the question(s) of the day

While poking around in the library a couple of weeks ago, I discovered a thesis from 2008 on temporary architecture; I was mortified by the apparent discovery that a student at the CED had not only "done" this topic, but that they had done it recently. Upon opening it, I was relieved to discover that the author's version of temporary architecture wasn't the same as mine, having much more to do with Burning Man, music festivals, etc. However, this in turn raised a sticky question.

To wit, what exactly is "my version" of temporary architecture? So far I have been defining it largely in terms of what I find intriguing, which is most easily categorized as what it isn't: it isn't emergency shelter, festival architecture, camping, nomadism, art pavilions.

But how do I begin to make a constructive definition of what it is? How do I differentiate this from all of the things listed (and the many more unlisted) above, which are indisputably both temporary and architectural? Is a new terminology required, or just a definition of scope?

It seems that some things have begun to suggest themselves: a limited scale, allowing for relatively easy insertion/construction/reconfiguration; the ability to reconfigure/be reused without significant material loss/creation of trash; a site in the urban realm which is accessible to the public.

Eminently related to the question of how I define temporary architecture in the current work is the question of how the current work defines itself, i.e. what is its thesis? "Temporary architecture is cool" doesn't seem like it will get the job done. One possible avenue is to make an argument for temporary architecture as a generator of urban potentials and a creator of lively urban spaces; namely, trying to attach some qualitative value to temporary architecture. While this seems attractive, it also seems like an approach that might want substantial data if it were to be the entire thrust of the work. Thoughts?

Another tack would be to approach the project more editorially, which might mean creating a theoretical platform for the consideration of various projects, their merits, reception, etc. This seems like it would lead in a pretty different direction, taking on more the tone of a typological study of temporary architectures, and leading to a set of criteria which I claim can be used to understand/evaluate various works.

Now that I'm typing this, however, it occurs to me that perhaps the answer is "both" - to undertake the research paper with a thesis to the effect that temporary architecture is an urban good for reasons x, y, and z, write that for a more popular audience (or what constitutes a popular audience in architecture), thus dodging to a degree the need for a high level of data. This could then lead into an examination of a number of projects in either a more visual (a la "49 cities", "The Funtion of Form") or more discursive (a la "Theoretical Anxiety") method. Or again, I could just go with "yes" and attempt to hybridize the two.