The economic impact of social value in temporary uses: A spatial-temporal analysis of cases in the Brussels Region

Chiara Mazzarella, Michael Peeters, Daniele Cannatella and Hilde Remoy

ERES from European Real Estate Society (ERES)

Abstract: The short-term reuse of vacant real estate has demonstrated to be able to generate multiple benefits (Bishop, 2015; Madanipour, 2017; Oswalt et al., 2012; Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung Berlin, 2007), and being a quick solution to prevent abandonment risks, providing opportunities to access low-cost space. Research has demonstrated that short-term non-profit projects have the potential to drive innovation and generate social value (Mangialardo & Micelli, 2017; Pinard, 2020; Saleh, 2022). In fact, temporary initiatives can establish transient communities, test new land-use models, and inform real estate transformations (Lepik, 2012). Mostly, creative, artistic, and informal occupations (Andres, 2011; Honeck, 2017; McArdle, 2022; Shaw, 2005; Vivant, 2022) gained attention over the last 25 years, because they have demonstrated capacities for placemaking (Camerin, 2024; Hernandez-Santin et al., 2020; Karachalis, 2021) and urban regeneration (Darchen & Simon, 2022; Martin et al., 2019). For these and other reasons, temporary use projects have been increasingly integrated in urban studies (Chang, 2021) and in urban planning (Lehtovuori & Ruoppila, 2012), despite that the seduction of short-term solutions can hide unfair dynamics (Ferreri, 2015). In this context, Temporary Uses (TU) have been observed critically, considering issues as gentrification risks (Assiter, 2022), benefit distribution (Ferreri, 2020; Mens et al., 2023; Vivant, 2022), negotiations among actors (Zhang, 2018), and outcomes in co-production (Jaspers & Steen, 2019). However, we still don’t have models to measure the economic impact of real estate TU in their urban contexts. Thus, we ask: 1) What are the economic impacts that the social value of a TU produces on urban context? 2) What factors describing urban changes and TU of vacant buildings correlate? And, consequently, 3) how does TU social value contribute to urban dynamics? To address this gap, this study aims at defining and test a methodological framework to measure the economic impacts generated by the social value of temporary uses on the urban context, with a focus on some non-profit initiatives1. The objective is to understand how social value generates effects and impacts on the urban context (street or neighbourhood) improving the place quality, considering both space (urban context) and effects (observing its changes over the years). A mixed method analysis is applied to a set of case studies first at the urban scale and then at the real estate scale. We consider multiple cases of temporary use in the Region of Brussels (Occupation Temporaire OT), that have been mapped and monitored by temporary.brussels. First, we conduct an urban analysis of the neighbourhood place quality (Carmona, 2019) to observe the characteristics and the trends of main socio-economic indicators, land use functions, presence of services and amenities, and ongoing transformations in the area together with local policies. Then, we will assess the impact of each temporary use case measuring a set of quanti-qualitative indicators with data from direct observations, project reports, and interviews2. The TU assessment framework has been developed based on literature review and qualitative analysis of cases in the Netherlands, in Belgium and in France. Finally, we’ll carry out a correlation analysis applying the Geographically and Temporally Weighted Regression (GTWR) (Fotheringham et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2019) in GIS (running R packages). Findings from this research contribute to the ongoing discourse on temporary urbanism by discussing how temporary uses support not only communities but also long-term urban development. The proposed framework for defining, measuring, and analysing temporary use provides insights for scholars, policymakers and urban planners interested in leveraging these initiatives considering a fair resource distribution for sustainable and inclusive urban regeneration. Andres, L. (2011). Alternative Initiatives, Cultural Intermediaries and Urban Regeneration: The Case of La Friche (Marseille). European Planning Studies, 19(5), 795–811. https:; doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2011.561037 Assiter, B. (2022). From dancefloors to tables: Socially distanced clubbing, temporary urbanism, and the gentrification of London’s nightlife. Annals of Leisure Research, 1–7. https:; doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2022.2027252 Bishop, P. (2015). From the Subversive to the Serious: Temporary Urbanism as a Positive Force. Architectural Design, 85(3), 136–141. https:; doi.org/10.1002/ad.1913 Camerin, F. (2024). Former military barracks as places for informal placemaking in Italy. An inventory for new insights. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 17(2), 190–213. https:; doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2024.2327588 Carmona, M. (2019). Place value: Place quality and its impact on health, social, economic and environmental outcomes. Journal of Urban Design, 24(1), 1–48. https:; doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2018.1472523 Chang, R. A. (2021). How do scholars communicate the ‘temporary turn’ in urban studies? A socio-semiotic framework. Urban Planning, 6(1), 133–145. Scopus. https:; doi.org/10.17645/up.v6i1.3613 Darchen, S., & Simon, G. (2022). ‘Transitory urbanism’ for the creative industries in a top-down regeneration process (Nantes, France). European Planning Studies, 30(10), 2084–2101. Scopus. https:; doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.2024149 Ferreri, M. (2020). Learning from temporary use and the making of on-demand communities in London’s Olympic “fringes”. Urban Geography, 41(3), 409–427. https:; doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2019.1679527 Fotheringham, A. S., Crespo, R., & Yao, J. (2015). Geographical and Temporal Weighted Regression (GTWR): Geographical and Temporal Weighted Regression. Geographical Analysis, 47(4), 431–452. https:; doi.org/10.1111/gean.12071 Hernandez-Santin, C., Hes, D., Beer, T., & Lo, L. (2020). Regenerative Placemaking: Creating a New Model for Place Development by Bringing Together Regenerative and Placemaking Processes. In R. Roggema (Ed.), Designing Sustainable Cities (pp. 53–68). Springer International Publishing. https:; doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54686-1_4 Honeck, T. (2017). From squatters to creatives. An innovation perspective on temporary use in planning. Planning Theory and Practice, 18(2), 268–287. Scopus. https:; doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2017.1303536 Jaspers, S., & Steen, T. (2019). The sustainability of outcomes in temporary co-production. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 33(1), 62–77. https:; doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-05-2019-0124 Karachalis, N. (2021). Temporary Use as a Participatory Placemaking Tool to Support Cultural Initiatives and Its Connection to City Marketing Strategies—The Case of Athens. Sustainability, 13(4), 1652. https:; doi.org/10.3390/su13041652 Lehtovuori, P., & Ruoppila, S. (2012). Temporary uses as means of experimental urban planning. SAJ - Serbian Architectural Journal, 4(1), 29–54. https:; doi.org/10.5937/SAJ1201029L Liu, J., Yang, Y., Xu, S., Zhao, Y., Wang, Y., & Zhang, F. (2016). A Geographically Temporal Weighted Regression Approach with Travel Distance for House Price Estimation. Entropy, 18(8), 303. https:; doi.org/10.3390/e18080303 Madanipour, A. (2017). Cities in Time: Temporary Urbanism and the Future of the City (p. 198). Scopus. https:; www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85190349333&partnerID=40&md5=92cf099dd880a72a26ce7d812d2867de Mangialardo, A., & Micelli, E. (2017). Simulation Models to Evaluate the Value Creation of the Grass-Roots Participation in the Enhancement of Public Real-Estate Assets with Evidence from Italy. Buildings, 7(4), 100. https:; doi.org/10.3390/buildings7040100 Martin, M., Deas, I., & Hincks, S. (2019). The Role of Temporary Use in Urban Regeneration: Ordinary and Extraordinary Approaches in Bristol and Liverpool. Planning Practice & Research, 34(5), 537–557. https:; doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2019.1679429 McArdle, R. (2022). ‘Squat City’: Dublin’s temporary autonomous zone. Considering the temporality of autonomous geographies. City, 26(4), 630–645. https:; doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2022.2082149 Mens, J., Van Bueren, E., Vrijhoef, R., & Heurkens, E. (2023). Identifying the merits of bottom-up urban development: Theory-based evaluation using a value map model. Planning Practice & Research, 38(2), 196–217. https:; doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2023.2181296 Noterman, E. (2022). Speculating on vacancy. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 47(1), 123–138. https:; doi.org/10.1111/tran.12477 Oswalt, P., Overmeyer, K., & Misselwitz, P. (2012). Urban Catalyst. The Power of Temporary Use | Klaus Overmeyer, Philipp. DOM publishers. https:; www.naibooksellers.nl/urban-catalyst-the-power-of-temporary-use-philipp-oswalt-klaus-overmeyer-philipp-misselwitz.html?___store=english&___from_store=default Pinard, J. (2020). Developing ‘Transient Urbanism’ as a New Urban and Real Estate Strategy: The Case of the French National Railway Company (SNCF). In L. Andres & A. Y. Zhang (Eds.), Transforming Cities Through Temporary Urbanism (pp. 141–154). Springer International Publishing. https:; doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61753-0_10 Saleh, R. (2022). Collaborative ecosystems connecting people and heritage the journey of Miss Miyagi, a positive impact real estate developer in Belgium. City, Culture and Society, 29, 100447. https:; doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2022.100447 Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung Berlin. (2007). Urban Pioneers. Temporary Use and Urban Development in Berlin. jovis. https:; www.naibooksellers.nl/urban-pioneers-temporary-use-and-urban-development-in-berlin.html?___store=english&___from_store=default Shaw, K. (2005). The Place of Alternative Culture and the Politics of its Protection in Berlin, Amsterdam and Melbourne. Planning Theory & Practice, 6(2), 149–169. https:; doi.org/10.1080/14649350500136830 Vivant, E. (2022). From margins to capital: The integration of spaces of artistic critique within capitalist urbanism. Journal of Urban Affairs, 44(4–5), 490–503. Scopus. https:; doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2020.1811115 Wu, C., Ren, F., Hu, W., & Du, Q. (2019). Multiscale geographically and temporally weighted regression: Exploring the spatiotemporal determinants of housing prices. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 33(3), 489–511. https:; doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2018.1545158 Zhang, A. Y. (2018). Thinking temporally when thinking relationally: Temporality in relational place-making. Geoforum, 90, 91–99. https:; doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.02.007

Keywords: Brussels; GTWR; impact assessment; temporary use (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: R3 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025-01-01
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-ppm and nep-ure
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://eres.architexturez.net/doc/oai-eres-id-eres2025-266 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:arz:wpaper:eres2025_266

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in ERES from European Real Estate Society (ERES) Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Architexturez Imprints ().