VIER VRAGEN AAN MICHELLE PROVOOST
Hoe is observatie in de praktijk van Crimson ingebed?
Was de rol van Crimson als actief deelnemer naast die van historicus
van begin af aan bewust gekozen?
In een project als WIMBY loop je kans geïnstrumentaliseerd te worden.
Hoe blijf je kritisch op je positie bij stadsontwikkeling?
Waarvoor moet in de huidige marktconditie worden gewaakt?
INTRODUCTIE BOTTOM-UP IS NOT ENOUGH
From Newark to Sao Paulo, Amsterdam to Mumbai, we see the same trend of temporality, pop-up, politically-engaged, DIY architecture popping up at Biennials and architecture events. At the same time, we also see a growing interest in ‘real life’ projects and practice (carried out with minimal resources, for marginal users, in the margins of the city, and imbued with a political or at least collective agenda) developing within architecture education and publications. The current generation of activist / bottom-up / participatory architects together form an international 'movement'. Even if circumstances widely differ, practices in and outside Europe work from a shared mentality.
At this moment these practices have had several years of successful individual projects, which have now also been able to prove their use in the real world, but that they now stand before the next threshold: how can this way of working really affect daily practice, policies, and the physical environment? How can this generation make the transition from the avant garde to the center, from the exception to the standard, from the elite to the society? Aside from the designers and activists who deliberately and strategically implement these projects, aware of the inherent tension and ambiguity, there is also an actual industry emerging of temporality, pop-up, participatory planning and crowdsourcing which is used by and for the institutional parties directly, without any ambition to achieve a greater strategic goal. Can these practices avoid becoming just a fashionable phenomenon of place-making, incorporated by the market and institutions?