The Shopping Mall as a Public Space

THE SHOPPING MALL AS A PUBLIC SPACE by Samo Pedersen

In a society where buying everyday goods has increasingly become linked to driving to a mall or shopping centre, and where more and more time is spent such places, (claimed to be on the cost of life on the streets), it has become important to question how public, shopping malls in fact are. To seek for an answer this essay compares two definitions linked to public space. These are Hajer & Reindorp’s definition of ‘Public Domains’ and Michael Walzer’s definition on ‘open-minded’ and ‘single-minded spaces’. These expressions will be used, along with an overall definition of ‘public space’. To prepare the reader for the subject a brief historical overview of the subject is given and some facts provided. Hereafter a shopping mall is briefly examined, where after it is possible to compare the findings and have a final discussion rounding up the topic.

0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600

Content Definitions on Public Space Brief History of the Shopping Mall Malls Today Case Study of Weimar Atrium Discussion Conclusion

p. p. p. p. p. p.

1 3 3 5 7 8

Mat.nr. 60534

0100 Definitions on Public Space To be able to approach the shopping mall and examine what kind of space it provides it is reasonable first to discuss which criteria it should fulfil. The definition of a ‘public space’ is understood as “a space that is freely accessible for everyone” [Hajer 2000 p. 11]. This definition is very broad, and to understand the importance of the public space the definitions of ‘public domains’ and ‘open/single minded spaces’ are used to examine which space is available while spending your salary in your preferred shopping mall or Urban Entertainment Centre.

0101 Public Domains The two Dutch sociologists Hajer & Reijndorp have in their search for public activity and better urban development developed the definition of the “public domains”, which are “ those places where an exchange between different social groups is possible and also actually occurs” [Hajer 2000 p. 11]. A public domain does not necessarily need to be a “public space” in the access for all definition. Hajer and Reijndorp find places where interaction and activity among various users, from different backgrounds, exists, more important than having places where everyone can be at the same time, without any interaction. By “exchange” is not simply meant the scenario where a yuppie passes by a homeless guy on the street. It is meant as situations where both parties get an experience. A good example on such places is the Brazilian SESC, which are community centres provided for factory workers by their unions. These are intended mainly for the working class of the segregated Brazilian society, but visitors outside

Notes

The shopping mall as a public space

|  |

Samo Pedersen

of the unions can enter, though with a small cover charge. Such centres provide art workshops, sport facilities, theatre, education etc. Even though they are intended for the members of the unions these places are so popular that they attract many others, successfully creating exchange inbetween social groups. Further Hajer & Reijndorp explains that for people to be able to engage in various activities, they should be allowed enough personal freedom and liberty. If a place is under surveillance such personal freedom is reduced, which might limit people from making everyday abnormities and limit the function of the place as a public domain1.

0102 Open-minded spaces Michael Walzer, American political scientist and debater, explains; “A democratic polity needs ‘open-minded spaces’, places where a wide variety of people can coexist, places where a wide variety of functions encourage unexpected activities, places whose multiple possibilities lead naturally to the communication that makes democracy possible” [Walzer2]. In his definition Walzer raises the term a ‘democratic polity’ and ‘democracy’. These terms are used to identify the users of such ‘open-minded spaces’, namely everybody, and everyone is as well equal. Secondly the space needs to provide opportunities for multiple activities, and these activities should lead to dialogue and interaction among the users (everyone present). Even further it is not enough to have planed and controlled activities, but an open-minded space should also have room for and encourage unforeseen and unexpected activities. Therefore to have a truly open-minded space, the space should be accessible for all, and offer possibilities to engage in activities that can be different, uncommon, or new. It is spaces where people from various backgrounds and various cultures meet and engage in new experiences.

0103 Open-Minded Space or Public Domain? Both definitions are based on exchange and communication in-between the users of the space, and where such exchange and communication actually takes place. A main difference of the two definitions is the amount of access required to the physical space. Hajer and Reijndorp argue that a space does not necessarily need to be public and accessible for all to be able to be a public domain. Exchange among various social groups can occur in e.g. an aqua park, or a sports centre, as long as it is not a place exclusive for one kind of users. Of course economical circumstances define how accessible a place is and which level of income one must have to participate. As Walzer talks about democracy it is expected that everyone has equal rights in open-minded spaces, which again presumes that everyone is welcome and able to enter. Therefore a space to be “open-minded” must be “public”. Both definitions also cover the issue of liberty to engage in unforeseen activities, but again there is a difference to which extent this matter. Walzer requires liberty for unexpected activities to take place, and these activities are a main part of a space being open-minded or not. Therefore the open-minded space must be flexible to alternate functions and uses. Such unexpected activities are not crucial for a place to be a public domain. It is enough when exchange occurs, even if it is the way it is intended. Hajer & Reijndorp though states that if people are constantly watched, and scared of committing something wrong, they do not have the liberty to engage in such exchange. Therefore this essay will try to argue whether shopping malls, with the example of the Weimar Atrium, contains elements of a public space, an open-minded space accessible for all, a public domain where exchange among social groups occurs, or none of the above.

On the contrary ‘single-minded spaces’ are spaces “so rigorously defined for a single purpose that they exclude the liberating openness of genuine public space” [Walzer3].

Notes 1 Hajer & Reijndorp 2000 2 Smiley 2002 p 9 3 Smiley 2002 p 9

The shopping mall as a public space

|  |

Samo Pedersen

0200 Brief History of the Shopping Mall The history of shopping malls depends on the interpretation. Is it a modernist invention from the American suburbs, or has it in fact been used as a market place for centuries? If the definition for a shopping mall is an enclosed space with the purpose of trading goods, the history of shopping malls, in form of bazaars, can be tracked back to the Isfahan’s Grand Bazaar in Iran. This bazaar was largely covered, and dates back from the 10th century A.D. One of the largest existing covered markets in the world, the Grand Bazaar of Istanbul, was built in the 15th century. It contains 4000 shops and more than 58 streets. In Europe, more precisely Oxford in England, the Oxford covered market was opened on 1st of November 1774. This market is still in business today. In the mid-20th century, with the rise of the suburb and automobile culture in the United States, a new style of shopping centre was created away from city centres. Talking about suburban malls it is inevitable to come around names as Victor Gruen, and James Rouse, of who the latter is the main developer of some of America’s largest malls. Victor Gruen (1903-1980) was a Jewish refuge from Vienna, who immigrated to the United States in 1938 due to the pre-war suppression. He was a socialist, who unlike European modernists, believed in using capitalism into building a social and democratic society4. Gruen believed in using consumerism as a media for changing suburban environments into neighbourhood improving nodes in a polycentralized cityscape. Rather than simply for generating profit, Gruen designed the first of America’s shopping centres in the idea of creating community centres, meeting points, and interactive facilities. Gruen’s vision was inspired by European models and cultural references. His ambitions were to locate the community centre built in a central court surrounded by sculptures, fountains, and enough seating facilities. He argued that the regional shopping centre “is able to play the role not merely of a commercial centre but of a social, cultural and recreational crystallisation point of the up-to-then amorphous, sprawling sub-urban region” [JfW 2005/2 p. 77].

Since Gruen designed the first shopping mall in America, they have become amazingly widespread and popular. Throughout the second half of the 20th century shopping malls have been multiplied throughout any American city of some significance, and also emerged rapidly in Europe, being present almost everywhere there are customers at the turn of the millennium. Today one of the largest shopping complexes in the world is located in the King of Prussia suburb of Philadelphia. However, several Asian malls are advertised as having more visitors. Beijing’s Golden Resources Shopping Mall, opened in October 2004, being the world’s largest, at 600,000 m². These days’ shopping malls are no longer left alone at the suburbs; rapidly they are changing the morphology of city centres and downtown areas. The majority of British shopping centres are in fact located in town centres, usually inserted into old shopping districts, and surrounded by 5 subsidiary open air shopping streets .

0300 Malls Today Today, the original form of the mall has long been superseded. Developers did not show much interest in social service, and developed malls catering more to the immediate need for retailers where larger earnings could be pursued. Seeing the vast commercialization, decay of suburban areas, and loss of community facilities, connected to shopping centres, only built for profit, Gruen disillusioned gave up his believes in America and returned back to Europe6. “The marketplaces that are called malls have become a long way from the strip centre with department store attached and from the downtown street. But they have become routine; are limited in their community services; monotonous in their repetitive alikeness” [Rouse7]. In fact the loss of social interaction connected to shopping can be argued to have happened much earlier than with the suburban shopping malls. Since the first department stores (1850s) were built in Paris, the city’s commercial landscape was changed. Compared to smaller shops, the department stores offered much more goods with fixed prices. The customers could not bargain for the price, and shopping became much more anonymous. This meant a shopping scenario where most products could be bought

Notes 4 From Department Store to Shopping Mall p 9-14 Jarbuch Für Wirtschaftsgeschichte 2005/2 (JfW) A Viennese Refugee and the Re-forming of American Consumer Society (JfW) p 91-102 5 Wikipedia www.wikipedia.org 6 Public life as consumerism (JfW) p 71-86 7 Public life as consumerism (JfW) p 84

The shopping mall as a public space

|  |

Samo Pedersen

in one shop without the necessity of interaction among buyer and seller. With the lack of dialogue the department stores had to learn new ways to advertise for their products, and soon discovered the importance of marketing8. Today the physical order of malls enforces a spiral of desire, imposing a need to buy. “The ‘weightless realm’ receives substance only through the commodities it contains” [Crawford9].

0301 Globalisation of Shopping The new big thing has become Urban Entertainment Centres (UEC), shopping malls included with various activities built for the purpose of earning as much on its customers as possible. Such activities are; meeting points, multiplex cinemas, fitness centres, restaurants etc. These facilities create ‘mini-cities’ available to entertain customers who are willing to pay, and can afford, for the pleasures. Such places have a rhythm of activity strongly influenced by the opening hours; when open it can be vibrant and full of people, but it tends to be completely remote after hours. A main reason for success has occurred through use of a variety of strategies that all depend on ‘indirect commodification’. This has fostered use of non-saleable objects, activities, and images purposely placed in malls. These objects provide each other mutual support; ‘the logic of association allows noncommodified values to enhance commodities [Crawford10] The world wide popularity of shopping malls has led to a decay of local identity. The shopping complex has become indistinguishable whether it is located on one continent or the other; a ‘nonplace’ or a “‘junk space’ (which) is the result of the conjunction of escalator and air conditioning, conceived in an incubator made of plasterboard” [Koolhaas 2000]. The unification of malls goes hand in hand with the products they provide. As malls tend to house stores from chains covering world wide, or at least nation-wide, they actually sell the same products. The lack of variety is enforced by the marketing strategy of the so called ‘power brands’ that aims to be recognised identically all around the world11. “Department stores and shopping centres are prime examples of institutions that almost by definition represent not only commodities Notes 8 Crawford ed. Sorkin 1992 p 17-18 9 Sorkin 1992 p 14 10 Sorkin 1992, p 15 11 Misik 2006 p 2 12 Misik 2006 p 4-5 13 Sorkin 1992 p 11-13 14 Misik 2006 p 1

The shopping mall as a public space

from around the world but the very evolution of consumer society, which is quintessentially a trans-national project” [JfW 2005/2 p. 10]. Not only are malls alike, also airports, train stations, entrances of large hospital and cultural complexes, like museums, have become indistinguishable from malls. In such places shops have become a vital mean for the overall feasibility. Further the city centres have overtaken many identities of the malls. These places are characterised as centres of consumption, providing similar shops and brands found in malls, guarded security patrols, and camera surveillance. Following the same premises as malls according to security, rules, surveillance, and advertisement, it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference12.

0302 Malls; popular or problematic? Being characterised as ‘lacking identity’, ‘limiting interaction’ an ‘enforcing consumerism’ malls are often put in bad light by critics. Nevertheless, judged on their growth, they tend to be successful and achieve large amounts of visitors. A major claim for success has been identical to the success of consumerism; an endless variation of objects, imposed new trends, and popular shifting fashion means that satisfaction always remains just out of reach. Culture, leisure, sex, politics, and even death has turned into commodities, consumption increasingly constructs the way we see the world thus commodities define lifestyles13. This tendency has been criticized by many, like the Frankfurt School claiming that corporate culture is “robbing individuals of freedom and imposing conformity” [JfW 2005/2 p. 100]. Another path to success is the use of peoples ‘lack of time’ or ‘laziness’ with the keyword ‘convenience’. A major impact is when shopping malls are easy accessible. Being located near key access routes and containing enough parking possibilities they have a significant advantage of often jammed downtown city centres. Attracting crowds “Shopping is perhaps the last remaining form of public activity” [Koolhaas14]. Of course this can be either true or heavily dismissed, as it is arguably whether shopping (in malls) is public at all (of which will be discussed later). If movement is enough to define activity, then Koolhaas’ quote (provocation) is right. What is left out is that this

|  |

Samo Pedersen

activity does not necessarily involve any form of interaction among people. To enhance profit this anonymity and friction free lack of interaction is highly valued by mall owners. The less time people are distracted the more time they have for purchase. Guards and surveillance create a sense of security preventing any unexpected activities. Returning to convenience, covered malls are favourable in areas where weather conditions can be a nuisance. Air conditions creates a comfortable temperature, artificial lighting provides sense of openness, and escalators eases mobility; all contributing to a vast exploitation of energy. Economically and redesign-wise malls can cause problems to. As shopping centres are hard adjustable re-use and re-development is difficult. If malls are not feasible and closed they become great problems for their surroundings. Not only are they designed mono-functional, they also consume a great amount of space, which can create a large hollow. On the Contrary, malls in function can also provide similar effects outside of opening hours. To this comes that a great amount of visitors will create increased traffic in the area, and a demand for parking facilities. As malls generally are privately owned, the management understand only economical success or failure. This meaning that they do not necessarily have any obligation to provide any functions or services of which they do not profit15. Small retail located outside, faces difficulties competing with malls, as large chain-shops can compete with dumping prices. When competition is eliminated, e.g. the local groceries closed, people are forced to commute to the mall, which can be proved time consuming and difficult if not owning a car.

0400 Case Study of Weimar Atrium To shift from literature based research a simple open-ended analysis of the Weimar Atrium was conducted. Beside of shops the Atrium offers; tourist information, child care, occasional performance art, catwalks, bowling, fitness, a 3D Cinema, generic Italian restaurants, cafés, and a laundry service. At the time of this survey, small stands were installed providing the customers with samples of

local cheese, vine, and beer. On the top storey a catwalk had been built where the Thuringian nominees of Miss and Mister Germany were to be selected. There is access to the Atrium, with connecting underground parking, everyday from early morning, before the shops open, till after midnight, when the bowling centre closes, on weekends even longer. The mall is fairly empty after the shops are closed, and not many cars use the parking afterwards either. I spend the afternoon taking a few pictures and observing people gathering around the catwalk and surrounding the food-stands. At a glance it seemed as if I were at a vibrant marketplace, though a pretty tidy one. People were taking photos, of the models in swimsuits, enjoying their beverages, and the most important, of course spending money. The following day I returned to take a few more pictures, when I met four teenagers sitting at the floor by one back entrance to the mall. This was located at the end of a corridor, creating its own separate room, connecting the mall to Brennerstrasse, a quiet, blind, road. This entrance is not used by many people, so as I came about one of the teenage boys was showing of to the girls by making a handstand. I had a chat with the guys and asked to take a photo of them. This was alright, so I made them pose for me. After my first photo, I asked the boy who had done the handstand, to do it again, so I could take a photo of him. It must be said that we were completely alone, and that there were no others who used this corridor in the whole time as I was there. Well one minute after I took the photo, a security guard came and threw us all out of the mall. We tried to ask for an explanation, but the only thing he could say was that we behaved inappropriate, and if I wanted to take photos I should talk to the management. Apparently the photo policy changes when taking pictures of activities not arranged by the management, or in other words, activities that are not boosting sales. The teenagers told that they used to hang out in the corridor, because they liked to observe people, and met friends who came to the mall. They were not welcome to hang out at the benches inside the mall, because they felt too supervised by the guards. In the corridor they felt like they were more tolerated; apparently not enough to make handstands.

Notes 15 JfW 2005/2 p 81

The shopping mall as a public space

|  |

Samo Pedersen

The shopping mall as a public space

|  |

Samo Pedersen

0500 Discussion To summarise the case study, Davis can be quoted; “the mall uses Jeremy Benthams 19th century design of the panopticon prison” [Davis 1992 p. 240]. It is evident that malls make great use of security cameras and guards, to be able to control activities to the management’s appreciation. The security guards monitor every movement, just as Orwell’s big brother. Even though the watch tower is not located centrally, as in the panopticon prison, the effect is similar. Customers know there is the possibility that they are being watched, or at least they discover it immediately if they engage in any abnormal activity.

0501 Shopping Malls and Democracy When malls are located in suburbs, it becomes a nuisance and sometimes impossible for customers not owning motorised vehicles, or without the ability to drive, to be able to reach the mall. These unequal access possibilities become a problem if the impact of the mall on local stores is so immense that they need to close, leaving a fragment of society with troubles to get even basic supplies. Further the malls do not provide the same social experiences as local small retail or market stands are able to. In small local groceries the employees have the time to chat and gossip with the customers, creating a meeting point, and a place where exchange of news occurs, for some local residents. Focusing on the mall itself it is also questionable how democratic malls are, and why they should be. “In shopping centre development a single man or a single company builds the main street, the town square, the “home town”, and is largely responsible for the atmosphere it creates, for its chain reaction effect on the local community” [Rouse16]. Leaving private individuals or companies to manage such significant city areas can not be expected to be a social project where economy only comes in second. On the contrary the argument for malls is that if they turn out to be economical generators, the whole district or region will benefit from the enhanced tax-income, which can be used to provide social improvements for everyone.

0502 Shopping Malls as Public and Open-Minded Spaces As malls generally are privately owned they are private spaces from an ownership view. Using Hajer & Reijndorp’s criteria for public spaces, which means that there should be access for all, makes the situation a bit more diverse. As it is up to the management to decide who can enter and who can not, the mall it self is very undemocratic. It is up to the management’s policy of how tolerating the space it provides is. This nevertheless does not change the fact that malls are not public spaces at all, as the management (guards) have the liberty to exclude whoever they feel unwanted. Liberated market economy creates a segregated society, ‘criminalizing’ the poor which becomes unwanted. Hence as the shopping mall creates consumption accumulated desires, those who can not afford these desires become unwanted, and excluded. “The society which obtains orderstabilizing behavioural patterns from its members who have been evicted or are about to be evicted from their statuses as producers and defined instead as, first and foremost, consumers, discourages the anchoring of hope in collective actions. Unlike production, consumption is a thoroughly individual activity” [Bauman 1997 p. 39]. Being private and with the ability to exclude and limit access to fragments of society, already prevent malls to be categorised as open-minded spaces. If seen upon the activities provided, these can be diverse and catering for different users, even different social groups, nevertheless there is not much room for impulsive and unforeseen activity, as all activities are basically of one function; to generate profit of its users. Walzer himself describe the shopping mall as “the epitome of single-mindedness” [Walzer17]. Not only have malls continued to closely regulate speech by creating complex rules for access, but also religion and politics have no real or symbolic presence in malls. The carefully designed and programmed mall environment easily overwhelms civic and other rituals. “Even grocery stores and professional services have been eliminated in malls as too distracting and unprofitable” [JfW 2005/2 p. 86]. In some occasions shopping malls have been

Notes 16 JfW 2005/2 p 79 17 Smiley 2002 p 10

The shopping mall as a public space

|  |

Samo Pedersen

forced to allow activities to take place that are not in the interest of managements. Coming to political activities, New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that malls had such important role in the decline of down town public places that they had to allow free speech, which covers demonstrations and leaflet in malls18.

0503 Shopping Malls as Public Domains For a place to be characterised as a public domain, exchange between various social groups must occur. Limited access is not core for this definition, even though this contributes to segregation among social levels. UECs provide numerous opportunities for activity, but again these tend to be very limited in creating exchange among different social groups. It is uncommon that there exist activities in which people can either be shocked or enriched by ‘different’ experiences or circumstances, of which they are not used to or prepared for. Limited space for debate, education, and discussion subordinate possibilities of political, cultural, religious etc. mixture and interaction among people of different opinions and believes, as such activities can both cause friction or enlightenment. As managements of malls know that customers will return if the service and experience by shopping has been convenient and ‘pleasant’ they encourage, control, and design for an atmosphere that is predictable and without (as much as possible) any inconveniences, physical and emotional, for the customers. Owners of malls pursuit profit, thus a major part of activities possible in malls are to be paid for. This creates further segregation among rich and poor, when some social groups can not afford to join.

even if this means excluding the marginalised, thus generating most profit. If the problems of malls have to be resolved it is not up to the managements to take the initiative, but by elected politicians and most important; the customers. Maybe the major problems with malls are not, which kind of space they provide or how they are designed, but what is more important is their impact on their surroundings and to which extent they dominate the urban pattern. As it can be concluded that malls are neither offering open-minded public space nor functions as public domains, it is important that creation of such malls in urban areas is not on the cost of such places elsewhere. Even though inner-city malls can generate activities in the city core, they should not become the dominating part, eliminating activity on the streets. Contrary the amount of visitors they attract, and profit they generate, can have a positive impact on the surroundings, which also can foster new activities and ideas if provided with enough ‘open-minded’ space. Thus malls should not be totally dismissed, but merely adjusted in the urban fabric, of which all layers of society can benefit (naturally this is much easier said than done). Providing security and conformity, malls indulge operations based on consumerism and people’s prejudice and fear of the unknown. These tendencies of advertisements, surveillance, and segregation can be traced to expand throughout ‘modern’ city. What is disturbing is not the fact that the privately owned malls are centres for commerce driven by economical desires; no what is alarming is the mallification of the urban public areas. These areas should be accessible for all but becomes more and more victims of commercialisation, surveillance, and segregation. Influenced by the economic success of malls, public space is set aside and become the victim.

0600 Conclusion The findings of the case study and arguments of literature, makes the limited amount of rights in malls evident but by no means surprising. As malls are privately owned, their managements can not be blamed to aim for profit and do everything to achieve their goals. After all it is in their interest to cater for the customers and provide the shopping experience that satisfies the majority, Notes 18 PruneYard Case, http://www.empowermentzone.com/leaflet.txt Anti war demo, http://www.reason.com/news/show/29728.html

The shopping mall as a public space

|  |

Samo Pedersen

Literature Bauman, Zygmunt Postmodernity and its discontents 1997 Polity Davis, Mike City of Quartz 1992 Vintage Hajer, M & Reijndorp, A In search of new public domain 2000 Nai Publishers (JfW) Jarbuch Für Wirtschaftsgeschichte 2005/2 Akademie Verlag Kolhaas, Rem Junk−Space Archplus 149, April 2000 Misik, Robert Simulated cities, sedated living 2006 Eurozine (Article) Smiley, David J. Sprawl and public space: Redressing the mall 2002 National Endowment for the Arts Sorkin, Michael Variations on a Theme Park Hill & Wang 1992

Web Anti war demo, http://www.reason.com/news/show/29728.html PruneYard Case, http://www.empowermentzone.com/leaflet.txt Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org

The shopping mall as a public space

|  |

Samo Pedersen