak of up to 70% in certain areas in Leipzig, a paradigm shift in planning practice occurred addressing the 63 000 vacant dwellings at the end of the 1990s (City of Leipzig (Stadt Leipzig, 2015)). Federal subsidies had been partially used for the implementation of innovative planning instruments, such as interim use. The model of ‘guarded houses’ (‘Wächterhäuser’, translation by the author) had been developed by the private association HausHalten e.V. and supported by the city administration to create new perspectives for vacant dwellings of which a large amount was under monumental care. Since 2004, this model of ‘guarded houses’ has been contributing to the decrease of vacancy in the city and is being cited worldwide as one of the first temporary-use programmes.

The chosen documents for this analysis are limited in quantity, compared to the Viennese case. Relevant documents are the integrated urban development concept ‘Leipzig 2020’, the draft version of the integrated urban development concept ‘Leipzig 2030’, the integrated neighbourhood development concept Leipziger Osten (Eastern part of the city) as well as the public information platform of the city. Additionally, reports on the topic of culture and creative industries as well as the federal building code and private publications by the association HausHalten e.V. have been considered (please see supplementary data).

As indicated, the analysis of current planning documents does not provide significant information on the topic of vacancy and temporary use as the city is confronted with population growth since a couple of years now. However, important references are detectable concerning the model of ‘guarded houses’ at several points which provide insight into the governance of temporary use. The narrative around interim use is very constant and addresses the cooperative and collaborative relationship between the city administration and the private association Haushalten e.V. Wordings such as ‘supported by the city’ or ‘developed in co-operation with the city’ can be found frequently (please see supplementary data).

Second, the essential role of the cultural and creative industries sector is strongly rooted in historical events and has since remained its status within urban development. It has been realised that culture and cultural participation can have integrative and inclusive effects which is why funding structures are well developed. However, since not long ago the establishment of the association ‘Creative Saxony’ (‘Kreatives Sachsen’, translation by the author) is gaining increasing importance and with that the focus is shifting from subculture to the entrepreneurial part of the creative sector. This can be interpreted as a strategy to support the branding of the city as a creative  metropole.

As the document analysis provides only limited information on this case, most of the relevant data are collected through in-depth interviews. The selected case study of ‘guarded houses’ addresses the model as a whole and only gathers information on one particular case by interviewing temporary users of one chosen project. This project is located in the eastern part of the city called Neustadt-Neuschönefeld. This area has been confronted with many challenges in the past such as ‘unfavourable social structures’, an ‘unattractive living environment’ and a ‘weak economic structure’ (City of Leipzig). It has since been one of the focus areas of urban regeneration programmes and recipient of funding through programmes such as ‘Soziale Stadt’, EFRE and ESF (Stadt Leipzig, 2018a). According to prognosis, the district has been the second fastest-growing one after the inner city in the period from 2011 to 2017 (City of Leipzig (Stadt Leipzig, 2018b)).

The analysis of actors, their means and motivations and interrelatedness reveals a rather consistent picture of the ‘guarded houses’ model. The roles of involved actors are very clearly defined and applicable to any temporary use of vacant dwellings. Figure 2 shows the actor constellation which consists of four actors with a predominant position of the intermediary actor, the association for temporary use, HausHalten e.V. Without their involvement, temporary use would not be imaginable, as the city administration admits: ‘Such an association has totally different capabilities and possibilities. The city administration is not able to do such things.’ (city administration, 2017). Also, a good amount of property owners of vacant residential buildings are not local and not present, which is why an intermediary institution such as HausHalten e.V. is regarded as very important (intermediary actor, HausHalten e.V., 2017). ‘It is okay that the owner is not on-site. All communication runs through HausHalten (…)’ (temporary user, 2017). An important factor, which has been mentioned several times, is transparency. Temporary users have the right to look into agreements and contracts between the intermediary actor and the property owner and vice versa, which supports security and reliability. As Figure 2 shows, means and motivations of the intermediary actor as well as the individual temporary user are largely based on social and societal interests. ‘(…)the plan was to maintain the whole block and prevent demolition (…)We found a property owner who was willing to try this. We initially intended to allow one or two persons in to look after the building. Now they have their studios and workshops there (…)’ (intermediary actor, HausHalten e.V., 2017). The initial and largest motivation of the association was to preserve residential buildings in the city. For the individual temporary user they are of importance as HausHalten e.V. provides a series of services such as drawing up contracts and networking but also providing building material and so on (city administration, 2017; temporary user, 2017)

Temporary users are always selected by the association for temporary use. However, the role of the association changes over time as the temporary use develops. This is an essential characteristic because it stresses the position of the association as a mediator, who retreats from the project after communication paths between the users and the property owner have been established. In a lot of cases, interim users have also developed a great relationship to the property owner and transferred their temporary contracts to regular leases. The analysed project however has a clear ending date, which is agreed on by both parties. ‘This was something we've always found exciting…not to remain at one place forever (…)’ (temporary user, 2017). The temporary users of the analysed project differ from the usual and suspected profile of interim users. First, there are more parties involved, and the group of temporary users is not homogeneous. Some of them offer space for participative projects in the neighbourhood to foster public participation within urban development. Others use their space for creative uses and some also use the space for living.

The relationship between the city administration and the intermediary actor needs to be highlighted as well. Figure 2 shows that their relation is based on social contact, as individuals of the association and the city administration have worked very closely together to facilitate this project. It has been emphasised that the city administration was overwhelmed during the rapid shrinking processes in the 1990s. A quasi laissez-faire approach had to be implemented for civil society to act independently. Where necessary, the city stepped back and removed administrative and bureaucratic barriers, which is one of the reasons why Leipzig is being regarded as a pioneer in this regard. Individuals of the city administration reminisce about this openness and flexibility: ‘Sometimes you even long after this shrinking period, which was horrible because nothing was moving forward, but the approach of the administration was creative. (…)And a certain sense of togetherness, working at eye level, which is not that easy today (…) because you have to be more restrictive (…)’ (city administration, 2017).

The selected case studies provide information about how city administrations react to the formation of informal temporary-use strategies and models. First, historic events play a crucial role in the establishment of collaborative governance structures. Overwhelming challenges which the city of Leipzig was confronted with, have certainly led to increased flexibility of administrative processes, which allowed bottom-up initiatives to gain more importance and informal practices to be tried out. Rigid administrations and bureaucratic obstacles delay urban tactics such as temporary use. With weeks and months passing, these practices develop as planned and thought-out strategies, framed by contracts, rather than as spontaneous space appropriations. Self-organisation and self-governance have therefore very limited possibilities to thrive in Vienna. Rather, as a consequence, informal practices such as the interim use of vacant space is being taken over by or rather pushed into the arms of private developers with their own interests in mind.

Intermediary actors, such as the private associations for temporary use are of significant importance to the implementation of the projects. Their managing role is especially vital for property owners in both cases. However, dependent on the role that temporary use has in a city, the autonomy of such intermediary actors can differ significantly.

This paper adopts a rather critical approach to governance and scrutinises to what extent governance is being practiced in temporary projects. When considering that the theory puts emphasis on decreasing hierarchy and exploring new ways of collaboration between private and public or formal and informal institutions and actors, the two cases portray contrasting governance structures. The collaboration between the city administration and the private association is very prominent in the case of Leipzig and rather non-existent or hindering in the Viennese case. This is determined by fostering democratic accountability and giving local bottom-up initiatives a voice through support. In the case of temporary use, the strongest support by the city administration might be in form of not only dismantling bureaucratic barriers but also meeting initiators of such projects at the eye level, as civic society is clearly motivated and is able to provide creative alternatives to rigid planning instruments. Therefore, it can be concluded that Leipzig shows collaborative and co-operative governance structures between the private and public, whereas this relation is dominated by hierarchical structures in Vienna. Nevertheless, although the initiation of the interim project by a private real estate developer in Vienna needs to be critically reflected as a shift towards commercialisation is indeed noticeable, the interplay of individual actors, an intermediary institution and a private real estate company unlocks new forms of governance within the Viennese planning tradition. However, the project has been thoroughly planned at the backend. These circumstances are successfully being masked by creating a narrative that positions the real estate company as a very open, flexible and inclusive developer creating opportunities for different actors to enter the planning process. Meanwhile, the developer uses a temporary project strategically as part of the area development plan with the aim of attracting the ‘creative class’ as future renters after the temporary project has ended. It goes to show that bottom-up and informal activities are very welcome, as long as they take place in a more or less ‘steered’ manner.

This paper discusses different approaches to temporary use resulting in diverse urban governance structures. Vienna has been experiencing a dynamic around large-scale temporary projects over the past six to seven years, whereas Leipzig has been successfully implementing the concept of ‘guarded houses’ since the early 2000s. Based on the analysis of an exceptional case, it is argued that due to restrictions, overregulation and rigid bureaucracy, informal, bottom-up and creative actions run the risk of commercialisation and instrumentalisation by private market actors. The lack of support by the city administration is therefore a key factor that needs to be reconsidered. Indeed, Vienna finds itself in a plurality of governing agencies which question the traditional role of ‘the planner’; however, increased non-linearity, fuzziness and openness are needed to let these structures thrive. Leipzig serves as a ‘good practice’ example of collaborative governance. Although these structures have been formed due to challenging historic events, they can be partially adopted by other cities. Based on the comparison of temporary-use practices in the two cities, it is therefore recommended to (a) identify urban informalities and work with them as a potential, not an obstacle; (b) decrease the level of bureaucracy and regulative measures which hinder spontaneous and unauthorised practices; (c) demand and support active citizenship at the same time and finally (d) facilitate collaborative and creative governance by meeting civil society at the eye level.