Proceedings of the 2nd ICAUD International Conference in Architecture and Urban Design

Epoka University, Tirana, Albania, 08-10 May 2014

Temporary Architecture*
Gonca Zeynep Tunçbilek
Middle East Technical University Faculty of Architecture
METU, Üniversiteler Mahallesi, Dumlupınar Bulvarı No: 1 06800 Çankaya, Ankara, TÜRKİYE
[email protected]

ABSTRACT
In architecture, permanence is mainly associated with the endurance of material and durability of
construction. Temporary architecture, on the contrary, has a predetermined and brief life span. Pavilion
design provides a pragmatic infrastructure in order to discover the concept of the ‘temporality’ in
architecture. Serpentine Gallery's Pavilions in Hyde Park, London will be inquired in this context. This
paper will be investigating the definition and the boundaries of the term 'temporary' in architecture.

KEYWORDS: Temporality, Permanence, Pavilion Design, Display.

1 TEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE
Researches into architectural history tend to define architecture in terms of its stability related with
its location and durability. Here it is significant that, the architecture of the pavilion is not grounded on
the land, so has no fixed location; and its temporary nature suggests also a context-free existence. The
character of the pavilion is to be erected and dismantled over and over again. In French, the words
pavilion and butterfly (paveillon and papillion) come from the same Latin root: papilio (Puente,2000) 1,
both describing something that moves from perch to perch, as the life of the pavilion is as brief as that of
a butterfly, and the connection between the pavilion and the ground is weak, avoiding anchorage to the
earth. Here, temporality in architecture will be analyzed by exploring the embodiment of the missions,
components and complexities of permanent architectural inputs in the relatively small transitory structures
covered here, being pavilion designs. Ayşen Savaş underlines the fact that temporary structures, while
satisfying the requirements of the architectural domain, also accommodate architectural programs or
„functional requirements‟. While satisfying the functional requirements of architectural programs also
accommodate a power to generate a discursive environment.
Investigating the permanent and temporary qualities of architecture, Bernard Tschumi states that
architecture is not meant to be permanent; it cannot be related to a limited time. Tschumi re-examines the
Vitruvian trilogy of “venustas, firmitas and utilitas”, describes “firmitas” as a “structural ability” and
discovers that three qualities have remained obsessively in thoughts for centuries. He asks if these
architectural constants did not exist, how would architecture be? Moreover, he underlines the fact that the
permanence of architecture can be a bad mental habit and is a result of intellectual laziness that has been
observed throughout the history (Tschumi 1996) . Jean Nouvel, on the other hand, like Peter Zumthor,
asserts that architecture is related to light constructions that are ‘not heavy,’ ‘changeable,’ ‘not

*This paper provides a part of the dissertation recently completed by the author (Tunçbilek, 2013) in the
Program of Architecture, at the Department of Architecture, The Faculty of Architecture, METU. The author
would like to express her gratitude to her advisor Prof. Dr. Ayşen Savaş for her invaluable contributions and
suggestions.

114-1
permanent,’ ‘dematerialized,’ and ‘not matter bounded’(Leatherbarrow, 2009). There are several forms of
designing temporary architecture such as exposition, exhibition and pavilion. In recent years, the pavilion
design has been witnessed a rising concern. The pavilion proposals disregard social concerns, in that they
rather recognize the specification of architectural practice and its history. Contemporary technologies
embrace a variety of techniques that in the end, offer diversity for architectural interpretation. If this fact
and the possibilities of the current situation were ignored, architecture would be forced to retreat from the
realities of the current condition.
The last few decades have witnessed an ever-widening range of temporary architectural practices
such as pavilions, expositions and exhibition spaces that invite the public to touch, enter, experience and
think about architecture, whether they are located in a park, on a street, in a gallery or next to an existing
building. These structures allow the public to comment on architecture and interact with the discipline.
Pavilions, by their very nature, are nomadic, so there is no trace left behind when they are gone. Pavilion
designs reflect some common characteristics such as flexible use, a standardization of each architectural
element, easy transportation, quick/easy construction and dismantling. Their ephemeral nature indicates
that they can be used for different functions for short periods. They can be used as the extensions of some
larger buildings to serve to minimalist functions.
This study reintroduces the term “temporary” as a creative tool in the production of architecture,
with an overview of contemporary practices in pavilion design realized through a reinterpretation of
‘temporality’ as a means of producing exhibition architecture and as a medium of application. To this end,
the initiator of this study is the example of the Serpentine Gallery Pavilions that provides an ideal
platform for an examination of the concept of temporality, launching a discussion on the dialectic
relationship between temporary architecture and its different representations. The Serpentine Gallery
Pavilions have played a leading role in this study, and have given form to the theoretical framework, by
serving as a bibliographical index in the direction of this study.
The Serpentine Gallery is located at the west of the Long Water in Kensington Gardens, Hyde Park,
in Central London. It was built in 1934 and had been used as a tea pavilion until 1970, after which the
gallery was established by the Arts Council of Great Britain, and since that time it has been used as a
showplace for the exhibition of contemporary art.
Julia Peyton Jones, a lecturer in fine art at Edinburgh College of Art, was appointed as director in
1991, and in 1997, the owner of The Serpentine Gallery, the Princess of Wales, organized a gala dinner to
celebrate its renovation. The commission invited Zaha Hadid to build a structure that reflected the
exhibition program, believing she would design for the future of architecture and be able to mirror what
the Serpentine stood for. Since then, the commission of the gallery has included acclaimed architects for
the organization of the series of annual pavilions.
In architecture, pavilions can be accepted as the convenient medium for exploring new architectural
ideas, methods and materials, without the limitations of established functions and their economics. These
structures differ from conventional architectural practices in several ways; and as such, they are
temporary since their period of existence is planned from the very beginning. Allan Wexler, an architect
and artist, touches upon the experimental possibilities of temporary structures and states that they can be
constructed quite quickly, and can be built by the architects themselves. Additionally, they are usually
inexpensive and relatively smaller than permanent structures of a similar kind. In short, they are suitable
for exploring architecture in a reduced fashion (Bonnemaison and Esenbach 2009). He deals with the
construction methods, economical requirements and the scales of these structures and states that these
structures are a way of exploring the “new” in architectural practice and discourse.
The architects of the temporary structures experience new ways of architecture, all the while
questioning what the future of architecture might be and how their experimentation can be represented.
This small-scale and time-limited practice can be the key to the future of architectural practice. According
to Toyo Ito, architect of the 2002 pavilion, designed the Serpentine Pavilion in terms of applying the
algorithm formulation into the generator process of his architecture not only for this building, but also for
his future architectural practices. The branching design of the Serpentine Gallery Pavilion was a
significant stepping-stone, to Tod’s Omotesando building (in Japan) in 2004 and the Sumika Pavilion (in

114-2
Japan) in 2007. While designing these three buildings, Ito followed the same methodology with three
different materials. These examples offer proof that temporary architectural practices can serve to
experience new methods and inspire the architect to design future works based on the same methods.

Figure 1: Serpentine Gallery Pavilion, 2002.

Figure 2: TOD’S Omotesando Building, 2004. Figure 3: Sumika Pavilion, 2007.

The definition of the term temporality in architecture is related mainly to the lifespan of the
structure, which is quite short in the case of pavilions. On this subject, Moisés Puente claims that the
temporary structures have died young, and that their temporary existence does not permit the passage of
years2. Although there is an inherent downside to the short lifespan of temporary architecture, there are
compelling advantages that transcend their period of existence, their impact can be long lasting, they
create a memory of architectural practice, project the power of focus, perception, construction, and their
inevitable destruction forms a part of their relevance. Moreover, the power of the experience of a pavilion
lends importance to its evaluation and effect, as well as its meanings, thereby diminishing the relevance of
its temporary nature.
Hans Ulbrich Obrist, the director of international projects of the Serpentine Gallery, mentions that
many essential inventions of architecture come from temporary pavilions or exhibitions. He supports his
thoughts with examples such as Mies van der Rohe’s Barcelona Pavilion (1929), Alvar Aalto’s Finnish
Pavilion for the World Exhibition in Paris (1937), Le Corbusier and Iannis Xenakis’ Philips Pavilion at
the World Fair in Brussels (1958), and Buckminster Fuller’s Geodesic Dome for the American National
Exhibition in Moscow (1959) that can be considered as part of the unwritten history of 20th century
architecture (Jodido, 2011). However, they are not permanent structures; they have to be somehow seen

2
Puente. op. cit., pp. 8.

114-3
as part of the cannon. Although, the structures are not meant to stand eternally, experiments can also
happen. The unusual thing with the Serpentine Pavilions is that even though these structures are evaluated
in the case of temporary architecture, the series of the pavilion design has been continued.
Investigating the series of these temporary structures, they have a crucial role to understand the
boundaries, relationships and definitions of temporary architecture. Each architect redefines and designs
his/her own temporary architectural structures while dealing with the same program and context.
Architect can ignore or change the necessities of program and rewrite his/her architectural program with
the concept of temporality in terms of these architectural practices. The perception of the ephemeral
structures can be varied such as enclosed/open space or architectural building/installation. The material,
method and concept of the temporality can be changed based on the design of pavilions, but the
architectural program is the same that design a summer pavilion for three months limited time. The
production of architectural space is realized in terms of the transitory and can be varied based on the
differences between the perceptions, the definition of temporary architecture, and the concept of
temporality in architecture, and the material and method of the architect. These structures are claimed to
be crucial for interpreting new and different consciousness of architectural practices.
Architectural practice and discourse are enriched by experimenting the new materials and new
methods, and this thesis suggests that pavilion design can be considered as a new laboratory for
experimentation in architecture. This suggested critical position of pavilion design can be considered as
the conceptual base from which experimentation in architecture can be launched, in terms of both
materials and methods. Also open to discussion is the role of the architect in changing the more familiar
thinking of architecture, which is largely dependent on the architect’s perception and how he/she applies
it to the design process. An architect’s choices of materials and methods can be a key to the creation of
opportunities and the setting of limits in architecture.
There is no precious definition of what a pavilion is exactly, or how the limitation and the boundary
of temporality are represented. As such architects redefine and set up their own rules while designing
such temporary structures. The definition of the term “pavilion” changes with respect to the architect’s
perception, since the term cannot be defined with any certainly. The architect can redefine temporality
through the pavilion based on a re-exploration of space with new materials in an innovative way, and can
also experience changing tendencies in architecture through these temporary structures. The goal of Rem
Koolhaas was not to reinvent the tradition of the pavilion, but to focus particularly on the space of the
pavilion in 2006. His approach was to redefine the space within a temporary situation, stating that the
pavilion can only be possible due to the events and the activities, and that the space is also temporary
itself, being changeable according to the conditions.

Figure 4: Sketch of the Pavilion of Rem Koolhaas. Figure 5: Serpentine Pavilion, 2006.
Source: serpentinegallery Source: OMA

114-4
 With respect to the one of the objectives of the pavilion design as a production of temporary
architecture, which have a potential to create a long-lasting impact and memory on architectural
discourse, although they lack the durability for the passage of years. Pavilions have been positioned for
analyzing the relationships, boundaries and definitions of temporary architecture, and have made a
noticeable impact, witnessing a rise in interest in recent years. Pavilion design differs from more
conventional architectural practices, since it lacks the limitations of established functions and economics.
It is usually inexpensive, small-scaled and easily demountable, and moreover, its period of existence is
determined at the very beginning of the generation process. Even though it is designed for only one
specific task, it has several advantages, such as its ability to have a long-lasting impact on contemporary
architecture and its discourse, its creation of a “new” memory in architectural practice, and its generation
of a power of perception.
While referring to the future architecture, the representation of both temporality and permanence
has been set out in terms of material, methods and concepts of the architectural product. The designed
ability of a permanent architectural product to endure eternally has been related to the material resistance
and the durability of the construction against the effects of time and nature. The materials and
construction methods used in the Serpentine Gallery Pavilions has been investigated to explore
permanence and temporality nature, since the details of the pavilions reveal their potential for reuse and
durability throughout time. Although the pavilions were constructed to carry out only one short-term task,
and were designed as temporary structures, a number of them have been reconstructed in different
locations and times, and this reconstruction of the pavilions has been questioned to put forth their
temporality.
The temporary architectural practices have power to generate a discursive environment, while
defining a space where they are located. These temporary structures may be the reference for the
permanent architectural practices that can be constructed more extensively in the future. They can be a
key to establishing an effective relationship with the environment and space, and to have an effective
suggestion about the future architecture that would not be possible with more complex contemporary
buildings. Temporary architectural practices have influenced contemporary architecture and the
architect’s perception, making open-minded statements on architecture that can be taken up by architects
in future projects. This interaction constitutes a practical and conceptual background of the architectural
domain.
In this study, pavilions has been argued to stimulate lasting debates in architectural discourse,
related not only temporality itself, but also in the redefinition of pavilion by architects. Cecil Balmond
states that pavilions have developed around architectural debates on various structural typologies and
materials; however, it is not only the typology and materials that are worthy of note, as the definition of
the pavilion is also worth mentioning3. All effort is spent to create a structure that may be dismantled
quickly, leaving nothing behind, and so the exercise retains freshness and seems to make a contribution of
a very different kind. Pavilions have the potential to interpret „other‟ types of architecture, which is
related to temporality and raises consciousness in architectural practices.
These temporary structures have provoked many debates in the domains of architectural research,
discourse and practice such as those dealing with pavilion architecture, temporary architecture,
museology, curatorial studies and exhibition design; whether the pavilion was built or not. They have
potential to set up new techniques in the production of architecture, pioneering of new architectural
generation processes, and directing the exploration and experiencing of new concepts, method and
materials. The interpretations, debates and investigations of pavilions transcended its temporary nature,
and these structures raise awareness, criticism and reflection, which are seen as the primary function in
temporary architectural practices.
To conclude; pavilions, expositions and exhibition spaces invite not only the architect, but also the
public to comment on and think about architecture. Thus, both the architect and observer of the pavilion

3
Jodido. op. cit., pp. VII.06.

114-5
are driven to open debate on these structures, which plays a role in the research, practice and opening of
various possibilities in architectural space design. In this regard, pavilions can be reinterpreted as an agent
to redefine and reformation of the borders of architectural discipline. The aim of the thesis is to put
emphasis on the importance of the pavilion as a temporary architectural production and to reveal the
dialogue it inspires between architecture, architectural discourse, the architect and the observer as
profession for the redefinition and interpretation of the pavilion design. Drawing upon the example of the
Serpentine Gallery Pavilions, emphasis has been on the pavilion as a public space of experimentation in
architecture. The intention of this study has been to motivate deeper and more critically concerned
architectural studies in the design of temporary architecture, with the purpose of influencing architecture
in the future. Temporary architecture has a profound on architectural discourse and practice, and allows
new opportunities in the field of architecture to be remarked upon and analyzed. In short, temporary
structures offer the architect with a broad variety of freedoms to experience the “new” in architecture.

REFERENCES

Bonnemaison S. and Eisenbach R. 2009. Installations by Architects, Princeton Architectural Press, NY,
pp. 14.

Jodido P. 2011. Serpentine Gallery Pavilions. Taschen, Spain, pp.11.

Leatherbarrow, D. 2009. Architecture Oriented Otherwise. New York: Princeton Architectural Press,
pp.85.

Philip, J. 2011. Serpentine Gallery Pavilions. Spain: Taschen.

Puente, M. 2000. Exhibition Pavilions. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili, SA, pp.11 .

Savaş A. “Editor‟s Note”. Expo Shanghai 2010 Better City Better Life. Turkey: Miki Press, 2010, pp. 8.

Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995, edited by
Kate Nesbitt. Princeton Architectural Press, NY, 1996.

Tschumi B. 1996. Edited by Kate Nesbitt. “Architecture and Limits II”. Theorizing a New Agenda for
Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995, Princeton Architectural Press, NY,
pp. 159.

114-6