Pop-Up Parks
Strategies for the interim use of vacant
urban space
Vacant urban space is a significant untapped resource. Pop-Up Parks
look to utilise these spaces for public benefit, creating appropriate and
beneficial projects in association with developers and local
communities.
Introduction
Pop-Up Parks are a timely project. They depend upon a specific alignment of socioeconomic and political attitudes, developed in the post-recessional malaise, driving a
desire for perceived progress in economic development through improvement of the
physical environment. They could play an important role in the physical and social
improvement of urban environments and the perpetuation of regeneration activities, tying
in closely with the contemporarily flourishing political drive towards local activism and
community empowerment.
Pop-Up Parks intends to reinvigorate marginal and vacant land within urban areas,
focusing specifically on the interim use of demolition land for projects of public benefit. It
seeks to improve aesthetic and productive value prior to redevelopment, through minimal
physical intervention. Vacant urban land can become a blight when sites are neglected
through lack of funding or ineffective management practises and where a lack of a sense
of community ownership is allowed to prevail. With direct community consultation and
minimal, considered landscape intervention these sites can provide rewarding community
centres which can become partly or fully self-maintaining.
This report comprises the results of research and consultation carried out over July-August
2010. Research focuses upon existing and pending studies in to the uses and potential of
vacant urban land, as well as relevant policy documents and current case studies.
Consultation was sought with representatives of Groundwork UK, Groundwork North East,
Sunderland City Council, Gateshead City Council, Bridging Newcastle Gateshead, Gentoo
and KAPOK Berlin; this report presents aspects of the case for Pop-Up Parks as viewed
by local authorities, landowners, designers and developers.
Carla-Leanne Washbourne
Aug 2010
1
Context
‘The reasons why space has become redundant vary. It may no longer fulfil its intended
purpose, there might be a change in the local economy, or it could be part of a wider plan
to assemble a larger development project’. (Meanwhile Space CIC 2009)
Urban areas have witnessed a significant
decline in construction and regeneration
activities since the start of the current
economic recession (2008). Many
developments have been mothballed, put
on hold indefinitely, whilst developers
await more clement economic times. This
has resulted in the existence of significant
numbers of vacant urban sites in cities
across the UK, some awaiting demolition,
some awaiting development. In the
current
economic
climate
built
environment investment is scarce;
therefore many of these sites will remain
undeveloped for significant periods of
time.
Pop-Up Parks seek to address three
major areas of concern:
The Pop-Up Parks project intends to
reinvigorate these stagnant areas,
focusing specifically on the short-term,
interim use of vacant urban space or ‘land
in limbo’i for diverse projects of public
benefit. These developments would look
to improve the aesthetic and productive
value of land awaiting redevelopment; for
local
communities
small
physical
improvements of this type can have an
increased significance in challenging
times.
Economic
There is little space in the constrained
public budget for addressing the ‘nonurgent’ issue of vacant land. To residents
and
developers,
even
small
improvements can become all the more
significant in challenging times
Pop-Up Parks will…. operate at a
minimal budget using development
agreements,
small-scale
funding,
reclaimed materials, local volunteers and
community groups
‘focus on improving and
maintaining the local
environment has been shown
consistently to be a powerful
vehicle for motivating people to
act together in the interests of
their wider community’
Groundwork UK
Regeneration, resilience and the Big
Society, May 2010
Social
Communities feel marginalized by built
environment stagnation. Neglected
vacant sites can reduce the perceived
value of urban areas. This may invoke
socially-active practises such as guerrilla
gardening and ‘nudge urbanism’ which
seek to rectify large perceived social
problems through public intervention
Pop-Up Parks will…. harness ideals of
social activism to provide local consultees
and voluntary forces for project
implementation
Political
The is a potential to exploit the idea of
transference and devolution of power to
local regions through the creation of the
‘Big Society’, allowing greater autonomy
for local planning decisions from inception
to implementation. This is in keeping with
the concept of community ownership and
empowerment of local groups.
Pop-Up Parks will…. promote local
discourse and decision-making on the
use of vacant urban space, from planning
and consultation to implementation
2
When development does not progress
rapidly, the aesthetics of the site often
decline rapidly, seemingly encouraging
further irresponsible usage. ‘Pop-Up
Parks’ would not only look to address and
reduce these issues through effective
landscaping and ongoing management
schemes, but would seek to add value to
the land, providing additional local
benefits. By ‘designing-out’ crime and
deterring anti-social behaviourii a sense
of inclusion and positive ownership can
also prove an effective solution.
owners, developers, local authorities and
nearby communities:
Whilst most developers or owners have
an obligation to clear and stabilise vacant
sites, and often provide basic recovery
seeding, there are few additional
obligations unless the condition of the site
begins to pose an immediate risk to
public health. All of these issues are
considered in this proposal to provide a
low-cost,
temporary
management
scheme for vacant urban space. Vacant
urban spaces presently pose immediate
and cumulative specific problems to
Unauthorised use
Cleared sites can often become
overgrown, or inapplicable hoardings or
fencing can fail to prevent access whilst
also providing screening for unauthorised
activities. Vacant urban sites act as
magnets for illegal refuse disposal; where
access is not sufficiently restricted
degraded vacant urban sites are
frequently the focuses of fly tipping
operations.
Aesthetic decline
Decline may occur due to difficulties in
managing the vacant site, unauthorised
access leading to fly tipping, fires etc.,
use of unattractive boundary markers,
problems with seeding and recovery.
They may be perceived as ‘unused’ and
when development of a site is halted for a
long and indefinite period, the aesthetics
of the site often decline.
Land in limbo is an
incredibly important
albeit ephemeral
resource. ‘They are
spaces that have an
immense amount of
flexibility in the way
urban neighbourhoods
change’
Peter Neal (CABE head of
public space)
CABE Space ‘Public Space
Lessons: Land in Limbo’
2008
3
Potential
In many senses, vacant urban space provides a entirely blank slate from which to
construct a project for community benefit. On a philosophical level, there are a number of
‘preferred’ uses to which the site could be put, which incorporate measures to address one
or more of the aspects listed below:
 Urban social environment
Improvement / provision of green space
for social and health benefits within the
local community. Provision of physical
community focus; spaces and
opportunities for community interaction
and events
 Urban physical environment
Improved water management through soft
engineering and construction of
sustainable urban drainage (SUDs) to
reduce overland flow from impermeable
urban surfaces providing protection
against heavy rainfall and flood events
 Biodiversity
Creation of wildlife areas, green corridors
or managed meadows / grassland in
order to attract wildlife to urban regions,
improve habitat diversity and provide
areas for wildlife observation and
education
 Climate Change
Reduction of the urban heat island effect
by increased presence of vegetation /
increase in urban surface albedo (ability
to reflect sunlight) through replacement or
alteration of dark urban surfaces
 Art
Provide a platform for installations by
artists possibly as part of an ‘artists in
residence’ programme, provide a ‘blank
canvas’ for showcasing of new works by
local artists
There are a wide range of specific
temporary uses which vacant urban land
could be put to, strongly dictated by
factors such as geographical setting, local
community demographic and duration of
site availability. Some of the possible
project ‘themes’ and specific functions
pertaining to these are listed in Table 1;
Art
Showcase space for artists in residence
‘Art Parks’: Art as architecture
Ecology / Green Infrastructure
Wild-space / Biodiversity areas
Green corridors
Tree nurseries
Allotments / Urban farming
Environment / Climate Change
Water management (SUDs)
Biomass production
Bioremediation
Education
Recycled art projects
Environmental awareness / Biodiversity studies
Healthy play
Play / Leisure / Sports
High quality, multipurpose open space
Community
Community space
Community volunteering / management opportunities
Temporary commercial uses
Flea markets
Car boot sales
Farmers markets
Table 1: Potential uses of vacant urban land
4
The potential uses of this type of site are
limited by imagination and feasibility,
which is then closely mediated by the
nature and magnitude of available
support. All proposed uses must be
considered in the knowledge that:

The project is temporary and shortterm and any landscaping features
or installations will need to be
removed or decommissioned when
the site is prepared for eventual
development

Minimal funding will be available
for materials and implementation,
therefore any works will need to be
carried out at low cost, with
minimal raw materials and by
semi-skilled or volunteers workers

The project must take in to
consideration the desires of all
stakeholders, in order to provide
an inclusive and universally
attractive site, and incorporate
these desires wherever practically
possible
It should be noted that none of the
functions listed in Table 1 preclude any
others, and basic, multifunctional sites will
often have increased value both in direct
economic terms (through savings in
capital costs and revenue expenditure)
and for the local community. For
example, a site could be simply
landscaped as a high quality managed
green space, including biodiversity zones
and
an
integrated
environmental
management function e.g. managed
wetland to mitigate flood impacts. It could
be used as a learning space for
environmental education, as a park space
with a flexible, ongoing role for recreation
within the community and as a site for
temporary exhibitions and community or
commercial events.
Demonstrating the flexibility and potential
of vacant urban land is critical to
engendering confidence in landowners
and stakeholders. For many landowners it
would seem that leaving a site empty and
unattended is by far the easiest and most
economical means of management prior
to redevelopment. Illustrating the potential
interim uses of these sites and their
benefits allows for changes in perception.
The potential of the Pop-Up Park site is inherently linked to the idea of a project ‘vision’.
The vision for the project can be informed by the site setting, prior or intended use or
proximity to characteristic or heritage regions in the close vicinity. The development of
some sites may be driven by the original vision of a particular community group or social
enterprise, which could strongly determine the overall vision for the site from design to
implementation. Alternatively, a general ‘vision’ can be selected from Table 1 by an
overseeing party and expanded in order to incorporate community and developer desires
identified through the consultation process.
‘Once you recognise that land in limbo is a resource, an asset
rather than a liability, then actually it’s inexcusable to simply be in
denial about it and do nothing about it’
Chris Baines (CABE Space Enabler)
CABE Space ‘Public Space Lessons: Land in Limbo’ 2008
5
Benefits
With specific reference to the type of projects which are likely to be implemented in vacant
urban spaces, the most marked benefits of an intervention are likely to be for the direct
physical environment and local community as outlined below.
Environment
Green areas cost very little to establish
and provide numerous benefits to the
environment on micro- and macrocosmic
scales. The presence of high-quality
green space in urban areas is generally
limited; therefore a strong focus on the
creation of green spaces in vacant urban
spaces via Pop-Up Parks is justifiable.
Small urban green-spaces, especially
those with managed grassland, wild
flowers of larger plant species, can
provide habitats for wildlife, acting as
green corridors through a city. They can
play a part in reducing the urban heat
island effect and improving surface water
management in urban areas. They act as
multi-use sites for the local community,
for play, recreation and as an appreciable
public space.
Pop-Up Parks have the potential for
encouraging developers to embrace the
ideas of Green Infrastructure, by
demonstrating the positive environmental
changes that can be made to the site with
limited budget. The retention and
maintenance of Green Infrastructure can
be integrated in to the developer’s plans
for the site if community response is
sufficient. Whilst it may conspire that GI
installed onsite is temporary, a critical
purpose will have been served throughout
the period during which it exists.
Community
In order to foster a full sense of
community ownership of a site,
involvement is required at many stages:
1. Consultation: Early consultation is
necessary for a project of this type to be
successful. The needs and ideas of
stakeholder groups should be considered
during this process and incorporated
where feasible.
2. Implementation: Community
involvement in the construction of the site
is valuable; providing volunteer labour
with a mixture of skills and experiences.
3. Management: Involvement of the
community in managing the project is
central to its success as a public space.
Direct community management has many
benefits; it is likely to reduce risks of
vandalism, illustrate clear ownership of
the site and reduce revenue costs.
Consideration must be given to the type
of engagement / facilitation: who it is
carried out by, how the groups are
approached and how any feedback is
processed. Pop-Up Parks will only
succeed where the local community feel
that their ideas have been valued and
that the project will be of direct personal
and societal benefit.
It is crucial to elucidate the societal benefits and economic potential of this type of project
through a clear justification of the relative value of creating high-quality urban public
spacesiii. These considerations would include increases in land value due to improved
quality and aesthetics, improved perception of, and increased confidence in, the area, and
health and societal benefits of public space to communities and the resultant raised
aspirations. These interim sites could even serve a conceptual role for developers wishing
to integrate aspects such as green infrastructure to their final development, illustrating
what can be achieved on a site, in terms of land and environmental improvement, with
minimal funding and management inputs.
6
Implementation
Design
There is the potential for the initial PopUp Park proposals to take the form of
‘stock’ designs. A number of stock
designs could be created, assuming a
variety of site areas, functions and
materials budgets. If it is agreed that a
project of this type should occur on a
given physical site, the final design of
projects should be undertaken by a
skilled landscape architect, in order to
allow effective inclusion of all functional
aspects, in a suitable aesthetic manner,
within a specified materials budget. The
design of the site is critical to its eventual
function; the projects are temporary, and
therefore designs are unlikely to be
required to be as enduring as permanent
projects of the same nature. This may
allow some flexibility in the way different
aspects of the design are approached,
especially with consideration to the
balance of capital costs of material and
labour and revenue cost for the
maintenance of the site.
Construction
The means and duration of construction
of the Pop-Up Park will vary depending
upon the decided interim function and
materials budget. Large-scale landscape
interventions would need to be carried out
by specialist contractors, while smaller
scale constructions such as raised beds
etc. could be carried out by community or
volunteer groups, potentially under the
guidance of other skilled parties.
Decommissioning
It is likely that the developers would wish
the site to be cleared of its temporary use
before development is commenced. The
temporary landlord / project stakeholders
are likely to have the responsibility for
returning the site to a bare ground state
for development to begin, which may
involve specialist contactors or
community groups / volunteers depending
upon the scale of the landscaping and
installations which require removal. This
should be part of a written exit strategy.
CABE: Inclusion by Design
The CABE ‘design and access statement’ approach for parks and open community
spaces in urban areas was created to inform thinking on the creation and maintenance
of effective and inclusive spaces. The work is highly applicable to the creation of
temporary public spaces, ensuring quality of construction and applicability of the design
for the community. It ensures inclusion of all potential users and addresses important
physical and philosophical aspects of public space design.








Providing spaces for social interaction
Enhancing the local environment
Encouraging a more outdoor lifestyle in cities
Fostering a sense of belonging and pride in an area
Reducing road accidents through appropriately managing different transport
modes and prioritising the pedestrian
Increasing perceptions of safety through attracting a large cross section of people
at all times of day
Enhancing the attractiveness of routes for walking and cycling
Providing an appropriate setting for social and economic activity
Clearly not all of these statements will apply to every Pop-Up Park project, but a ‘design
statement’ approach to the creation of Pop-Up Park proposals is desirable, providing a
useful reference list during project feasibility assessment.
7
Obstacles
Obstacles to the creation of Pop-up Parks may be considered as physical, political or a
combination of both factors. The obstacles discussed below have the ability to limit the
potential of Pop-Up Parks at any given site.
Site Constraints
Whilst complex physical site factors are
not necessarily ‘obstacles’ in the negative
sense, they strongly determine the type of
development that is applicable and
feasible; location, size, topography,
geology, hydrogeology, hydrology,
presence of contamination, previous use,
interim use, future uses
Financial Constraints
The budget available from funding bodies
for the creation of temporary sites is likely
to be minimal; therefore, Pop-Up Parks
will be strongly constrained by the
magnitude and availability of capital and
revenue funding sources. This is
discussed further in the next section of
this report.
Planning and Land-use
There are many legal factors to consider
in temporary site development; there is
also a significant variation in legal
standpoints related to the interim use of
vacant land, whether it be owned by local
authorities or private developers. Whilst
strict planning permission is not required
for this type of project, legal complications
may be encountered in acquisition of
official changes of land use if the original
project duration is exceeded.
Health and Safety
Prior to the opening of a site as land for
public use, consideration will need to be
made of the legal obligations of the site
owner to the health and safety of any site
users. This has implications for both the
design and management of the project.
There is the potential to waiver certain
sensible aspects of this when a site is put
to a specific community use e.g. food
production, where specific, inherent risks
posed by use of hand-tools etc. must be
accepted by the users. Landscape
designs will need to be created in a
manner which ensures that no significant
risk is posed to users of the area. This
includes considerations of accessibility
and usability for users of all ages and
abilities.
Public Liability
Depending upon the eventual use of the
site, considerations will also have to be
made for public liability insurance. This
will need to be covered by any interim
‘overseers’ of the site, whether this be the
project inception team or an intermediary
landlord, as it is unlikely to be covered by
existing agreements with the landowner
or developer.
Management of expectations
There is some resistance to the idea of
positive intervention for interim use of
vacant urban land, due to increased
potential for negative reaction to the
eventual development. This is generally
perceived as one of the largest problems
with the interim use of vacant urban land.
Developers are reluctant to allow the
implementation of projects which promote
positive community use of these spaces,
as they are concerned by the potential
backlash from the community when
eventual development of the site removes
what has come to be perceived as a
designated community space. Ultimately
Pop-Up Parks are interim installations
and should be viewed as such by
developers and the community. One of
the early project objectives should be to
manage expectations within the
community of what the site will eventually
become, and ensure this is constantly
reiterated.
8
Funding
Interim use of vacant urban land may be
viewed as a ‘false economy’. Investment
in temporary infrastructure is seen as
unlikely to reap significant economic
returns, and will ultimately be turned over
to development within a relatively short
time period. In simplified economic terms
Pop-Up Parks can be viewed as a sliding
scale of project ‘magnitude’ with respect
to intervention, investment, development
and management. As can be seen from
the schematic below, as site intervention
increases capital investment in and
maintenance commitments to the project
also increase. Perceived community
value does not necessarily follow this
trend in a linear manner, as it is
dependent upon factors such as the
presence, location and demographic of
the local community, as well as the type
and quantity of alternative public space in
the area and the condition of the site prior
to development.
Community use / Productive
land
Capital
funding
Maintenance /
Revenue
funding
Installations / Intensive
decorative planting
Landscaping / Decorative
planting
Scale of
intervention
Topsoil and recovery
seeding / Wildlife planting
Nature of Funding
There are a number of considerations
with respect to the sources or capital and
revenue funding for these projects.
Capital funding is likely to be minimal due
to the temporary nature of the
development. Revenue funding will be
minimal or non-existent depending upon
the stance of the owner / developer. It is
noted that securing a relatively large
capital fund, enabling a higher quality
initial development may be preferable for
offsetting revenue maintenance costs at a
later point.
Occasionally, large developers carry out
projects on a rolling programme of
demolition and development – this means
that the demolition of any given site and
its eventual re-use are likely to be
punctuated by a moderate period of
vacancy. Discussion has been given to
the potential for levying funding for the
improvement of vacant urban sites from
the existing budget allocation in the
demolition / clearance contract for the
site. There is generally an allocation
made in demolition budgets for the
‘reinstating’ of a site after demolition; this
allows developers a number of options for
the manner in which a site is left prior to
ultimate development. In most cases a
cleared site would have a funding
allocation set aside to leave existing hardstanding foundations if in appropriate
condition, crushed and consolidated
demolition rubble, or to cover the site with
topsoil and grass seed. There is
significant potential for setting this funding
9
stream aside in order to provide baseline
funding for materials and landscaping as
an inception step in the creation of a PopUp Park.
It must be noted that any funding secured
for this type of project is likely to be
minimal. Due to the temporary nature of
the site, the type of funding available will
differ greatly from that available for
permanent infrastructure of the same
nature. Possible funding bodies will also
vary greatly depending upon the decided
theme and nature of the project.
Project funding opportunities also vary
depending upon whether they are applied
for by Groundwork or via a community
group. Groundwork are able to bid for
large-scale project funding for materials
and landscaping operations. If a
community group can be identified or is
able to be mobilised in the process of
Pop-Up Park construction, a number of
small community grants can be applied
for directly, which can be tailored to the
theme of the interim site use. These
grants may be used as capital investment
for landscaping of the site, but are also
likely to be useful for the continued
maintenance of community projects.
Some examples of potential funding
bodies are listed below:

Urban social and physical
environment:
Heritage Lottery Fund:
Land and biodiversity
The Big Lottery Fund:
Community Wildlife Fund
The Big Lottery Fund:
People and Places
 Biodiversity:
Heritage Lottery Fund:
Land and biodiversity
The Big Lottery Fund:
Community Wildlife Fund
The Big Lottery Fund:
People and Places
 Art:
Arts Councils:
Arts Council UK and local funding
Heritage Lottery Fund:
Cultures and memories
Local Arts Funding
 Community
The Big Lottery Fund:
Awards for All
The Big Lottery Fund:
Changing Spaces: Community
Spaces (Groundwork UK)
The Big Lottery Fund:
Investing in Communities
Community Development Foundation:
Grassroots Grants
The ethos of Pop-up Parks should align
closely with social activism and
community empowerment – much of the
development work carried out on these
sites will be through the contribution of
material, time or labour from local people,
community groups, volunteers or other
stakeholders. Community involvement
from the outset should also aid in
fostering a deeper sense of responsibility
for and ownership of the site.
Volunteer and community involvement
are key to the success of the Pop-Up
Parks project; volunteer labour and
community management reduce capital
and revenue costs, through a provision of
cost-free labour and positive ownership
practises. Volunteers generally require a
coordinating body - although this does not
necessitate a formal agreement - this
may be provided by a community group,
by an intermediary such as Groundwork,
or through wider volunteer mobilisation
programmes initiated as part of the
ongoing policy roll-out of the coalition
government’s ‘Big Society’ agenda.
10
Policy Setting
A number of bodies have produced, or are in the process of producing, works or advisory
documents regarding the significance, use and management of vacant urban space,
addressing meanwhile uses and the potential of land in limbo.
 CABE Land in Limbo
The Commission for Architecture and the
Built Environment produced a definitive
document on Land in Limbo in 2008
which provided general background to the
challenges, context of and potential uses
for vacant urban space. The work has a
strong ‘landscape’ slant. This document
was written from the perspective of CABE
‘Space Enablers’, an expert panel who
advise CABE on aspects of land
planning, design, maintenance and
management. It also provides a variety of
case studies, including the well-received
Green Estates project in Sheffield. A
checklist; ‘Land in Limbo: a checklist to
make it work’ is included, which provides
basic guidance for those wishing to
consider implementing a project on
vacant urban sites.
 Meanwhile Project
The Meanwhile Project was set up in
response to a high-level call for the
creative use of Meanwhile Spaces. The
Meanwhile Project is supported by the UK
governments DTA (Development Trust
Association) and Asset Transfer Unit
(ATU). The Project is set up as both a
‘philosophy’ and a ‘programme of work’.
The focus of this project has historically
been on the temporary use of vacant
commercial properties in city centres in
order to avoid the aesthetic and social
decline created by city centre vacation. A
number of case studies are available. The
project has also looked to promote the
use of vacant urban sites. The Meanwhile
Project has produced a number of
guidance documents for individuals,
community groups and developers (A
Handbook for Intermediary Leaseholders
of Temporary Spaces That Can Benefit
the Community, The Empty Shops
Workbook, No Time to Waste... The
Meanwhile Use of Assets for Community
Benefit) providing an enabling service for
‘meanwhilers’.

Meanwhile Space Community
Interest Company (CIC)
Meanwhile Space CIC is the delivery and
commercial arm of the Meanwhile
Project. Meanwhile Space work directly
with landlords, landowners, developers
and local authorities, to negotiate
temporary leasing of vacant properties.
They also work with community groups
and other stakeholders in order to match
vacant premises to relevant projects.

Communities and Local
Government (CLG)
CLG produced the ‘Looking after our town
centres’ guide in 2009, which includes a
short chapter on the temporary uses of
vacant urban space. This was one of the
starting points for the Meanwhile project.
CLG and Meanwhile have since produced
a ‘Meanwhile Lease’ to inform and
facilitate the legal process for the
temporary use of vacant urban sites.

Federation of City Farms and
Community Gardens (FCFCG)
Community Land Bank
The Federation of City Farms and
Community Gardens are currently
developing the Community Land Bank
Project. The project would look to collect
together vacant land in to a virtual
‘repository’, which could then be allocated
out to relevant community groups for
utilisation as community gardens or
agricultural growing spaces. This project
is currently at a research / feasibility
stage, with initial consultations having
been carried out with public sector and
charitable bodies as potential
stakeholders.
11
Case Studies
Case studies are able to illustrate the settings in which projects of this type have been
previously implemented, shedding light on the necessary legal negotiations and most
effective approaches to project implementation.
U.K.:
A number of isolated projects have been
carried out on vacant urban land,
generally through collaborations between
private developers and local authorities /
community groups and social enterprises.
Temporary parks have played a part in
the landscaping of the U.K., especially
during periods of recession. Some
examples of these projects are listed
below. There currently exist no
contemporary projects which demonstrate
the large-scale implementation of a PopUp Park type paradigm.
Pocket Parks (historic):
The creation of Pocket Parks was a largescale administrative move during the
recession of the 1980’s, towards
improving access to green areas and
solving the problems of vacant
development sites. This practise was
embraced by a number of local
authorities including Sunderland City
Council, and was funded through a
centralised Derelict Land Grant.
Meanwhile Projects:
The Meanwhile Project has undertaken a
large number of projects related to the
use of vacant urban structures as cultural
centres, working spaces or information
centres. These have not yet translated to
a significant number of projects on
development sites, although the project
manifesto includes this type of site.
Wonderwood:
Wonderwood is a well-known
contemporary example of a temporary
park. It is an ‘art park’ which was
constructed on a delayed building site in
Holbeck Urban Village, Leeds, in summer
2009. The planned lifespan of the park
was 3 months; however the installations
have remained onsite due to significant
demand from local residents.
King's Cross Central Skip Garden:
The ongoing development area in Kings
Cross, London, has become the site of
the U.Ks first ‘skip garden’. This selfsustaining community vegetable garden
has the added benefit of being completely
mobile, able to be relocated with ease
and with little damage to the growing
areas.
The Green Estate:
Since 1998 the Green Estate, a collective
of third sector organisations, has
overseen the regeneration and
improvement of the Manor and Castle
estate areas of South Sheffield. Green
and productive environments were
created in the hope of improving ‘the
relationship between the land and
people.’ These developments are semipermanent, but provide inspiration for
similar temporary approaches.
Germany:
Many urban centres in Germany have
significant experience of the temporary
use of vacant urban spaces. A combined
history of industrial decline and political
upheaval during the 20th Century has
seen large changes in city centre landuse, also tied in to a general movement of
industrial facilities away from costlier,
historic Western European labour
markets. This has strongly dictated the
distribution, quality and type of new
constructions.
Vacant land development in German
cities has been de rigour for many years.
Berlin in particular has a wealth of unused
inner city space, transformed by creative
and social collectives. This approach has
also been directly incentivised to local
12
entrepreneurs through favourable
planning policies and non-economically
focussed development, creating
commercially viable enterprises on
previously forgotten sites. In Germany the
‘planning’ approach to the use of vacant
urban space is much more flexible than in
the U.K., removing many of the legal and
temporal constraints related to official
procedures of acquisition and temporary
development for structures and spaces.
The Federal Institute for Research on
Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial
Development (BBSR) have produced an
extensive workshop document on ‘The
impact of temporary use of land and
buildings on sustainable urban
developmentiv’, which contains numerous
case studies of temporary urban land-use
in conurbations across Germany. It can
be noted that many of the proposed land
use types, and actual and perceived
aims, implementation options and
obstacles match closely with those
considered by this research project.
Worldwide:
There are a number of global case
studies which do not deal directly with the
technicalities of meanwhile land-use, but
address the broader issue of urban
dereliction and city centre decline. The
Shrinking Cities project has looked at the
recent phenomenon of urban population
decline, due to numerous driving factors
such as industrial decline and major
political changes. This multi-disciplinary
research, begun in 2002, with a
worldwide exhibition following in 2008,
investigated the relocation of urban
populations and services and plotted the
presence and fates of demolition land
within these areas. Understanding the
reasons for this decline on such a largescale and means by which it has been
successfully combated is a useful
philosophical exercise in assessing the
potential uses of meanwhile land on a
smaller scale.
The cities selected by Shrinking Cities for
closer study were:
 Halle / Leipzig, Germany
Former industrial / trading centres in
eastern Germany, now home to informal
land-use and piecemeal gentrification
 Detroit, U.S.A.
The original centre of the global car
industry in Michigan, North Mid-West
U.S.A., now home to numerous social
enterprises
 Manchester / Liverpool, U.K.
Former industrial / trading centres in the
North West U.K now a stronghold of arts
and cultural development
 Ivanovo, Russia
Former Soviet centre in western Russia,
close to Moscow, a centre of informal
enterprise
Case Study (Detroit, U.S.A):
In the U.S.A. many cities are undergoing
significant levels of suburbanisation and
counter-urbanisation, leaving large areas
of derelict or demolished property in the
urban centres. Unlike urban dereliction in
many European cities, which causes
visual blight and isolated disruption, the
scale of dereliction in many Mid-Western
American towns has led to the
fragmentation of communities and
degradation of infrastructure.
Combating this trend requires serious
solutions for a productive use of such
large, vacant sites, which are unlikely to
be developed in the near future. They
require a creative approach, minimal
budget and socially enterprising nature in
order to achieve full success. The
inherent opportunity in this has been
identified by the various charitable and
community groups now carrying out
Urban Farming projects in Detroit, who
have created co-operative urban farms as
a means of engaging local residents and
providing fresh food to disadvantaged
communities.
13
Collaborative pilot studies will be carried out to allow the creation of a feasibility brief. The
sites listed below are provisional case study locations, proposed in collaboration with a
variety of site owners including local authorities and private partnerships.
Sunniside, Sunderland
(Sunniside Partnership)
Sunderland is undergoing significant
urban regeneration following a long
period of post-industrial decline. East
Sunniside is a focus area for these
works, containing a number of
preserved historic properties,
interspersed with mixed land-uses. Akin
to many urban regeneration projects,
the redevelopment of the historic urban
environs of Sunniside has occurred in a
piecemeal manner, leaving restored
properties in conservation areas
juxtaposed with derelict or demolished
sites. Two sites have been selected as
pilot projects: a former public house site
275m2 (approx) and a multi-property
demolition site 1500m2 (approx). The
implementation of the Pop-Up Park
model could be used to improve the
interim aesthetics of the area. In the
same manner that regeneration in one
urban area can have positive impacts
on the development of the surrounding
environs, the improvement of derelict
land may act as an incentive for
improved care of the concurrent public
space, speeding the regeneration
process.
Various Sites nr Trinity Square
Regeneration Area, Gateshead
(Gateshead City Council)
Gateshead city centre is undergoing
significant redevelopment, with the
demolition of central infrastructure to
make way for new construction. This
demolition is coupled with the clearance
of a number of single-property sized
plots close to the city centre. The
implementation of the Pop-Up Park
model could be used to improve interim
aesthetics of the sites, and provide an
alternative community focus during the
construction of the new city centre
infrastructure. These sites could also be
developed as a collaborative project
with residents of Gateshead’s creative
communities. These sites will be
developed on a rolling basis, providing
an opportunity for ongoing Pop-Up Park
presence in the area.
Fulwell Mill, Sunderland
(Sunderland City Council)
Fulwell Windmill in Sunderland has
received a large quantity of funding in
order to refurbish its historic structure
and ensure maintenance as a heritage
monument. The area surrounding the
Fulwell Mill site has been partially
landscaped to produce an attractive
heritage landscape. A historic WWI
acoustic mirror is located on a site
nearby, with access via an allotment
site. There is currently poor provision for
access between these sites. The site
may be redeveloped as part of
Sunderland’s proposal for hosting a
world cup 2018 fan fest event as part of
the U.K. 2018 World Cup host bid. The
implementation of the Pop-Up Park
model could be used to improve public
access to the historic site, improving
awareness of the variety of local historic
landmarks.
14
Evaluation
It is important to evaluate the success of the Pop-Up Parks pilot projects in order to
validate, and if necessary improve, the approach to pilot project implementation.
Significantly, consideration should be made as to whether the project ultimately fulfilled its
initial aims and whether any unforeseen obstacles were encountered during the planning,
inception, maintenance or decommissioning of the site.
Points to consider when carrying out a project evaluation:
 Did the project satisfy the original vision?
 Did the project match the design brief?
 Did the project fully satisfy and integrate community desires?
 Was the project implemented within temporal and budget constraints?
 Did the project effectively engage stakeholders and the local community?
 Was the project economically viable?
 Did the project comply with any maintenance requirements?
 Were the expectations of the community maintained with respect to the final
development?
 How effectively was the decommissioning and movement to ultimate development
achieved?
Through a structured evaluation process, strengths and weaknesses of the concept can be
elucidated for each pilot site. Data can be correlated in order to determine sites, settings,
themes and management schemes which are generally more or less effective. From
experience, the ideas of Pop-Up Parks can be brought in to effective use. An ongoing
process of evaluation will be required in order to ensure that Pop-Up Parks are utilised in a
successful manner and are inherently tailored to a site’s needs. Building up a series of
pilot studies is invaluable in evaluating the overall success of the project and working
toward the provision of a tailored and informed toolkit document which can be utilised in
project planning.
15
Conclusions
The initial response to the use of vacant urban space has been encouraging. The work of
public and private sector bodies in producing policy development and viable case study
projects has proven that there is both an interest and desire for academic and practical
investment in the use of these sites.
The utilisation of vacant urban space is a practise which seems very simple on the
surface, but proves to be complex when divided in to its separate considerations. Listed
below are the key conclusions of this report, which inform the recommendations made in
the final section.
 Context
Pop-Up Parks looks to address the combined social, economic and political issues which
inform the current approach to vacant urban land. It looks to harness ideals of social
activism to provide local consultees and voluntary forces for project implementation. It will
operate at a minimal budget using development agreements, small-scale funding,
reclaimed materials, local volunteers and community groups. Most importantly, it will
promote local discourse and decision-making on the use of vacant urban space, from
planning and consultation to implementation.
 Potential
The potential of a vacant urban site is limited by imagination and feasibility, governed
closely by budget and timescale. A project ‘vision’ is necessary for any site and should be
constructed through consultation with developers, landowners and local community
groups. A number of project themes: Art, Climate Change, Biodiversity, Urban physical
environment and Urban social environment, can be used as the initial basis for developing
the vision for a particular site.
 Benefits
Pop-Up Parks have a strong potential for encouraging the creation of urban green space
and productive landscapes. They can aid developers in considering the benefits of Green
Infrastructure, by demonstrating the positive environmental changes that can be made to
the site with limited budget.
Pop-Up Parks will only succeed where the local community feel that their ideas have been
valued and that the project will be of direct benefit. An empowered community will take
ownership of the site, perpetuating positive management and proactive involvement.
 Implementation
Stock designs for sites of different magnitudes and settings may be created to provide
guidance to developers / landowners considering a temporary use. Bespoke landscape
designs would be created after an iterative process of community consultation.
Large-scale landscape interventions would need to be carried out by specialist contractors,
while smaller scale constructions such as raised beds etc. could be carried out by
community or volunteer groups, potentially under the guidance of other skilled parties.
Consideration needs to be given to the decommissioning of the site once development is
set to proceed. An exit strategy for the site should be created, in order to demonstrate this
consideration to developers / landowners.
16
 Obstacles
Physical site constraints and financial constraints will inform the project vision and original
design, but may also provide opportunities for specific thematic uses. Limited finance
necessitates an encouragement of local community and volunteer involvement.
Planning and land-use policy require consideration prior to the implementation of a Pop-Up
Park project. As a temporary installation, planning permission etc. should not be required.
Health and Safety and accessibility must be considered and Public Liability insurance
should be acquired for the site if turned over to public use.
Management of expectations is seen as a significant obstacle to the positive interim use of
land. Reiteration of the fact that the site is an ongoing development project is required
throughout the interim use of the site. In ongoing developments, an assurance could be
given that the project would be implemented on a rolling basis at the next available local
site.
 Funding
Project funding could be gained from a number of sources; however, the funding body and
magnitude of grant would depend strongly upon the theme of the project which is
ultimately implemented. Community and creative groups have powers to lobby funding,
which should be encouraged in the ongoing maintenance of the Pop-Up Parks site.
Small-scale funding could be secured from the outset by early consultation with
developers to transfer funds from the site demolition budget to stabilising and reinstating
the site in a more creative manner than ‘turf and tidy’.
Funding for this type of project is likely to be minimal. The financial ethos of Pop-up Parks
should align closely with social activism and community empowerment. Much of the work
carried out on these sites will be through the contribution of material, time or labour from
local people, community groups, volunteers or other stakeholders.
 Policy Setting
At present there are a number of private and public sector bodies working on enabling
ease of transfer of properties and sites from permanent to temporary usage. In legal terms,
temporary use of vacant land has been strongly considered a policy focus since 2009. The
CLG ‘Meanwhile Lease’ aims to ease the process of intermediate land use, by facilitating
the legal stance of ‘interim landlord’ and tenant (community group / creative group / other
user).
17
Recommendations

Research, and consultation with local authorities and private landowners, has gathered
an overwhelmingly positive response for the Pop-Up Parks project. Views of the
potential benefits are clearly shared, with a desire to address any inherent obstacles
and implement the concept as soon as possible.

It is suggested that Groundwork North East collaborate with these interested bodies to
create pilot Pop-Up Parks in the locations outlined in the case studies section, in which
the concepts discussed in this report can be implemented and assessed.

Groundwork has a strong background in community engagement, education and
activism. This is recognised by local authority partners and developers; Groundwork
are a preferred partner for carrying out the community consultation and delivering
engagement with respect to these projects, even where the landscaping is to be carried
out in-house.

Pending the evaluation of pilot projects, Groundwork should further pursue the potential
for additional sites in which to implement the concepts put forward by this study. As
previously noted, the type and quantity of intervention carried out by Groundwork, and
involvement of the landscape team, will depend upon the stance of the developer /
landowner.

As suggested by Meanwhile Space in their ‘Handbook for Intermediary Leaseholders of
Temporary Spaces...’ there is the potential for Groundwork to act in an intermediary
fashion, where necessary, facilitating communication between the landowners /
developers and local community groups where a vacant site of interest is earmarked.

There is also the potential to act an intermediary landlord where private landowners are
involved. The intermediary would usually provide legal and contractual support to the
site occupiers, where needed, and become the default point of contact for the site
users, as an alternative to passing all duties to the landowner as an additional incentive
to allowing interim use.
18
Thanks to
Graham Duxbury Groundwork UK Director of Development
Keith Hamilton Sunderland City Council Deputy Manager, Planning Implementation
Peter Harrison Gentoo Head of Regeneration
Liz Hughes Sunniside Partnership Senior Project Manager
Patrick Nichol Groundwork North East Head of Land
Peter Richards Groundwork North East Director of Development
Robert Slinger KAPOK Berlin
John Sparkes Bridging Newcastle Gateshead Head of Development
Joanne Spencer Groundwork Manchester Programme Manager Neighbourhood
Regeneration
Peter Udall Gateshead Council Head of Design
David Walton Groundwork North East Tees Valley Green Infrastructure Manager
References
i
CABE Space ‘Public Space Lessons: Land in Limbo’ 2008
Groundwork Potential in People 2008
iii
CABE, ‘Making the Invisible Visible: The Real Value of Park Assets’, 2009
iv
The Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (BBSR)
Zwischennutzungen und Nischen im Städtebau als Beitrag für eine nachhaltige Stadtentwicklung
2008 ‘The impact of temporary use of land and buildings on sustainable urban development’
ii
‘not to be intellectually consumed by the social, economic,
environmental and political climate of the coming years, but to hold
on to the simple idea that the future may provide opportunities to
work in a more value-based way with communities, and to reapply
community development practices in a freer, more innovative way’
Tom Archer (CDF Practice Officer)
‘A future for community development’ Community Development Foundation June 2009
19