category
urbanism
copyright
Rudolf Kohoutek, Christa Kamleithner and Ina Homeier-Mendes
. . . . . . . . . .
submitted by
Ina Homeier-Mendes
submitted on
2003-06-24
. . . . . . . . . .
web links
|
Development of Temporary Uses in Vienna
Development since the Sixties
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Interest of Avant-garde in Temporary Uses; Turning Point: Arena 1976; A New Order of Signs; Transference of Temporary Uses to the Commercial Sector
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Since the sixties there has been a notion of the temporary, however, its usage and image has changed quite a lot. In the beginning it was an avant-garde concept, which didnt leave the architects studio. In a way it was an anticipation of social transformation processes that happened much later. In parallel to this idea of the transitory, there was another phenomenon, which is in a certain way connected with this topic: house occupation. Even if this aspect can be considered as forerunner of current temporary uses, its intention was not temporary, but rather to fulfill a social utopia.
In the nineties an important shift in which way the occupation of places occurred. Until then, cultural uses were allocated in a restricted form to certain locations; these connections loosened, which can be seen as a first sign for the temporalisation of the uses of buildings. What also changed, were the areas in which temporary uses are utilised. When formerly only cultural uses were interested and/or forced to accept premises not intended for their purpose, now the commercial sector is the driving force for the paradigm of the temporary. The cycles of exploitation have become shorter; in this game of market forces cultural temporary uses play an important role. Even when the trashy aesthetics of the unready remained the same, its meaning is quite different from the intentions of the sixties and seventies.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...
|
|
