欧洲临时使用对存量空间弹性治理的启示
Insights from Europe’s Temporary Use for the Flexible Governance of Existing Space Stock
何 颖
同济大学建筑与城市规划学院 博士研究生 上海市城市规划设计研究院 工程师
程 遥（通信作者）
同济大学建筑与城市规划学院 自然资源部国土空间智能规划技术重点实验室 城市规划系 副系主任，副教授 chengyao@tongji.edu.cn
摘要: 建立临时使用制度以及与之相配套的管理体系是从“增量扩张”转向“存量更新”的必然选择。临时使用作为一种兼 具柔性与创新性的空间治理工具，起源于欧洲并演进为成熟的制度体系。系统梳理了欧洲临时使用的概念演进、功能定 位与治理逻辑，剖析其从“边缘实践”走向“政策主流”的制度化路径，通过对比不同地区在土地产权、规划体系与治 理结构等方面的差异，揭示我国当前实践面临“制度接口”缺失、协调平台薄弱与激励工具不足等困境。在此基础上，提 出构建本土化全链条治理框架，以期为推动中国存量空间的弹性治理与城市更新制度创新提供理论参照与实践路径。
Abstract: Establishing a temporary land use system and its corresponding management framework is an inevitable choice in transitioning from “urban sprawl” to “urban renewal”. As a flexible and innovative spatial governance tool, temporary use has gradually evolved into a mature institutional practice in Europe. This paper systematically reviews the conceptual evolution, functional positioning, and governance logic of temporary use in Europe, analyzing its institutional pathway from “marginal practice” to “policy mainstream”. By comparing differences in land ownership, planning systems, and governance structures between China and Europe, the study highlights structural challenges in current practice, such as the absence of an “institutional interface”, weak coordination platforms, and insufficient incentive mechanisms. On this basis, the paper proposes the construction of a localized governance framework, aiming to provide theoretical references and practical pathways for advancing flexible governance of existing space stock and institutional innovation in urban renewal in China.
关键词：临时使用；城市更新；弹性治理；制度比较；空间治理
Keyword: temporary use; urban renewal; flexible governance; institutional comparison; spatial governance
中图分类号：TU984
文献标识码: A
王宏新，邵俊霖，张文杰. 政策工具视角下的中国
闲置土地治理——192篇政策文本（1992—2015）
分析[J]. 中国行政管理，2017（3）：108-112.
Wang Hongxin, Shao Junlin, Zhang Wenjie. Vacant
land governance in China from the perspective
of policy instrument: based on the analysis of
192 policy texts (1992-2015)[J]. Chinese Public
Administration, 2017(3): 108-112.
Bundesministeriums für Verkehr, Bau und
Stadtentwicklung(BMVBS), Bundesamtes für
Bauwesen und Raumordnung(BBR). Zwischennutzungen und Nischen im Städtebau als Beitrag
für eine nachhaltige Stadtentwicklung[R]. 2008.
SQW Consulting. Meanwhile use business case
and learning points[R]. London: SQW Consulting,
2010.
Bosetti N, Colthorpe T. Meanwhile, in London:
making use of London’s empty spaces[R]. London:
Centre for London, 2018.
Bundesministeriums für Verkehr, Bau und
Stadtentwicklung(BMVBS), Bundesamtes für
Bauwesen und Raumordnung(BBR). Zwischennutzungen und Nischen im Städtebau als Beitrag
für eine nachhaltige Stadtentwicklung[R]. 2004.
Oswalt P, Overmeyer K, Misselwitz P. Urban
catalyst: the power of temporary use[M]. Berlin:
DOM Publishers, 2013.
Bishop P, Williams L. The temporary city[M].
London: Routledge London, 2012.
衣霄翔，赵天宇，吴彦锋，等. “危机”抑或“契
机”？——应对收缩城市空置问题的国际经验
研究[J]. 城市规划学刊，2020（2）：95-101.
Yi Xiaoxiang, Zhao Tianyu, Wu Yanfeng, et al.
Crisis or opportunity? A study on international
experiences addressing vacant spaces in shrinking
cities[J]. Urban Planning Forum, 2020(2): 95-101.
Madanipour A. Temporary use of space: urban
processes between flexibility, opportunity and
precarity[J]. Urban Studies, 2018, 55(5): 1093-1110.
Colomb C. Pushing the urban frontier: temporary
uses of space, city marketing, and the creative city
discourse in 2000s Berlin[J]. Journal of Urban
Affairs, 2012, 34(2): 131-152.
Tonkiss F. Austerity urbanism and the makeshift
city[J]. City, 2013, 17(3): 312-324.
Andres L. Differential spaces, power hierarchy
and collaborative planning: a critique of the role of
temporary uses in shaping and making places[J].
Urban Studies, 2013, 50(4): 759-775.
Szaton-Orlińska K, Opania S. The factor
determining effective modelling of the urban
spatial transformation process based on temporary
use[J]. Architecture, Civil Engineering, Environment, 2024, 17(3): 59-70.
Bråten L N. Temporary temporariness? The
(mis)use of tactical urbanism from the ‘open city’
framework[J]. Urban Studies, 2024, 62(5): 809-827.
Bragaglia F, Rossignolo C. Temporary urbanism as
a new policy strategy: a contemporary panacea or
a trojan horse?[J]. International Planning Studies,
2021, 26(4): 370-386.
Martin M, Hicks S, Deas I. Temporary use in
England’s core cities: looking beyond the exceptional[J]. Urban Studies, 2020, 57(16): 3381-3401.
邓林娜，唐燕. 德国工业用地更新中的临时性使
用——以施普雷河区与汉堡港城为例[J]. 国际
城市规划，2022，40（1）：107-114.
Deng Linna, Tang Yan. Temporary uses in the
regeneration of industrial lands in Germany: case
studies of Media Spree and HafenCity[J]. Urban
Planning International, 2022, 40(1): 107-114.
Chang R A, Gerrits L. What spatially stabilises
temporary use? A qualitative comparative analysis
of 40 temporary use cases along synchronised
trajectories of stabilisation[J]. Cities, 2022, 130:
103868.
Greater London Authority. The London plan[Z].
2021.
Arup, Greater London Authority. Meanwhile use
London: a research report for the Greater London
Authority[R]. London: Greater London Authority,
2022.
衣霄翔，张郝萍，夏雷. 国际收缩城市应对空置
问题的临时使用策略及启示[J]. 城市规划学刊，
2022（2）：111-118.
Yi Xiaoxiang, Zhang Haoping, Xia Lei. Tackling
the vacancy problem in international shrinking
cities: temporary use strategy and its implications[J]. Urban Planning Forum, 2022(2): 111-118.
冯立，唐子来. 产权制度视角下的划拨工业用地
更新：以上海市虹口区为例[J]. 城市规划学刊，
2013（5）：23-29.
Feng Li, Tang Zilai. The renewal of allocated
industrial land in the perspective of property right
system: the case of Hongkou District, Shanghai[J].
Urban Planning Forum, 2013(5): 23-29.
董楠楠. 联邦德国城市复兴中的开放空间临时使
用策略[J]. 国际城市规划，2011，26（5）：105-108.
Dong Nannan. Interim use of open space in urban
renewal of the Federal Republic of Germany[J].
Urban Planning International, 2011, 26(5): 105-108.
董一平，侯斌超. 工业建筑遗产保护与再生的
“临时性使用”模式——以瑞士温特图尔苏尔
泽工业区为例[J]. 城市建筑，2012（3）：19-23.
Dong Yiping, Hou Binchao. Temporary-use model
in industrial heritage conservation and regeneration: a case study on Sulzer-Areal in Winterthur,
Switzerland[J]. Urbanism and Architecture, 2012(3):
19-23.
邓林娜，唐燕. 临时性使用的国内外研究进展与
价值内涵[J]. 国际城市规划，2025（6）：93-101.
Deng Linna, Tang Yan. The domestic and international research progress of temporary use and
its value and connotation[J]. Urban Planning
International, 2025(6): 93-101.
张京祥，陆昕越，韩碧君. 面向长期变革的临时性
城市更新与规划应对[J]. 城市规划学刊，2024，
45（6）：1-9.
Zhang Jingxiang, Lu Xinyue, Han Bijun. Temporary
urban renewal and planning response for long-term
change[J]. Urban Planning Forum, 2024, 45(6): 1-9.
王路昊，刘宣，赵冠华. 从全面监管到空间治理：闲
置土地资源的临时性使用[J/OL]. 广西师范大
学学报（哲学社会科学版），1-14[2026-07-30].
https://link.cnki.net/urlid/45.1066.C.20231121.
0922.002.
Wang Luhao, Liu Xuan, Zhao Guanhua. From
comprehensive supervision to spatial governance:
temporary use of idle land resources[J/OL]. Journal
of Guangxi Normal University (Philosophy and
Social Sciences Edition), 1-14[2026-07-30]. https://
link.cnki.net/urlid/45.1066.C.20231121.0922.002.
高煜，张京祥. 临时性城市更新的实现及其包容
性治理——以南京金银街更新实践为例[J]. 城
市发展研究，2024，31（11）：98-107.
Gao Yu, Zhang Jingxiang. The realization of
temporary urban regeneration and its inclusive
governance: taking Nanjing Jinyin Street regeneration practice as an example[J]. Urban Development
Studies, 2024, 31(11): 98-107.
彭姗妮. 过渡性路径下的城市更新：政府工具建
构与公平性反思[J]. 城市规划学刊，2024（6）：
96-103.
Peng Shanni. Urban renewal through transitional
pathways: government tools and a reflection on
equity[J]. Urban Planning Forum, 2024(6): 96-103.
贺辉文，安东琪，霍子文，等. 土地短期资本
化——基于广州红专厂等案例的观察[J]. 城市
发展研究，2025，32（8）：98-106.
He Huiwen, An Dongqi, Huo Ziwen, et al. Shortterm land capitalization: observation based on
cases such as the Redtory of Guangzhou[J]. Urban
Development Studies, 2025, 32(8): 98-106.
尹新，孙一民. 探究城市工业遗产更新阻力——
以广州红专厂文化创意产业园为例[J]. 华中建
筑，2018，36（4）：33-38.
Yin Xin, Sun Yimin. The resistance of urban
industrial heritage in the renewal: taking the
Redtory of Guangzhou Cultural and Creative
Industry Park as an example[J]. Huazhong Architecture, 2018, 36(4): 33-38.
刘嘉瑶，朱金，何深静. 香港“临时”保障性住
房的发展与启示——基于临时城市主义的视角
[J]. 上海城市规划，2024（5）：35-41.
Liu Jiayao, Zhu Jin, He Shenjing. The development
and implications of Hong Kong’s temporary social
housing: a temporary urbanism perspective[J].
Shanghai Urban Planning Review, 2024(5): 35-41.
