Exploring the Role of 'Visual Catalysts' on Influencing People's Attraction and Use of Place

Kevin Lynch solidified <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> placemaking as an early emerging place-based construct
through his studies <strong>of</strong> how people understand <strong>the</strong>ir surroundings (Lynch 1960). Parallel with
<strong>the</strong> common criticism <strong>of</strong> modernist form not relating to <strong>the</strong> human scale, <strong>the</strong>se researchers
pursued explorations <strong>of</strong> what particular qualities in public places make <strong>the</strong> lives <strong>of</strong> people
more enjoyable, liveable and meaningful (Jacobs 1961; Whyte 1980). Whyte and Jacobs
exposed (through divergent methods <strong>of</strong> research) that <strong>the</strong> physical quality and form <strong>of</strong> place
impacted <strong>the</strong> way people use, and imbue, meaning to those spaces (Project for Public Spaces
2009). Consequently, this was <strong>the</strong> seminal research into <strong>the</strong> where, and what, people do to
‘make’ places.
Additionally, Whyte (1980) through his research also revealed some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> social attributes
which can alter <strong>the</strong> experience <strong>of</strong> place, and what can ‘make’ a place. As observed by Whyte
(1980), people attract people, but people also tend to do what o<strong>the</strong>r people do. Additionally,
Whyte (1980) observed that people, for <strong>the</strong> most part, tend to follow <strong>the</strong> consistent and
predictable accepted place scripts <strong>of</strong> a designated place. For example, Whyte is well
recognised for <strong>the</strong> observation that “people tend to sit where <strong>the</strong>re are places to sit”. This
is significant in <strong>the</strong> sense that placemaking can be a mechanism which disrupts a space in
terms <strong>of</strong> form and function, which can subsequently disrupt <strong>the</strong> behaviours <strong>of</strong> people in a
space (Donald & Canter 1994). Yet, <strong>the</strong>re still remains a gap in knowledge into <strong>the</strong> specific
social behaviours that change as a result <strong>of</strong> placemaking interventions, and as such how <strong>the</strong>se
changes in social behaviours can influence <strong>the</strong> attraction and use <strong>of</strong> a place.
In recent times, placemaking has expanded to new dimensions <strong>of</strong> research; particularly
heightened in breadth and depth through <strong>the</strong> growth <strong>of</strong> globalisation and urbanisation
(Markusen & Gadwa 2010). For that reason, placemaking has taken on an array <strong>of</strong> meanings,
as has <strong>the</strong> meaning <strong>of</strong> place itself. Stewart (2010) defines <strong>the</strong> idea <strong>of</strong> place as being dynamic,
and one in which individuals and communities can change at will; a definition that is somewhat
similar to that <strong>of</strong> Friedmann (2010), who argues that place is made and remade on a daily
basis, yet retains a form <strong>of</strong> continuity and order in setting and identity. This suggests that
<strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> time and temporality is significant in <strong>the</strong> construction <strong>of</strong> place, and that fur<strong>the</strong>r
research is needed to greater understand <strong>the</strong> role it plays in influencing people’s use <strong>of</strong> place.
Additionally, <strong>the</strong> meaning <strong>of</strong> placemaking has also become extensively contested. Wight
(2005) simply defines placemaking as practical and suitable planning, whereas Brunnberg and
Frigo (2012) argue that placemaking is an extension <strong>of</strong> urban planning which is community
driven to create meaningful, social places. The Project for Public Spaces (2009) is more
expansive with <strong>the</strong>ir definition, seeing it as “community-driven, visionary, function before form,
adaptable, flexible, culturally aware, ever changing, multi-disciplinary, inspiring, collaborative
and sociable”. In addition to this, <strong>the</strong> Project for Public Spaces, being a key organisation in <strong>the</strong>
movement <strong>of</strong> placemaking, has also established ‘eleven principles for placemaking’ (as shown
by figure 2.1). This framework takes clear, overarching continuities that define placemaking
(with a vital one being community) and allows a solid grounding for research to divert from;
such as understanding <strong>the</strong> social value <strong>of</strong> temporary place-based interventions. However, for
placemaking to grow as a discipline a clearer, more coherent definition will need to emerge for
a <strong>the</strong>oretical framework to be widely adopted (Wyck<strong>of</strong>f 2015).
8