20 minute read
Chapter 2: Heterotropic appropriations of space and the influence they have on a
by mar__nc
3
Table of Contents:
Advertisement
1. Introduction 6 2.Chapter 1: Can public spaces in a gentrified society be inclusive? 7
2.1. The conditions of successful neighbourhoods and their public spaces
2.2. What happens when neighbourhoods become gentrified 2.2.1. Case study: The High-Line as a pre-cursor for a gentrified Chelsea.
2.3. The nature of Public Space in a gentrified society: Understanding Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS) 2.3.1. Exclusivity in POPS and how it occurs 2.3.2. Inclusivity in POPS and how it occurs 2.4. Conclusion
3.Chapter 2: Heterotropic appropriations of space and the influence they have on a gentrified society 21
3.1. How does ‘appropriating space’ relate to ‘informality’
3.2. heterotopias as form of placemaking 3.2.1. Case study: skateboarding in exclusive public spaces
3.3 Squatters in gentrified cities as ‘Heterotopias of Change’ 3.3.1. Case study- Squatting in a gentrifying society as a form of rehabilitating an exclusive city: The case of ‘Køpi’ 3.3.2. Case study- Squatting in an already gentrified city as a trigger for inclusion: the case of ‘the female space invaders’ 3.4. Conclusion
4.Chapter 3: Planning for diversity and ephemerality 42
4.1. The bottom-up approach as a necessity for placemaking
4.2. Time and ephemeral uses as necessity for placemaking
4.3. Case study: MUF architects and their making space in Dalston as an example for inclusive planning
4.4. Conclusion
5.Bibliography 47
4
List of Figures:
Fig.1: A street vendor in one of New York's business districts Fig.2. The high-line before renovation Fig 3. the high-line after renovation Fig.4. Changes in program on the highline over a period of 5 years Fig.5.Private Condos by Zaha Hadid Architects in in Chelsea's 520 West 28th Street
Fig. 6.Conditions set up by local Authorities in New York that illustrates the newly accepted physical location of Privately Owned Public Space within the city (Luk). Fig. 8. Concrete spikes under a road bridge in Guangzhou city, Guangdong, China.
Photograph: Imaginechina/REX Fig. 9. A woman sitting on the edge of the camden bench Fig. 10. An illustration of the design of the Camden bench Fig. 10. An illustration of the design of the Camden bench Fig. 11.A bench in the lobby of Trump Tower that spurred a plan to crack down on the misuse of public spaces. Fig.12. The kiosks that replaced the bench in the trump tower Fig. 13. CCTV monitoring people openly in a public park Fig.14. Site plans of bonus spaces in five spatial types. Fig.15. People using the CitiGroup Atriumig Fig.16. Varied program in the CitiGroup Atrium Fig.17. An example of informal appropriations of space that became an accepted part of the community: The london Trafalgar square with spectators watching a choir sing Christmas carols under the Christmas tree fig.18.. children appropriating a walkway and transforming it into a playground by simply drawing lines Fig.19. A sign prohibiting skaters in a public park – greenport village Fig.20. A skater skating on handrails in a public space Fig.21. Squatters in the courtyard of 137 Köpenicker Straße Fig.22. 137 Köpenicker Straße .Fig. 23. An open call against eviction and demolition of the building
5
Fig.24. A protest organized by kopi against demolition Fig.25. workers marching against exploitation demanding better legal protection from abuse Fig.26. A city park in hong kong with adequate lighing, sitting areas and shading Fig.27. Low-income Living space in hong kong. “A man eats dinner in his flat Fig.28.A sunday gathering in hong kong’s CBD Fig.29. The HSBC building, Hong Kong Fig.30. The HSBC atrium Fig.31. Filipino domestic workers' presence (grey) in the HSBC atrium compared to that of the passers-by (black) before rennovations Fig.32: Fillipino domestic workers occupying space under the HSBC building before renovation Fig.33: Filipino domestic workers' presence (grey) in the HSBC atrium compared to that of the passers-by (black) after rennovations Fig.34: Dr Hee Sun Choi’s interventions to further integrate Hong Kong’s ‘Little Manila’s’ into its business district Fig. 35. Filipino domestic workers staging a protest in ‘little manila’ over the arrest of a Hong
Kong maid who they claim had a bullet planted in her luggage by corrupt staff at Manila
Airport. Fig.36: Ten Project themes in ‘Making Space in Dalston’ Fig. 37 : The installation in the eastern curve Garden Fig.38: The Eastern Curve Garden as an garden
List of Abbreviations:
Abbreviation
POPS
TA Definition
6
Introduction
The problem with gentrification results from failure to diversify; a trait greatly emphasized by Jane Jacobs necessary for a neighbourhood to be successful. Post-industrial cities have exemplified this burden by how people use their public spaces. When people do not feel identified, they will not appropriate space. The successes of every city are reflected by different people appearing at different times of the day (Jacobs 152). When this does not occur, it is a result of exclusionary techniques that may happen physically through design or psychologically, for example, by the mere presence of monotonous users in spaces that are obliged to accommodate several ‘other publics’.This is discouraging and unwelcoming for those who do not ‘ fit’ into a specified clientele profile. Mixed primary uses and secondary uses are critical to diversification. When they are not implemented efficiently as man-centred responses to the needs of varied users, the socioeconomic health of a city remains at stake. But inclusion in a gentrifying society, however selfcontradictory it may seem, is not impossible. This thesis questions how valid this paradox is by looking at the case of atypical appropriations of public spaces in gentrified neighbourhoods.. It does not matter how well established and financially stable a city is, it will always experience sporadic occasions of unconventional users and their uses; heterotopias also known as “other places”. These behave as pauses in the traditional dynamics of any environment. They are ‘places ‘ ,even when they do not come protected by physical boundaries, that serve as an indication that ‘other publics’ also reside within the city’s pre-defined utopian socio-norms. What they inspire ,incite and how societies respond to it is key to diversification. The influence heterotopic appropriations of space has on a city is critical to planning for the future of its current and potential inhabitants. A society may hesitate to recognize them as vital parts of a community or choose to acknowledge them through flexible man-centred strategies that allow the possibility of change while giving them and its existing inhabitants (however varied they may be) power to participate and re-invent the tangible and intangible parts of the city. If planning can be understood as a form of ‘placemaking’ carried out by its varied users that meets their diverse needs ( and yes, including the needs of those unexpected sporadic “other places”) while keeping in mind that communities are ever influx it will serve as an indication for the city’s desire to evolve and diversify.
Chapter 1: Can public spaces in a gentrified society be inclusive? The conditions of successful neighbourhoods and their public spaces
7
Successful public spaces have to be characterized by a mix of users who appear at different times and bring with them their different uses. Public spaces are defined as “all those regions in the environment which are open to the freely chosen and spontaneous action of people” (Lynch 396); a definition supported by many scholars such as Richard Sennett who agrees adding that such spaces should be characterised by the interactions of ‘everyone’ which is synonymous with the ‘public’ (Sennett et al.). The word ‘public’ is highlighted by Mathew Carmona as an incoherent group of people made up of “a fragmented society of different socio-economic (and, today, often cultural) groups, further divided by age and gender. Each part of this fragmented society will relate to public space (and to each other) in different and complex ways” (376) therefore the spread of these different publics throughout the day is a reflection of their efficiency. This should also not occur sporadically even if each group is diversified to a certain extent (Jacobs 155). The steady mix of users on both streets and public parks is highly dependent on varied primary uses in the area, like placing a factory next to a bank building that has the same significance . A combination of such dissimilar program serves as an anchorage for differing publics giving them a reason to be in a certain place at a specific time. “When a primary use is combined, effectively, with another that puts people on the street at different times, then the effect can be economically stimulating: a fertile environment for secondary diversity.” (Jacobs 162) How the city responds to the needs of its mixed primary users is critical to keeping them within it. Secondary diversified uses serve this function. This includes specialized services such as a café on a street corner, a gym or a small kiosk within proximity of a major bank (see fig.1). When people become increasingly varied in the area, these services-if efficiently implemented- also diversify and to some extent would begin thriving as a primary use, “people come specifically for it” (Jacobs 163). The three conditions -successful mixed primary users, mixed users spread out during different times in public streets and sufficient secondary diversified uses as a response to former two - serve as driving forces for diversity; a necessity for successful cities and their public spaces. (Jacobs 164).
Fig.1. A street vendor in one of New York's business districts Source: https://nypost.com/2019/11/03/falafel-free-for-all-bill-wouldlift-city-cap-on-street-vendor-permits/
8
What happens when neighbourhoods become gentrified?
Gentrified neighbourhoods usually (if not always) begin as an optimistic vision for an area that was previously characterized by urban poverty. The process first lures in wealthier people into a poorer neighbourhood that has an attractive rent-gap which is essentially a disproportion between the current property’s rental income and its potential value, usually in favour of the developer and investor (Lewyn). “When the overall rent gap in an area is determined to be great, it is suggested that the area will undergo gentrification as developers identify this difference as an economic opportunity on which to capitalize” (N. Smith). Real estate investments then focus on improvements in housing services while attracting new businesses that previously did not exist in the area. For the observer and policy -maker, this is a win-win situation between the residents and new inhabitants. "Policymakers have been eager to promote gentrification because they often times see it as a way to alleviate issues like declining tax bases, concentrated poverty" said Lance Freeman in an article published by Rice institute’s Urban Age (Housing) which would logically reduce exposure to poverty for those who stay while serving as powerful precursor for the economic changes in large cities.
9
What investors do not anticipate however, are the long-term consequences that result from improved services and rehabilitated neighbourhoods. Richer clients mean that the general costs of living can be pushed up. This is beneficial to businesses but overlooks the long-term residents and often detrimental to those who cannot afford to stay. Although gentrification on its own does not displace long-term residents, it paves the path for it (Sage). Over-time these areas become faced with a monotony of high-income users that discourage low-earning households from staying or moving into the area. This does not favour the dynamics of the neighbourhood nor its inhabitants and has been discouraged by Jane Jacobs when she stresses that “no neighbourhood or district, no matter how well established, prestigious or well heeled, and no matter how intensely populated for one purpose, can flout the necessity for spreading people through time of day without frustrating its potential for generating diversity” (Jacobs 160)
Case study: The High-Line as a pre-cursor for a gentrified Chelsea.
The high-line – a 2.3-kilometre-long public park that began as an optimistic and humble attempt to save an elevated freight rail from demolition- is located Gansevoort St. running towards 34th St. on Manhattan's West Side in New York. Prior to its renovation, it was an abandoned cargo train ( see fig 2) -that functioned between 1934 to 1980 -with access denied to outsiders due to its unappealing state of urban decay (LLC). In 1999 demolition was prevented by the area’s residents with the help of Joshua David and Robert Hammond who eventually managed to convert it into the linear park it is today (see fig 3.)
10
Intervention on the bridge began with a goal to turn it into a space that allowed users to experience nature according to the “High-Line”’s history while bringing in creative entrepreneurs. This eventually promoted a continuous mingling of people with different purposes which, as Jacobs emphasized, is essential to diversifying and improving the safety of publicly open spaces. Transforming the bridge into an arts and cultural space whereby its program responded to a community that was always changing was one of the main reasons why its goals were achieved on an individual scale (see fig.4 which illustrates changes in various program over a period of five years). Creative spaces are often “an adaptive re-use vehicle well-suited for an uncertain market, precisely because artists value the process of remaking a space as well as a finished product” (Bishop 2012).
Fig.4. Changes in program on the highline over a period of 5 years Source: https://backspace.com/notes/images/program_Phasing+Emergence.jpg
11
Nonetheless, its unprecedented popularity managed to transform it into "a tourist-clogged catwalk and a catalyst for some of the most rapid gentrification in the city’s history.” (Moss 2012). This began as a plan to equip the railway in 2005 with user-friendly amenities such as stairways, lifts and public restrooms in exchange for its air rights under or the sides of the bridge. As a result, developers were allowed to breach their property air rights if they were willing to provide equipment necessary for the high-line's renovations (K.Jacobs). The new developments prioritized profitable and prestigious uses driving many low earning residents out while richer inhabitants moved in to the surroundings that were transformed into opportunities for well established architects with the likes of Zaha Hadid, Shigeru Ban and Jean Nouvel (see fig 5.) . Like many initiatives that lead to gentrification, the project did not anticipate the effects that its presence, its users and their uses would bring to the surrounding areas before it was built. It did however reflect public space as a part of the city that is greatly sought for even for the elite.
Fig.5.Private Condos by Zaha Hadid Architects in in Chelsea's 520 West 28th Street Source: https://www.dezeen.com/2018/03/16/zaha-hadid-architectscompletes-520-west-28th-street-condos-in-new-york/
12
13
The nature of Public Space in a gentrified society: Understanding Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS)
Acquiring and managing public space in densely populated cities is an expensive luxury. Privatisation is often a solution that transfers control over the space from a public to a private establishment which also gives away the economic burden to maintain its hygiene and security. A well-managed public space allows local authorities to profit from its users by charging for activities such as concerts or through leases (H.Smith). Both parties benefit in the form of capitalizing from the agreement (Khululekani and Sijekula). This has been explicitly evidenced by Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS) that are established as an exchange between the local authorities and the developer who wants to by-pass regulations such as building beyond permitted air rights or exemptions from taxes. An idealized win-win situation guarantees public spaces in cities where it is limited while leaving the economic incentives that come with their management in the hands of the developer who also gets to capitalize on the breaches agreed upon. When control becomes privatised, over-time, access and enjoyment become hindered by regulations put in place by the owner if not monitored. A report by UN habitat claimed that privately owned public spaces are often subjected to restrictions that disregard community interests (Polyák). Maximizing capitalism is usually through tight regulations of space which tend to fall under the umbrellas of ‘providing security’ or avoiding the ‘tragedy of commons’ (a concept coined in 1833 by the British economist William Forster Lloyd) whereby people exploit what is not controlled but shared. Because the rights to exclude have legally been waived by the owner (Schindler 1129) the measures placed are frequently expressed suggestively in the of form physical barriers and/or nonphysical psychological barriers.
Exclusivity in POPS and how it occurs
In order to understand whether or not public spaces in gentrifying neighbourhoods can in fact be inclusive, it is necessary to look at how exclusivity is achieved deliberately through design. Jerald Kayden’s ‘Privately Owned Public Space: The New York City Experience’ highlights three major techniques used to abuse Privately Owned Spaces which include 1. denying public access 2. denoting them as private and 3. gradually removing the necessary amenities required for public use (Kayden et al 56). For the purpose of this chapter, these techniques will be classified generally into physical and psychological barriers that lead to the above-mentioned strategies. Physical barriers Inaccessibility is the first parameter. POPS are required to be accessible and connected in such a way that invites people in as shown in fig 6; an evaluation condition set up by local Authorities in New York that illustrates the newly accepted physical location of Privately Owned Public Space within the city (Luk). Forms of control begin by relocating these spaces in areas that cannot be considered public. A place that cannot be seen cannot be accessed by everyone. POPS located on rooftops for example are generally not visible from the outside and require one to enter the building. The location of such hidden spaces is often complimented by a lack of signage in order to avoid denoting the space as public. Physically Barred entry is another. It includes walls, gates or
14
subtly placing boundaries in the form of security guards and entrance fees and in many cases, requiring identification before entry that would exclude several publics such as homeless people. Inaccessibility forces the people to rely on ‘word of mouth’ from outsiders and those who do not begin perceiving a space with the obligation to serve the needs of the public as a private one (Schindler 1131).
Fig. 6.Conditions set up by local Authorities in New York that illustrates the newly accepted physical location of Privately Owned Public Space within the city (Luk). Source: Luk, W L. “PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACE IN HONG KONG AND NEW YORK: THE URBAN AND SPATIAL INFLUENCE OF THE POLICY.” The New Urban Question – Urbanism beyond Neo-Liberalism, 2009.
Uninviting features have also become popular in POPS and serve as means of controlling public behaviour. They are often in the form of hostile mechanisms that discourage long-term use like awkward benches or spikes in public zones that fend off the homeless (see fig. 8). Fig. 9 and 10. are examples of one of the many intentional exclusionary techniques to control behaviour in public spaces. The Camden bench- commissioned by the Camden London Borough Council was initially implemented in Camden, London around 2012. It is designed to prevent activities such as laying horizontally on it. Attempts to justify its hostility claim that the lack of flat continuous surfaces stop litter from gathering while the paint-repellent surface prevents graffiti (Adler-Gillies). In other cases, simply removing amenities is enough to deter long term use like the case of a bench (see fig. 11.) removed in the Trump Tower that served as a reflection of “decades of push and pull between public and private interests” (Kayden). Replacing the bench with kiosks (see fig.12.) also intensified the tower’s attempts to deter people from entering by limiting long-term sitting and suggesting that one had to buy something in order to use the space (a psychological technique utilized in many Privately Owned Public Spaces (Schindler 1132)).
Fig. 8. Concrete spikes under a road bridge in Guangzhou city, Guangdong, China. Photograph: Imaginechina/REX Source: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/18/defensivearchitecture-keeps-poverty-undeen-and-makes-us-more-hostile
Fig. 9. A woman sitting on the edge of the camden bench Source: https://tvarijonas.com/blog/camden-bench-segregation-by-design
15
Fig. 10. An illustration of the design of the Camden bench Source: https://tvarijonas.com/blog/camden-bench-segregation-by-design
Fig. 11.A bench in the lobby of Trump Tower that spurred a plan to crack down on the misuse of public spaces. Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/fight-over-trump-tower-bench-sparkseffort-to-crack-down-on-public-spaces-1488376802
16
Fig.12. The kiosks that replaced the bench in the trump tower Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/fight-over-trump-tower-benchsparks-effort-to-crack-down-on-public-spaces-1488376802
17
Psychological barriers People appropriate spaces only if they feel welcomed in them. When people do not ‘fit in’ a place, they will be discouraged to use it. Jeremy Németh describes such areas as “filtered spaces” which use several techniques to “filter or sort users to ensure an appropriate clientele” (2467). Most POPS are often located in Business centres and populated by the monotonous users who work in the area. The lack of diversity serves a psychological method of preventing people who do not look a certain way that allows them to feel included from using the space because “in cities, liveliness and variety attract more liveliness; deadness and monotony repel life.”(Jacobs 99). Implementing secondary uses (as exemplified by the Trump Tower bench scandal) that target a specific clientele also encourages monotony of use. These include simple gestures such as allowing more space for food trucks and kiosks for those who can afford them as oppose to amenities such as chairs for the general public implying that one must buy something in order to use the space (Schindler 1132). Surveillance also serves as method of control. Ironically, people tend to feel uncomfortable when they know that they are being monitored (Schindler 1132). The use of visible cameras (see fig.13) has served a tactical exclusionary method in many public spaces. Although such systems are generally supported as methods of implementing security, their visibility becomes a form of intrusion and control of the behavioural patterns of ordinary people (Global).
18
Fig. 13. CCTV monitoring people openly in a public park Source: https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilton-region/2017/11/24/cityeyes-surveillance-cameras-in-public-parks.html
Inclusivity in POPS and how it occurs
The previously mentioned methods used to exclude in POPS were studied by Carmona, M., and F. M. Wunderlich systemically. The study, based on that of Kayden in his ‘Privately Owned Public Space: The New York City Experience’ looked specifically at the atria spaces that are common in New York and are more likely to be exclusive as oppose to other types of POPS in complexes. The spaces were classified into 5 categories (see fig. 14.). The cross-block atrium (1) offered a pedestrian connection between the streets and provided many sitting amenities. The second did not have a connection across the block whereas the third had a single entrance and very little amenities. The fourth was isolated from the block’s circulation but connected the two opposite streets linearly while the fifth had amenities along the circulation route (Huang and Franck 7; Kayden et al.). The cross-block atrium in the Citigroup centre was particularly interesting (see fig. 15). It evidenced a larger number of users on both weekends and weekdays and although all five categories had diversified users, many were simply occupied as circulation routes. Areas noted to have been used as gathering points such as the Cross-block atrium had ample amenities such as comfortable furniture, free WIFI, kiosks and shading. Inclusivity was also accomplished by the successful social interactions of different users. Many of these block atria had social platforms for the varied uses ( see fig.16) indicating which activities would occur and when they would in order to avoid conflicting uses in the
19
same limited space. The virtual world also served as a method to organize activities without reducing physical space. This increased the potentials of a single space and promoted diverse activities (Huang and Franck 16).
T Fig.14. Site plans of bonus spaces in five spatial types. Source : Kayden, Jerold S. Privately Owned Public Space: the New York City Experience. J. Wiley & Sons, 2000.
Fig .16. Varied program in the CitiGroup Atrium Source: http://www.bigapplesecrets.com/2014/01/citigroupcenter-part-1-theater-beneath.html
20
