Periodic Reporting for period 1 - NOMAD (Nomad MAnagement of Urban Development. The complex value of temporary communities)
Berichtszeitraum: 2023-09-15 bis 2025-09-14
Zusammenfassung vom Kontext und den Gesamtzielen des Projekts
The project NOMAD Nomad Management of Urban Development - The complex value of temporary communities has explored the value of temporary uses and the role of urban nomads in urban regeneration and placemaking.
In Europe, more than 11 million dwellings are unoccupied. There is a lack of affordable space for housing and workplaces, while cities have many vacant spaces, representing a significant potential for new uses and activities. There are a lot of houses without people and people without houses, especially in some Mediterranean countries.
From the 1970s to now, the squat, anti-squat and various co-management forms of housing occupation movements have represented a strong space demand. Young people, activists or creatives claim space and experiment with co-managed and innovative forms of living and working together. Temporary communities represent the urgent need for the right to the city. They inhabit spaces for a temporary time span, usually for low rents, and generate value through active use and management, but eventually have to move if higher rents can be achieved or the space will be redeveloped.
After realising temporary commons, community members become urban nomads, voluntarily or not. Urban nomads are composed of diverse social categories: young and adults, students and workers, residents, immigrants or homeless. They activate new social dynamics inside and outside a temporary use, test real estate adaptations, and very active communities improve neighbourhood liveability providing services, attracting new activities, improving street safety, and, thus, activating processes able to boost the real estate value in the long term. Because of increased real estate and land values, the temporary users who co-produced the increased value have to move and start again in often precarious conditions. This is the paradox that this research will focus on.
In this European context, although temporary uses have been recognized as a powerful tool to experiment with new uses and develop sustainable practices and generate different kinds of values for people, real estate and the neighbourhood, the complex values that they co-create and co-produce are not evident in real estate (e)valuation practices and have been partially captured in urban studies.
Examples of vacant spaces are vacant former office buildings, houses disposed of by housing association portfolios, buildings waiting to be demolished, public abandoned buildings or buildings in retail areas that lack a financially feasible business model for commercial parties. Based on this hypothesis, NOMAD explored: Which values do temporary use(r)s co-create and co-produce for vacant buildings and their neighbourhoods? How can we measure them?
In Europe, more than 11 million dwellings are unoccupied. There is a lack of affordable space for housing and workplaces, while cities have many vacant spaces, representing a significant potential for new uses and activities. There are a lot of houses without people and people without houses, especially in some Mediterranean countries.
From the 1970s to now, the squat, anti-squat and various co-management forms of housing occupation movements have represented a strong space demand. Young people, activists or creatives claim space and experiment with co-managed and innovative forms of living and working together. Temporary communities represent the urgent need for the right to the city. They inhabit spaces for a temporary time span, usually for low rents, and generate value through active use and management, but eventually have to move if higher rents can be achieved or the space will be redeveloped.
After realising temporary commons, community members become urban nomads, voluntarily or not. Urban nomads are composed of diverse social categories: young and adults, students and workers, residents, immigrants or homeless. They activate new social dynamics inside and outside a temporary use, test real estate adaptations, and very active communities improve neighbourhood liveability providing services, attracting new activities, improving street safety, and, thus, activating processes able to boost the real estate value in the long term. Because of increased real estate and land values, the temporary users who co-produced the increased value have to move and start again in often precarious conditions. This is the paradox that this research will focus on.
In this European context, although temporary uses have been recognized as a powerful tool to experiment with new uses and develop sustainable practices and generate different kinds of values for people, real estate and the neighbourhood, the complex values that they co-create and co-produce are not evident in real estate (e)valuation practices and have been partially captured in urban studies.
Examples of vacant spaces are vacant former office buildings, houses disposed of by housing association portfolios, buildings waiting to be demolished, public abandoned buildings or buildings in retail areas that lack a financially feasible business model for commercial parties. Based on this hypothesis, NOMAD explored: Which values do temporary use(r)s co-create and co-produce for vacant buildings and their neighbourhoods? How can we measure them?
Arbeit, die ab Beginn des Projekts bis zum Ende des durch den Bericht erfassten Berichtszeitraums geleistet wurde, und die wichtigsten bis dahin erzielten Ergebnisse
The work carried out in the project combined extensive desk research, a systematic literature review on temporary uses, and substantial fieldwork conducted across multiple European cities. The research began with an in-depth investigation of case studies in Rotterdam, Brussels, and Paris. In the first phase, the study observed and analysed the practices of three non-profit organizations that have been active for a decade in creating collective spaces through temporary real estate reuse. This initial analysis employed qualitative comparative methods, complemented by urban explorations and on-site visits to study atmospheres, spatial practices, and the ecosystem services emerging from these temporary occupations.
In the second phase of the project, the research adopted a more embedded and practice-oriented approach. It engaged in a research–action collaboration with a small autonomous organisation that had managed a socio-cultural space in Rotterdam. This work included direct participation in activities, observation, interviews, and a co-design and co-evaluation workshop aimed at understanding how temporary users perceive and generate value through everyday practices. During this phase, video was also tested as a research tool to capture spatial dynamics and everyday interactions in informal settings. Parallel to this, the project expanded its analytical perspective to the scale of the city, focusing on Brussels, where the public office temporary.brussels actively supports and promotes temporary uses of vacant buildings. This institutional context offered an opportunity to analyse temporary use not only as a spatial practice but as a governance instrument embedded within urban policy.
The empirical work relied on qualitative and quantitative methods: interviews with temporary users, operators, and stakeholders; surveys distributed across multiple cases and languages. Field research led to note place atmosphere, spatial qualities, and urban services connected to temporary uses. Subjective values—such as perceptions of safety, belonging, creativity, or mutual care—were collected through interviews and visual or audio materials that enriched the storytelling of each place. These observations were complemented by a systematic review of academic literature on temporary uses and real estate value. The review confirmed that existing studies tend to focus on cultural and creative practices, the institutionalisation of bottom-up initiatives, and the conflicts that arise among stakeholders in negotiations around power and decision-making. Building on this literature and insights from fieldwork, the project defined a set of indicators to evaluate value creation. These indicators—qualitative and quantitative—are intentionally indicative rather than prescriptive, allowing assessment to adapt to different local contexts. However, several methodological challenges emerged during fieldwork. Linguistic barriers limited the possibility of conducting interviews in French-speaking areas, and many residents or workers involved in temporary uses were unavailable to participate due to personal or scheduling constraints. Also, surveys distributed in English and French collected only a limited number of responses. Within the two-year timeframe of the project, these constraints made it impossible to build a sufficiently large or consistent dataset to allow for a fully scientific multidimensional mapping of temporary uses.
These limitations led to an adaptation of the research strategy. Rather than relying exclusively on primary data collection, the second phase integrated urban-scale analysis—based on statistical data on neighbourhood socio-economic characteristics, as well as qualitative interviews, observations, and project documentation. The integration of urban indicators and qualitative insights allowed for the use of multi-criteria evaluations to interpret different cases.
In the second phase of the project, the research adopted a more embedded and practice-oriented approach. It engaged in a research–action collaboration with a small autonomous organisation that had managed a socio-cultural space in Rotterdam. This work included direct participation in activities, observation, interviews, and a co-design and co-evaluation workshop aimed at understanding how temporary users perceive and generate value through everyday practices. During this phase, video was also tested as a research tool to capture spatial dynamics and everyday interactions in informal settings. Parallel to this, the project expanded its analytical perspective to the scale of the city, focusing on Brussels, where the public office temporary.brussels actively supports and promotes temporary uses of vacant buildings. This institutional context offered an opportunity to analyse temporary use not only as a spatial practice but as a governance instrument embedded within urban policy.
The empirical work relied on qualitative and quantitative methods: interviews with temporary users, operators, and stakeholders; surveys distributed across multiple cases and languages. Field research led to note place atmosphere, spatial qualities, and urban services connected to temporary uses. Subjective values—such as perceptions of safety, belonging, creativity, or mutual care—were collected through interviews and visual or audio materials that enriched the storytelling of each place. These observations were complemented by a systematic review of academic literature on temporary uses and real estate value. The review confirmed that existing studies tend to focus on cultural and creative practices, the institutionalisation of bottom-up initiatives, and the conflicts that arise among stakeholders in negotiations around power and decision-making. Building on this literature and insights from fieldwork, the project defined a set of indicators to evaluate value creation. These indicators—qualitative and quantitative—are intentionally indicative rather than prescriptive, allowing assessment to adapt to different local contexts. However, several methodological challenges emerged during fieldwork. Linguistic barriers limited the possibility of conducting interviews in French-speaking areas, and many residents or workers involved in temporary uses were unavailable to participate due to personal or scheduling constraints. Also, surveys distributed in English and French collected only a limited number of responses. Within the two-year timeframe of the project, these constraints made it impossible to build a sufficiently large or consistent dataset to allow for a fully scientific multidimensional mapping of temporary uses.
These limitations led to an adaptation of the research strategy. Rather than relying exclusively on primary data collection, the second phase integrated urban-scale analysis—based on statistical data on neighbourhood socio-economic characteristics, as well as qualitative interviews, observations, and project documentation. The integration of urban indicators and qualitative insights allowed for the use of multi-criteria evaluations to interpret different cases.
Fortschritte, die über den aktuellen Stand der Technik hinausgehen und voraussichtliche potenzielle Auswirkungen (einschließlich der bis dato erzielten sozioökonomischen Auswirkungen und weiter gefassten gesellschaftlichen Auswirkungen des Projekts)
The results of this research advance the state of the art by demonstrating that the value generated by collective temporary uses lies in their capacity to operate as Temporary Commons. The study shows that the cultural values activated during the process directly shape the added value produced and influence all components of multi-actor temporary-use initiatives. To support monitoring, the research proposes an analytical framework that classifies economic activities and evaluates time-use contributions through individual time-use, enabling a systematic understanding of how temporary uses function, evolve, and generate socio-economic impacts. This conceptual contribution provides a shared vocabulary and structure for public administrations, intermediaries, and community actors to evaluate temporary-use processes consistently.
A central result concerns the identification of temporary use as a generator of new local economies based on resource sharing, gifting practices, and creativity. Across the case studies of Plateau Urbain (France), Communa (Belgium), and Stad in de Maak (Netherlands), the research demonstrates how collaborative temporary use can be conceptualized as a social circular strategy, expanding the circular economy to include the creation of social value through adaptive reuse of vacant buildings. The analysis further identifies the enabling conditions that support hybrid organizational models, particularly the need to recalibrate the balance between social value and market logic over time. Building on these findings, the research proposes a framework for assessing whether a temporary-use initiative can effectively operate as a social circular economy strategy. Theoretically, this contributes to debates on hybrid organizing and urban development; practically, it offers guidance for implementing temporary-use policies; and societally, it highlights the transformative potential of collaborative temporary uses.
At the urban scale, the study of temporary-use initiatives mapped by perspective.brussels demonstrates how these practices contribute to local development trajectories and align with post-growth paradigms. The Brussels analysis reveals how temporary uses can support cities in transitioning toward models centered on well-being, social infrastructure, and shared spaces rather than growth-driven imperatives. This underscores the need for planning frameworks that recognise the systemic role of temporary uses in promoting social, cultural, and economic resilience.
The research also examines the institutionalisation of temporary uses managed by non-profit organisations. The case of The Space shows that agreements for creative temporary use increasingly rely on the contextual knowledge, experience-based expertise, and credibility of intermediary or grassroots organisations. At the same time, the study highlights both the opportunities and constraints faced by grassroots, community-led initiatives as they enter formal urban development processes. While these organisations often confront bureaucratic and financial barriers, they are also those that most effectively embed long-lasting social value within the urban fabric, frequently using temporary use as a strategic lever to secure a stable operational base.
Finally, the research develops the NOMAD Monitor, an innovative framework for evaluating temporary-use projects using indicators related to social value creation, time-use patterns, spatial transformation, governance configurations, and forms of circularity. This monitoring tool provides a practical, scalable method for cities and organisations to assess temporary-use projects over time and represents a significant step toward standardising the evaluation of temporary-use processes. Further uptake will require pilot testing in multiple cities, integration with digital vacancy-management platforms, and alignment with broader regulatory and circular-economy frameworks to support long-term adoption and comparability at the EU level.
The N.O.M.A.D. Monitor has set a structured yet flexible method for defining, tracking, and interpreting the value created by temporary uses. Instead of imposing a blueprint or rigid checklist, the Monitor establishes a vocabulary for sharing motivations, objectives, working methods, and expected outcomes.
The N.O.M.A.D. Monitor evaluates five fundamental dimensions of temporary commoning—Nurture, Openness, Mutualism, Adaptability, and Durability. These dimensions express how temporary uses generate social relations, ensure inclusivity, foster reciprocal exchange, adapt to changing conditions in the built environment, and produce long-term impacts for the urban context and the community. Each dimension can be assessed through both qualitative insights and quantitative indicators, which together allow researchers and stakeholders to follow the evolution of value creation throughout the life cycle of a temporary use, from initiation to development, from closure to legacy.
The dimension of Nurture captures the ability of temporary uses to cultivate community relations, shared responsibility, and collective well-being. It examines the quality of social ties, trust, mutual support, a sense of safety, and practices such as collective maintenance or shared moments of care. Openness concerns the inclusivity of access, the fairness and transparency of governance, and the accessibility of spaces to diverse users and abilities. Mutualism examines how temporary reuse enables reciprocal exchanges—of skills, resources, and services—generating social and circular economic value through shared initiatives and collaborative activities. Adaptability captures the capacity of projects to adjust spatially, socially, and organizationally to changing conditions; it reflects the resilience and flexibility that are intrinsic to temporary use. Finally, Durability addresses the lasting impact that temporary commons leave behind, including community empowerment and institutional learning, as well as the emergence of successor projects, policy influences, and long-term transformations of real estate assets.
At its core, N.O.M.A.D. is a conceptual and analytical system designed to evaluate the social, spatial, ecological, and organisational value that emerges when vacant real estate is reused as a temporary commons. It draws on insights from temporary urbanism, urban commons theory, post-growth studies, and circular real estate research. The Monitor provides a structured way to make these intangible contributions visible and interpretable.
It becomes a tool through which stakeholders can define their own shared values and objectives at the beginning of a project, build mutual trust, reduce uncertainties, and make negotiations more transparent. As a temporary use unfolds, the Monitor also serves as a lens to observe how value is produced, transformed, or diminished over time. It supports not only the planning phase of temporary agreements but also the ongoing monitoring and the reflection on legacies after closure.
Thus, it becomes a tool through which stakeholders can build mutual trust, reduce uncertainties, and make negotiations more transparent. As a temporary use unfolds, the Monitor also serves as a lens to observe how value is produced, transformed, or diminished over time. It supports not only the planning phase of temporary agreements but also the ongoing monitoring and the reflection on legacies after closure.
The evaluation process that NOMAD Monitor presents is conceived as a mixed-method, multi-phase process. It begins with a scoping and mapping phase, in which stakeholders, spatial settings, and project goals are identified and documented. This is followed by a phase of data collection that gathers quantitative and qualitative information across all selected NOMAD dimensions through surveys, interviews, observations, and administrative records. A subsequent phase involves translating this material into a set of comparable indicators, enabling a holistic interpretation of value creation. This interpretation is then discussed with stakeholders to arrive at shared conclusions. Finally, the evaluation must be repeated at different stages of the temporary use—during initiation, development, closure—so that changes, achievements, and emerging challenges can be understood over time.
A central result concerns the identification of temporary use as a generator of new local economies based on resource sharing, gifting practices, and creativity. Across the case studies of Plateau Urbain (France), Communa (Belgium), and Stad in de Maak (Netherlands), the research demonstrates how collaborative temporary use can be conceptualized as a social circular strategy, expanding the circular economy to include the creation of social value through adaptive reuse of vacant buildings. The analysis further identifies the enabling conditions that support hybrid organizational models, particularly the need to recalibrate the balance between social value and market logic over time. Building on these findings, the research proposes a framework for assessing whether a temporary-use initiative can effectively operate as a social circular economy strategy. Theoretically, this contributes to debates on hybrid organizing and urban development; practically, it offers guidance for implementing temporary-use policies; and societally, it highlights the transformative potential of collaborative temporary uses.
At the urban scale, the study of temporary-use initiatives mapped by perspective.brussels demonstrates how these practices contribute to local development trajectories and align with post-growth paradigms. The Brussels analysis reveals how temporary uses can support cities in transitioning toward models centered on well-being, social infrastructure, and shared spaces rather than growth-driven imperatives. This underscores the need for planning frameworks that recognise the systemic role of temporary uses in promoting social, cultural, and economic resilience.
The research also examines the institutionalisation of temporary uses managed by non-profit organisations. The case of The Space shows that agreements for creative temporary use increasingly rely on the contextual knowledge, experience-based expertise, and credibility of intermediary or grassroots organisations. At the same time, the study highlights both the opportunities and constraints faced by grassroots, community-led initiatives as they enter formal urban development processes. While these organisations often confront bureaucratic and financial barriers, they are also those that most effectively embed long-lasting social value within the urban fabric, frequently using temporary use as a strategic lever to secure a stable operational base.
Finally, the research develops the NOMAD Monitor, an innovative framework for evaluating temporary-use projects using indicators related to social value creation, time-use patterns, spatial transformation, governance configurations, and forms of circularity. This monitoring tool provides a practical, scalable method for cities and organisations to assess temporary-use projects over time and represents a significant step toward standardising the evaluation of temporary-use processes. Further uptake will require pilot testing in multiple cities, integration with digital vacancy-management platforms, and alignment with broader regulatory and circular-economy frameworks to support long-term adoption and comparability at the EU level.
The N.O.M.A.D. Monitor has set a structured yet flexible method for defining, tracking, and interpreting the value created by temporary uses. Instead of imposing a blueprint or rigid checklist, the Monitor establishes a vocabulary for sharing motivations, objectives, working methods, and expected outcomes.
The N.O.M.A.D. Monitor evaluates five fundamental dimensions of temporary commoning—Nurture, Openness, Mutualism, Adaptability, and Durability. These dimensions express how temporary uses generate social relations, ensure inclusivity, foster reciprocal exchange, adapt to changing conditions in the built environment, and produce long-term impacts for the urban context and the community. Each dimension can be assessed through both qualitative insights and quantitative indicators, which together allow researchers and stakeholders to follow the evolution of value creation throughout the life cycle of a temporary use, from initiation to development, from closure to legacy.
The dimension of Nurture captures the ability of temporary uses to cultivate community relations, shared responsibility, and collective well-being. It examines the quality of social ties, trust, mutual support, a sense of safety, and practices such as collective maintenance or shared moments of care. Openness concerns the inclusivity of access, the fairness and transparency of governance, and the accessibility of spaces to diverse users and abilities. Mutualism examines how temporary reuse enables reciprocal exchanges—of skills, resources, and services—generating social and circular economic value through shared initiatives and collaborative activities. Adaptability captures the capacity of projects to adjust spatially, socially, and organizationally to changing conditions; it reflects the resilience and flexibility that are intrinsic to temporary use. Finally, Durability addresses the lasting impact that temporary commons leave behind, including community empowerment and institutional learning, as well as the emergence of successor projects, policy influences, and long-term transformations of real estate assets.
At its core, N.O.M.A.D. is a conceptual and analytical system designed to evaluate the social, spatial, ecological, and organisational value that emerges when vacant real estate is reused as a temporary commons. It draws on insights from temporary urbanism, urban commons theory, post-growth studies, and circular real estate research. The Monitor provides a structured way to make these intangible contributions visible and interpretable.
It becomes a tool through which stakeholders can define their own shared values and objectives at the beginning of a project, build mutual trust, reduce uncertainties, and make negotiations more transparent. As a temporary use unfolds, the Monitor also serves as a lens to observe how value is produced, transformed, or diminished over time. It supports not only the planning phase of temporary agreements but also the ongoing monitoring and the reflection on legacies after closure.
Thus, it becomes a tool through which stakeholders can build mutual trust, reduce uncertainties, and make negotiations more transparent. As a temporary use unfolds, the Monitor also serves as a lens to observe how value is produced, transformed, or diminished over time. It supports not only the planning phase of temporary agreements but also the ongoing monitoring and the reflection on legacies after closure.
The evaluation process that NOMAD Monitor presents is conceived as a mixed-method, multi-phase process. It begins with a scoping and mapping phase, in which stakeholders, spatial settings, and project goals are identified and documented. This is followed by a phase of data collection that gathers quantitative and qualitative information across all selected NOMAD dimensions through surveys, interviews, observations, and administrative records. A subsequent phase involves translating this material into a set of comparable indicators, enabling a holistic interpretation of value creation. This interpretation is then discussed with stakeholders to arrive at shared conclusions. Finally, the evaluation must be repeated at different stages of the temporary use—during initiation, development, closure—so that changes, achievements, and emerging challenges can be understood over time.