Temporary Uses: How Can They Support The Legacy Of Major Events?

In the current political, economic, social, environmental (and post-pandemic) uncertainty, how can we effectively design and activate processes of territorial regeneration? What planning tools and strategies can we use to respond to this uncertainty with adaptable, flexible, and inclusive projects? Nowadays, it is still more necessary than ever to adopt tools able to intend planning as a process, trying tentatively to update the definition of Offenen Planung / Open Planning given with foresight in 1968 by the philosopher Lucius Burkhardt. We can identify several processes and procedures that can help a “game changer” planner in adopting an “open planning” process made of steps, such as the on-field survey, the identification of a “vision”, the definition of a masterplan/palimpsest with guidelines for transformation, the organization of moments of public debate, workshops and consultation with communities and institutions; then the launch of pilot projects for temporary use to experiment which “vocations”, economies and care communities, with the aim over time to sediment uses, practices, values, memories and re-significations of an evolving territory and landscape. Adaptability, flexibility, transformations by phases, and temporary uses belong to different disciplinary traditions such as “open planning” (Burkhardt, 1969; Inti, 2019), landscape urbanism (Waldheim, 2016), or tactical urbanism (Lydon, Garcia 2015). They also belong to widespread practices and forms of intervention, temporary uses may be considered within a wide range of declinations concerning the reuse of residual buildings and spaces, large urban projects, landscape and public space regeneration, post-disaster situations and urban transformations due to big events. Starting from case studies and projects developed in a field that involved the authors the paper will critically discuss the role of temporary uses for territorial and urban planning with a specific focus on major events. By comparing some recent investigations and designs of temporary uses and long-term legacy for medium and large events such as BergamoBrescia 2023 capitals of Italian culture, and MilanCortina 2026 Winter Olympics, the paper will reflect on aspects that can also be useful to further compare with 2024 Olympics in Paris. Temporary uses and major events pose recurring questions, critical issues and opportunities. How do large flows of visitors and users of a cultural, sporting, religious, or musical event temporarily alter urban space? Which policies and strategies temporary-uses related can help to manage and regulate counter effects such as mass tourism, skyrocketing costs of living, or gentrification? What legacies (geopolitical, social, environmental) will be in the areas planned as event venues, and what effects of the induced demand for housing and touristic facilities before, during, and after the events? Reasoning about an “ephemeral urbanism”(Mehrotra, 2016) of Olympic villages, new stadiums, tensile structures, art installations in public space, permanent or removable infrastructure and substructures, modular architecture that can be dismantled and transported elsewhere, the paper will reason about this set of temporary uses and their effects, and what kind of cities they build in the long run.