5. Is it difficult to see your creations come down after such a short period of time?
In the case of last year’s Coachella project, taking it down - and the unique way in which it could be disposed of - was an idea that we wanted to broadcast. The project had broader goals than just making an exuberant structure in the desert. The project is, of course, the shade pavilion as it existed during the festival, but also the process of its making and how the pavilion disappears after the festival is over. We’re designing the disappearance of a project as well as its physical characteristics
6. Does the value of architecture change if longevity or durability is no longer a measure of great architecture?
Not necessarily. I think it’s a good question that begs a somewhat complex answer. The monetary value of a temporary event structure, for say Coachella, is less than a building of comparable size - in most cases. It requires less energy and resources to build a temporary structure. In a strictly financial sense, it’s less valuable. However, architecture impacts culture in ways beyond just physical buildings. Architecture is drawings, models, publications, academic journals, discussions, and, of course buildings - it’s a cultural discourse. So if temporary architecture can expand that discourse then it’s got value. If temporary architecture can embody ideas that ripple through the discourse of architecture and beyond then it has significant value.
7. What do you attribute the emergence of pop up architecture trend to?
Taking the commercial trend as an example, I think that it’s a low risk investment that can yield big results within the media scape. It can reach a lot of people because it arrives unexpectedly and often delivers and experience that buildings can’t. It is fleeting; it captures the imagination of the public like fashion. That’s difficult to achieve with a building. And in the end, the temporary structure might have as long a lifespan, in the media-scape as an image, as a building might
8. Do you think the great recession had an effect on it?
I do. In 2008 we started to see a lot more of this kind of stuff. These things tend to have their own trajectory but the pop-up phenomenon started happening a lot more at that time. One could argue that it was an outgrowth of resource-strapped marketing departments.
9. Logistically and politically, is it easier or harder to build pop-up architecture as opposed to permanent structures?
It’s hard to compare the two. I could make a proposal for a temporary project that ruffles feathers, right? So, no matter how inexpensive a project is, if it’s going to piss people off because it is in public view that could be a real challenge. I could be arrested or the project rejected - so in that sense it could be more difficult to do pop-up. But the same could be said of a permanent building; it could be challenging from a technical standpoint, it could be challenging from a regulatory standpoint, it could be challenging from a political standpoint.
10. Is pop up architecture the solution to reinvigorate blighted or under-developed areas?
It’s happening all the time. It happens in Detroit, it happens in LA, it happens in Berlin. It has become an accepted tool for catalyzing redevelopment. Sometimes I’ll see an art installation in a blighted area that’s intended to bring the community together; after a while somebody does another one and then it becomes a cool, desirable area and then you have developers commissioning the artists but the intentions of the developers and artists and architects are often quite different. It’s an interesting question, but I don’t know if there’s a simple answer. I think pop-up can be effective in calling attention to blighted areas, but the impact of that attention can be spun in different ways. It could strengthen a community but it could also help erase it.