This paper discusses how Tactical Urbanism aligns with the principles of the ‘open city’ framework. The ‘open city’ is often theorised as the urban condition that best welcomes diverse and flexible use of a city’s public spaces. However, the nature of the planning system at its core is to control and predict urban development, thereby effectively reinforcing the principle of a ‘closed city’ with more fixed and rigid forms. One counter-reaction to the ‘closed city’ is the Tactical Urbanism movement, which applies principles of simple, low-cost, and often temporary public space interventions to achieve and accelerate change. Such interventions can create more ‘open’ and inclusive urban environments, enabling diversity and flexibility. However, Tactical Urbanism is applied in multiple forms by different actors with varying intentions and goals. In this paper, I question the role of Tactical Urbanism in congruence with the theoretical framework of the ‘open (and vibrant) city’, drawing attention to how tactical interventions are used to brand new development projects. Doing so, I ask if Tactical Urbanism can be (mis)used merely as ‘temporary temporariness’ to serve top-down planning strategies, resulting in the ‘closed city’.

中文翻译：

---

临时性？ “开放城市”框架中战术城市主义的（误）使用


本文讨论了战术城市主义如何与“开放城市”框架的原则保持一致。 “开放城市”通常被理论化为最适合城市公共空间多样化和灵活使用的城市条件。但规划体系的本质是控制和预测城市的发展，从而以更加固定和刚性的形式有效强化“封闭城市”的原则。对“封闭城市”的一种反反应是战术城市主义运动，该运动采用简单、低成本且通常是临时的公共空间干预措施的原则来实现和加速变革。此类干预措施可以创造更加“开放”和包容的城市环境，实现多样性和灵活性。然而，不同的参与者以不同的意图和目标以多种形式应用战术城市主义。在本文中，我质疑战术城市主义与“开放（和充满活力）城市”的理论框架相一致的作用，提请人们注意如何将战术干预用于全新的开发项目。这样做，我问战术城市主义是否可以仅仅被（误）用作“临时性”来服务于自上而下的规划策略，从而导致“封闭的城市”。