25.09.2015 Views

Changing public space

Changing public space

Changing public space

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

easy access (Lofland, 1998). This can be achieved by contorted or confusing paths of approach,<br />

but also by suggesting that one needs to pay to enter the particular area, for example at sidewalk<br />

cafés where people are given the impression that they need to order a drink to be able to stay. The<br />

result, called slippery <strong>space</strong> (Flusty, 1997) or introversion (Loukaitou-Sideris & Banerjee, 1998), is<br />

illustrated by plazas in central Los Angeles:<br />

Their exteriors give few clues to the <strong>space</strong> within. Design features are utilized to achieve<br />

an inward orientation of these <strong>space</strong>s, which are supposedly open to the <strong>public</strong>: high<br />

enclosing walls, blank facades, isolation from the street, de-emphasis of street-level<br />

accesses, major entrances through parking structures, and the like …. (Loukaitou-Sideris<br />

& Banerjee, 1998: 96)<br />

Lastly, secured <strong>public</strong> <strong>space</strong> can be characterised by the installation of ‘sadistic’ street furniture,<br />

a term coined by Davis (1992). The purpose is to discourage certain behaviour. Spiked metal<br />

bars prevent people from sitting on ledges, benches with multiple armrests keep people from<br />

lying down, and sprinkler systems can douse ‘undesirables’ at random moments (Ellin, 2001;<br />

Bergenhenegouwen & Van Weesep, 2003). Such places of deliberate discomfort have been<br />

called prickly <strong>space</strong> (Flusty, 1997). In the most ultimate form, this tactic implies the removal of all<br />

street furniture. Brunt and Deben (2001: 17) have called this ‘lady shaving’ and state that this is<br />

increasingly done with the intention to create a ‘pleasant emptiness’ or ‘grandiose perspectives’.<br />

The latent motive is to improve the controllability of the particular area by preventing loitering.<br />

Many of the instruments described above are accompanied by strict regulation, including a<br />

zero-tolerance and target-hardening policy to tackle both petty and serious crime (Deben, 1999).<br />

The number of rules has increased, prohibiting behaviour such as smoking, sleeping, skating,<br />

etc. in <strong>public</strong> <strong>space</strong>s. Sometimes the rules apply to a specific user group. Staeheli and Mitchell<br />

describe how young persons under 18 are only allowed to enter the Carousel Center Mall in<br />

Syracuse in company of an adult in the weekend: “Youth are apparently part of the <strong>public</strong><br />

when consuming, but not when socialising – or at least not on Friday and Saturday evening …”<br />

(Staeheli & Mitchell, 2006: 987). The example shows that youth – an important consumption<br />

group – are sometimes already seen as undesirable users.<br />

In the Netherlands, the indirect instruments described above are also used after<br />

redevelopment of <strong>public</strong> <strong>space</strong>. A Dutch sociologist, surveying how the centre of Amsterdam<br />

has changed over the past few decades, found that the iconic krul (or curl – an open-air urinal)<br />

as well as many benches and phone booths had disappeared, and that many alleys, passages,<br />

stairwells, and porches were permanently or intermittently closed to the <strong>public</strong> (Brunt, 1996).<br />

Just recently, Rotterdam introduced a new indirect instrument called the Mosquito, a device<br />

that emits ultrasonic noise said to be audible and irritating only to people under age 25. It<br />

is currently being tested in the metro station Zuidplein and is supposed to disperse loitering<br />

youths. Similar changes can be observed in other Dutch cities, because the control over people<br />

and unsafe situations in <strong>public</strong> <strong>space</strong> has become a major subject within the general debate on<br />

<strong>public</strong> <strong>space</strong> in the Netherlands. The general adage in <strong>public</strong> <strong>space</strong> policy has for a long time<br />

been ‘clean-whole-secure’ (schoon-heel-veilig). Hajer and Reijndorp (2001: 9-11) denote this as<br />

the safety discourse. More recently, cities have realised that they should look beyond the adage;<br />

that it is not about the cleanest square, but the most meaningful one. Since then, aesthetics and<br />

entertainment have become important elements of contemporary <strong>public</strong> <strong>space</strong>, which Hajer and<br />

Reijndorp define as the mobility and design discourse. The mobility discourse focuses on <strong>public</strong><br />

<strong>space</strong> as transitional <strong>space</strong> or non-<strong>space</strong> (Augé, 1995), characterised by a lack of social or historic<br />

51

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!