THE LIMITS OF ARCHITECTURE – COMMERCIALISATION OF PUBLIC SPACE

Where does architecture begin and end? On what topics should architects be invited and in what social discussions should they be actively involved? These questions led Architects Without Borders to organize a series of public discussions called The Boundaries of Architecture. Two guests who are close to the topic under discussion are invited to one table - one architect or urban planner and an expert from another profession. Together we are looking for the boundaries of architecture and its intersections with other social disciplines.

The topic of Commercialization of Public Space was discussed by architect and poet Anna Beata Háblová and social anthropologist Michal Lehečka.

Anthropology

Anthropology is a social science that originated in the 19th century. At that time, there was a need to study overseas colonies, especially for military purposes. Later, this approach evolved into the science of culture, which seeks to explain how society works and why it works the way it does. Today's anthropologists are often concerned with phenomena that affect them personally.

Public space

Architect Anna Beata Háblová perceives the public space as the living room of the city. She sees its essence in its openness and its accessibility to everyone, regardless of who owns the space (for example, it can be a private but accessible courtyard). The social anthropologist Michal Lehečka also pointed out the intangible part of this concept, which includes, for example, social discussion. Moreover, the character of public space changes over time and also due to the influence of who uses it. An example is the different perception of the environment of a shopping centre, which is a place of leisure for visitors (the so-called "flaneurs"), but for salespeople it is a place of employment and important social ties. The field of urban studies*, which studies the city as such, recognises more nuanced public spaces: for example, it uses terms such as contested space, shared space and commons.

 *the architectural view of the field focuses on community – it can simply be said to combine architecture and sociology.

The origin of public space, the commons, referred to a communal pasture that was used by all to graze their sheep, or a communal pasture where the weakest of the community found shelter. This idea is still relevant today: in the state of the public space we can read the relationship of society to its weakest members.

Who influences public space?

Public space is shaped by a certain ideology. By ideology we mean a specific system of tools and values promoted by the city's leadership. Even with the seemingly positive effect on the streets and squares (for example, they are clean, safe, full of small shops and cafes), the city leadership should be aware of the negative effects of its policies. Indeed, the ideologies chosen are always embedded in the environment of an economic system, and the so-called "throwing away of weaker pieces" that a market economy inevitably does works in this case as well. 

Thus, for example, the increasing attractiveness of a particular urban area (which is a positive effect) results in pressure on its inhabitants (which is a negative effect). Thus, the many small cafes and pleasant parks in a neighborhood will be reflected in the rising cost of housing and services. If the increase in costs for the original residents is noticeable, we speak of displacement. This phenomenon is hardly visible. It can have two levels - the symbolic one means that residents no longer feel at home in a place. On a spatial level, displacement can occur completely, when the original inhabitants are unable to pay the rent and leave the place.

Everything in moderation

The boundaries of public space, i.e. the meeting of private and public, are crucial for the formation of public space. These are the places where activities that support the vitality of public space can emerge. An example is a café on the ground floor of a private house that enlivens the street. It is important that these boundaries of private and public are clearly legible and understandable.
Also for revitalising the parterre, everything in moderation: too much concentration of activities (e.g. restaurants, shops or offices) can be detrimental as a result. However, there are no tables to determine the right proportion. This is an opportunity for architects - through their studies they should have a trained sense of the right proportion, so they should not be afraid to go to work for the authorities and use their training to the benefit of society.

If an inappropriate commercial centre is built in a city (by its location, scale or architecture), it will suck the life out of the city. Anna Beata Háblová gave the example of the Nová Karolína shopping centre in Ostrava, which turned the Silesian capital into a ghost town. Simply put, everyone is in Nová Karolína, which is disproportionate for the seemingly large agglomeration of Ostrava.

Architects in the Dutch city of Almere took a different approach. They also created a shopping centre there, but turned the classic principle of closed "boxes" on its head. The shopping centre is connected to the existing street network and has the character of a lively promenade. Restaurants are located on the ground floor, which is another big change from the classic location of food courts on the upper floors of shopping centres.  Thirdly, the developers have managed to achieve a mix of multiple functions, with apartments and offices alongside shops, making the shopping centre sustainable.

Similarly successful - reasonable - centres of commerce can be found in Munich (Fünf Höfe) or Barcelona (De Citadel). Among the Czech examples, it is worth noting the design of the Nový Smíchov OC, which is also proportional in scale and fits into the city's structure. In addition, it connects the street with the Sacré Ceur park.

“Nelze říci, že obchodní centra jsou jednoznačně špatná. Záleží však na tom, jak jsou navržena.”

- Anna-Beata Háblová -  

An interesting reaction of cities to shopping malls is the process of "mallizace". This means that a city takes the principles of a shopping mall and applies them to its public space. An example is the transformation of a part of Vienna, the so-called Golden Quarter (Goldenes Quartier). This part of the city has been renovated and street security has subsequently been increased (for example, ubiquitous cameras have been installed). In some places, they have even introduced so-called 'operators' for individual streets who manage the rental of commercial space. These conditions are suited to multinational chains and brands, and the local uniqueness of the city is thus disappearing.

Where did shopping malls come from and what is their evolution?

The shopping malls we know today originated in the 1950s in the United States. The socially minded architect Viktor Grün was behind the idea. The Austrian immigrant strongly perceived the shortcomings of American suburbs, which lacked a classic European centre where people could meet and at the same time enjoy a range of services. Viktor Grün therefore came up with the idea of business centres that would allow families to do everything they needed to do in one place: meet friends, have a coffee, go shopping or get a haircut. However, the commercial potential of the idea soon outweighed the community potential, and only the profit-making part of the idea remained. The successful project spread like a wave through the American suburbs. The over-saturation of suburbs and cities with shopping malls became apparent afterwards.malls became apparent afterwards.

Processes affecting public space: the commodification of housing

In addition to displacement, where the transformation of public space also means a change of inhabitants, an important phenomenon affecting public space is the commodification of housing (i.e. the transformation of what is not normally a commodity into an object of exchange). This term has appeared in social sciences since the 1960s and is related to two factors. Firstly, the transformation of industrial cities into post-industrial ones, which has been reflected in the transformation of the labour market and the weakening of the welfare state. The second factor is the financialisation of the market, which has meant that the banking sector has come to play a major role, with an emphasis on mortgages. The changes in society and the transformation of the commodification of housing were not noticed for a long time, although they can also be discussed in the Czech environment, albeit only since 1989. As a consequence of commodification, housing is no longer perceived as a right (and as an essential need for existence and human culture), but as an investment.

For example, A2larm's reportage series Housing is Above Gold or the film Push by Swedish director Fredrik Gertten.

Mining space or gentrification

Another process that describes the actual development of an area is gentrification. It takes a different form in each place. However, it can be said that it is the extraction of space. Think of a city as a mine from which we try to extract as much as possible. Michal Lehečka says of gentrification, "We all do it, but at the same time we criticize it."
An example of gentrification is the transformation of Prague's Karlín district, in which the inhabitants and the ethos of the district have been radically transformed. The 2002 flood provided an excuse to evict the original Roma population. The district underwent extensive reconstruction of houses, streets and squares, and a number of new cafés, restaurants, administrative and cultural centres were built. Apartment prices have multiplied several times, making them unaffordable for the original inhabitants. One of the manifestations of gentrification is thus - in addition to the transformation and revitalisation of a previously stagnant area - the displacement of the original inhabitants described above. These processes are strongly interlinked.

How can we resist negative processes in the city?

The city belongs to everyone. As Michal Lehečka noted, the city was created to make living easier.

"The great imperative of today's situation is the fact that our cities are de facto collapsing, we no longer perceive the consequence of our daily activities. The only way out of this is to take an active interest in your city and get involved."

- Michal Lehečka -

The other side of the coin needs to be seen – if people have left somewhere, where have they gone and how are they? To talk about the problems that are around us and to name the processes that prevent cities from being sustainable. And that the city planning process should certainly not lack an anthropologist alongside the architect.

The discussion took place in March 2018 at the Scout Institute on Old Town Square.
The series of public discussions and articles The limits of architecture is supported by a grant from Nadace české architektury.