Living labs: epistemic modelling, temporariness and land value

Epistemic modelling is advanced in this paper as a civic design method within community-led living labs. Two long-term projects were examined to demonstrate how temporary architectural artefacts (thresholds, rooms, workshops, urban rooms) can operate as knowledge-producing instruments through which communities contest and reframe land value. Within the context of acute urban land scarcity and ongoing privatisation in London, UK, land access is directly connected to methods of strong community engagement, including embedded presence, co-making, and care-based governance. A collaborative autoethnographic process recorded and analysed conversations between the two architect-authors and an interlocutor for recurring themes. The analysis shows how provisional spatial interventions generate situated knowledge, negotiate power, and translate temporariness into pathways towards permanence. Findings highlight: a) the potential of living labs to treat land as a commons rather than a financial asset; b) the role of temporary architectures as epistemic artefacts that surface values, conflicts, and governance arrangements; c) the expansion of the architect’s role from designer to host, organiser and carer. A contribution is made to the living labs literature by foregrounding land as a core resource and by offering a transferable framework for practice that connects temporary architecture, epistemic modelling and the revaluation of urban land. Practice relevance Grounded insights are offered to architects, urban designers and community practitioners where land access and long-term engagement constitute central challenges. The role of the architect within community-led projects is evolving, with emphasis on adaptability, care and negotiation skills. The case studies demonstrate how architects can assume expanded roles, beyond design, encompassing facilitation, governance and relationship-building. Practical lessons are drawn around managing informal terms of engagement, navigating shifting power dynamics, and sustaining momentum in projects that operate across uncertain timelines. Attention is also drawn to the skill of working within the ‘in-between’ space, between institutions and communities, where much of the negotiation and trust-building takes place. For practitioners, the paper provides valuable strategies for embedding architectural work within broader social, political and ecological systems.