Table tennis table in the public space of Barcelona
(The social production of public spaces with table tennis tables by the lens of Lefebvre’s theory)
Athenea Olivera Belart 11127279 (email: neusol@hotmail.com)
Master in Sociology: urban sociology (track) Prof. Dr. Danielle A.M. Chevalier
Prof. Dr. Jan Rath July 2017
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract: This paper explores and presents the social production of public space with table tennis tables in Barcelona by the lens of Lefebvre’s theory ‘The production of space’ and his conceptual triad. Debating its role in the public space and more specific in the public play spaces. As well as the contribution of these spaces for the production of third space and emotional ownership of space.
Key words: table tennis tables, public space, Lefebvre, production of space, play space, third space, emotional ownership of space.
Table of Contents Acknowledgment 3 Introduction 4 Theoretical Framework 10 Methodology 18 Findings 25
Conclusion & Discussion 49
Bibliography 52
Acknowledgment
This is the moment where I express my gratitude to the people who have been directly or indirectly, helping me on this paper and path. Path, and not only a paper, where I have been walking for many years and is now coming to an end. Where to start from? I would have never imagined the opportunity to live this year at Surinameplein (4º floor). Thank you, for your feedback, critics and academy corrections throughout the year. Also, I would have never imagined to (re) meet you, Ben. I not only feel loved but also intellectually stimulated and inspired by you. Thank you for helping me in this paper. Melisa, you are the one who got me into this master, and also thank your for your comments and suggestions on this study. Rebecca, thank you for your advice from across the Atlantic. Fernando, my favourite tennis table player, you inspired me to write about this topic. This paper and the sociological adventure couldn’t have been accomplished without you Ana Belén, everything started with you in that concrete urban space. And of course to my family, with a special mention to my sisters Nazareth and Ishtar, who have been always there. For believing in me.
1. Introduction
From 1979 to 1992 Barcelona introduced the so-called Modelo Barcelona (Barcelona Model). A new form of urban management based on a holistic perspective of the city. The focus was to improve the city not only based on the recovering, the rebuilding of the architecture and industrial spaces and new urban infrastructure but also and especially, through the investment in its public spaces, such as squares. By means of more and better accessible open public spaces, new uses of urban space, new equipment, new design and street furniture. Barcelona city planning thought that by making this type of investment, they would improve the immediate surroundings. Thus, people (children, teens, elderly ...) began to use these spaces much more. Consequently, new businesses were generated, as well as a greater influx of people and residential mobilization (i.e. people moving to different neighbourhoods and new residents to the city). The Barcelona model understood that new public spaces were not only based on architecture, but also on society and its users. Therefore, the model supposed an improvement of the urban landscape, the social aspects and the economy of the city and its neighbourhood (Porcel, 2016; Limón, 2015). Its highest momentum took place during the mandate of Pasqual Maragall (1982-1997), and especially from 1986 when Barcelona was nominated and selected for the Olympic Games of 1992, which transformed much more the city.
It is in this context, where new street furniture and urban equipment, as table tennis tables, were introduced in the public space for the first time. Therefore, at the beginning of 1992, the mayor Pasqual Maragall inaugurated the first table tennis tables in Barcelona public space thereby unifying the Barcelona model actions, the atmosphere of the Olympic Games and the participation of the citizen in the urban public space. Since that first establishment, the increase of areas with table tennis tables in the public space have multiplied. Currently, Barcelona holds more than 120 public spaces with table tennis tables (Barcelona municipality web page).
This paper explores the social production of public spaces with table tennis tables through the lens of Lefebvre’s theory ‘The Production of Space’ and its conceptual triad (explained further on this section and in the theory framework chapter).
Map 1. Shows Barcelona’s public spaces with table tennis tables (source: Barcelona municipality web page)
Public spaces and their urban tangible elements are crucial for society and its population (Jacobs, 1961; Castells, 2002; Schmidt & Németh, 2010: Galdini, 2016; Lefebvre (1978 [1967]; Brunnberg & Frigo, 2012). For instance, Knox (2005: 1) has pointed out that public settings with tangible elements have an important role to facilitate the use of public space. As well as Lavrinec (2011: 71), who has observed that new organisation of spatial structures and establishment of new objects in the public space can attract passers-by and provoke its uses and interpretation. Furthermore, public spaces with such elements can also facilitate encounters with the other triggering the social interaction among strangers. Thus, tangible urban elements such as table tennis tables (TTT) can: facilitate the use of a public space, can provoke its uses and different interpretation, and has as well, the capacity to trigger social interaction with other users of that public space and its urban facilities.
How these urban settings with table tennis tables are socially produced and what they mean for their users, is the core of this paper. Lefebvre’s theory ‘The production of space’ (1991 [1974]), and its conceptual triad: spatial practice, representations of space and representational spaces (Lefebvre, 1991: 39-38) explains that a social space is produced through the interrelation of these three elements. Three elements, and not two, as he said, give the answer to the complexity of the production and reproduction of social space. These elements represent the perceived space, the conceived space and the lived space. ‘The
production of space theory’ tries to overcome the fragmented knowledge of space debated in general (i.e. geometrical space, physical space, etc.), and the urban space in concrete and in this way proposes a unitarian theory of the urban matter and its social production- reproduction.
Furthermore, since the TTT are located in the public space, as described before, they can facilitate people to use those areas, and to meet and interact with other users, producing an urban human shared experience. Moreover, since it is a space for playing, it can be considered as a play space, triggering what Oldenburg (1892; 1989) has called: third place. A public space outside the workplace and home, that can benefit individuals and society at large. And where people from different backgrounds meet, just for the pure fondness of the others, the activity and the place. The frequency and continuous use of such spaces can develop attachment and feelings towards that place, and even a sense of duty, responsibility and ownership (Chevalier, 2015).
Thus, this paper seeks to explore the social production of spaces with tables tennis tables in the public space of Barcelona, to contribute to the debate of public spaces and more specifically, public play spaces and its urban tangible elements, because through the lens of play we can also “explore how public space is practised” Jones (2013: 1146). Furthermore, it aims to understand the meaning of those public spaces for the people, through the concept of third place, and the ways people appropriate such settings, for instance through the sociological term ‘emotional ownership of space.’ (This will be expanded and explained in the framework chapter.)
1.1. Research question and subquestions
As mentioned before, this study aims to explore the production of space with table tennis tables (TTT) in the public space in the city of Barcelona, taking into consideration the play- element as well as the meaning and emotional attachment for its ‘users’ and ‘inhabitants’, through the term third place and emotional ownership of space. Research of this phenomenon examined three case studies, which are explained in detail in the findings chapter . Therefore, the main research question is as follows:
How are public play spaces with table tennis tables socially produced?
Since the production of space of Lefebvre is built on three inseparable elements, to answer this question I looked at three dimensions:
- The spatial practice of space (the perceived space): how people perceive and act in the urban public setting with TTT.
- The representation of space (the conceived space): how and why those urban settings were conceived by the municipality.
- The representational space (the lived space): 1) who the ‘inhabitants’ and ‘users’ are of these spaces 2) How it is being used 3) How people experience and live the act of playing tables tennis in the public play space, 4) How users change the manifest functionality of the TTT, 5) How these play spaces trigger imagination?
Subquestion:
How the production of these spaces can contribute to the production of third place and emotional ownership space?
All question and subquestions are intertwined. Contributing to the social production- reproduction of space, through the uses, practices, visibility, playfulness, attachment, use value and emotion.
1.2. Relevance of research
As Spaaij (2012) and Woodward (2012) have expressed, play is a key element in sports because it produces pleasure, excitement, enjoyment and freedom of movement. And these playful forms can be found in the act of playing table tennis.
The majority of academic articles that have explored play spaces in the public space are dedicated to children (for instance the works of Verstrate & Karsten, 2011; Woolley & Lowe, 2013; and Lloyd & Auld, 2003), and little focus has been dedicated to grown-ups or teens, who also play and use public spaces for play. For this reason, I took the perspective of the playfulness on the public space through the lens of playing table tennis, rather than the sports perspective, which has been more debated.
Moreover, so far no literature on these specific urban settings, table tennis tables in the public space, was found.
Another intriguing matter is inspired in the following quote by Lefebvre:
“Which ones are, which ones will be the places with social success; How to detect them, with what criteria, what times, what rhythms of daily life are inscribed, are prescribed in these spaces with 'success', in other words, that ones that are propitious to happiness? This is what matters” ( Self-translation. Lefebvre, 1978 [1967]: 129)
Therefore, this paper hopes to contribute to the academic knowledge of the production of social spaces, that ones that can be propitious to happiness, taking the case of table tennis tables in the public space.
Lastly, the second agenda of the study aims to present a future project to the Barcelona municipality: a project that seeks to give answers to some of the gaps that can be found in the research, providing new forms to dynamize the use of the table tennis tables in the public space. Activities such as educational training workshops of the rules and game of table tennis, improve the physicality (representation of space) of such areas or making play days to promote this game to the residents. Therefore, it was necessary to make this previous study to diagnose the social reality of such spaces.
1.3. Structure of the paper
Firstly, the theoretical framework starts with the ‘umbrella’ of this research: Lefebvre’s triad conceptualization of the social production of space. Moreover, the debate of public space and play spaces literature is also presented as well as the concepts of third space by Oldenburg and emotional ownership of the space by Chevalier which give answers to the key question and subquestions of the social production of public space with TTT. Secondly, I present the methodology chapter, where I explain the research strategy of the study including the development of the empirical fieldwork, process of analysis, as well as its validity. The third chapter is dedicated to the findings of the study, and how they address the theory and the questions formulated. In this chapter I have integrated the presentation of the three case studies with an overview of the urban settings for table tennis tables. And finally, the conclusion and discussion-reflection chapter, which debates the main findings, limitations of
the research, future lines of research, and brief policy recommendations towards the improvement of such spaces.
2. Theoretical framework
This chapter presents the theoretical framework of the master’s thesis. I start with the umbrella theory of this study: Lefebvre’s theory ‘The production of space’ (1991 [1974]). The second aspect is the discussion of the public space. Later on, I briefly introduce the play element concept through a discussion of the play space and the use value of play space. Afterwards, the framework links to the concept of place and more concrete to the third place. Next is a discussion of the concept of emotionally owned space. Finally, I present a conclusion that returns to Lefebvre's theory.
2.1. The production of space
The first table tennis tables in the public space of Barcelona were built using the so-called Barcelona Model (1979-1992), a new form or urban planning that changed the urban landscape of the city by focusing not only in the renewal of the buildings but by creating more and better public spaces. This model understood that by improving public spaces the city would improve, satisfying not only social needs but also improving the economy. One of the strategies was to introduce new urban facilities accessible to citizens, like table tennis tables. This is the social context where table tennis tables in the public space were produced. Lefebvre’s (1991) ‘The Production of Space’, gave a new way of approaching the production of social space by the interrelation of his conceptual triad: spatial practice, representations of space and representational spaces (Lefebvre, 1991: 39-38). And even though they can be studied separately, they are inseparable and necessary for the social production of space. In this manner, the social production of space with table tennis tables is going to be studied with this theory and triad.
Spatial practice is a perceived space and belongs to the mental realm. This space can be understood as the space of how people experience and act in it, which at the same time “embraces production and reproduction, and the particular locations and spatial sets characteristic of each social formation’ (Lefebvre, 1991: 33). People learn to navigate through public spaces through their own perception of their everyday reality (use of time) and the urban reality (like for instance, routines) (p.38). A certain level of competence and
performance, which “can only be evaluated empirically” (p.38), is necessary to ensure the reproduction and continuity of the space. Lefebvre uses the metaphor of the body to explain better this component of the triad. Spatial practice is the use of the body through the perception sphere, therefore, how people perceive and act in the world corresponds to their psychological sense (p.40), thence, the mental realm. For instance, taking one route instead of another, or passing through the park instead of the street to return home are examples of choices that users make according to their perceptions in public spaces.
In the case of representations of space, it is the conceptualised or the conceived space by the ‘experts’. This space is the dominant one, where ideology configures the physicality of urban space, like the design of streets or the shape of a square. The space is conceived by the planners, urbanists, engineers, technocrats, etc. (p.39) who generate a certain image and model of the urban space. It is a space of the codes and laws, restriction and fragmentation. In other words, the code and the regulation of a specific space takes place, when a space for instance the park, has been banned for barbeques. People have to behave according to the rules otherwise they will be fined. Fragmentation occurs when the space has been divided or restricted according to activity.
Lastly, representational spaces represent the lived experience of the space by the users of that space: ‘as directly lived through its associated images and symbols, and hence the space of ‘inhabitants’ and ‘users’” (Lefebvre, 1991: 39). They are also, the spaces where the ‘inhabitants’ and ‘users’ seek to change, appropriate and create new spatial realities through their imagination (ibid) over the representations of space. For instance, to use the space in a different way than it was designed, or to introduce new elements in the urban landscape like street art.
2.2. Public space
Public space, a core area of study for urban sociologist (Castells, 2002: 15) and a well- debated topic in other disciplines seems to never end. Historically, public space has been thought of and named differently. For the Greeks public space was called the Agora, and the Romans called it the Roman Forum. In our current times, there seems to be a consensus with the term public space. However, the way it is approached depends on the area of study.
According to Goodsell (2003), there are three main perspectives for the study of public space. One is from the philosopher's perspective and it attends to the public action and its role in democracy. For him, the most representative of this realm are the works of Habermas and Arendt. The second perspective comes from urban planners, who study the socio-physical space- its function, uses and social interactions. Space where “social spontaneity urban life” (p.365) takes place. The third perspective is the political analysis of architecture, which examines the buildings, semiotics and the power relationship with the public. The core focus is the social meaning of the public space. However, Goodsell forgets the legal-economic perspective (Neal, 2010) which regulates the legal status of the space, making it private, public or hybrid. It organises the rules within it, what is possible to do, or not. Neal (2010: 1) defines public space as “all areas that are open and accessible to all members of the public in a society, in principle though not necessarily in practice”. Other authors as Lynch, have argued that a public space should not only be defined by its openness and accessibility, but also by its flexibility regarding its uses and actions. He concludes that space “is open if it allows people to act freely” (Lynch, 1996, referenced in Jones, 2011: 1146).
From the well-known book of Jane Jacobs (1961) The death and life of great American cities, we have learned that public spaces, as street, sidewalks, squares and parks, are crucial urban elements for bringing life to the city. For Castells (2002: 12) they are a “critical expression of local life, measuring the vitality of a given city”. They also “serve social ends” (Schmidt & Németh, 2010: 453), and their existence can contribute to the improvement of urban safety, urban environment, and economic, public health, and physical activities (Schmidt & Németh, 2010: 454; Galdini, 2016). And for Lefebvre (1978 [1967]), public space is the urban space where simultaneity and encounters occur, where there is a convergence and exchange of information and knowledge, but also is the space of confrontations and conflicts. And also, he continues, the space where passion, the unforeseeable and the ludic moment can appear. Lefebvre, Castells (2002: 15) also understand that public spaces are the areas for social communication, boosting urban sociability because people gather together, interact, meet and develop relationships. Or they can also be a setting to publicly observe others (Brunnberg & Frigo, 2012: 113).
Another sociological characteristic of public space is that public space is “the locus world of strangers” (Lofland, 1973: 20). Public spaces are the areas of the city where the encounter with the unknown persons becomes part of the everyday routine. In contrast with the village where everybody seems to know each other to some degree, the city becomes the place of the
anonymity. People learn to navigate among each other, and use and share the spaces according to unwritten rules. In that way, public spaces become the areas of the unexpected, precisely because of the world of strangers. This is especially possible when the urban setting can also be the area for the “quite pleasant adventures of simply encountering and conversing with people one has never met before; that is, with strangers” (Lofland, 1973: 168). In addition to this, in a public space people can develop a sense of community and, therefore, of social belonging promoting inclusiveness and contributing to the quality of life. Nevertheless, it is not only the presence and existence of public spaces, but also the physical form and the settings within it, that can contribute to the production of good public spaces since tangible urban elements can foster encounters and socialisation among the people and, thus, the presence and uses of that space (Brunnberg and Frigo, 2012: p.113).
However, some critics of public space have expressed the idea that the fixed nature of the physical layout informed by the representations of space, might constrain the way people use public space or in words of Lefebvre the lived space. For instance as Castells ( 2002: 10-11) has framed it: “Space was to be considered as a process of production (e.g. capitalist production), whose outcome would ultimately frame people’s lives in spatially constrained patterns”. Nevertheless, other authors as Delgado (2002) have pointed out that public spaces have a double reading. One is the political and ideological urban design (representations of space) which orients our perceptions and influence the use of the space, and the second reading is made by the user-producer of the urban realm, who at the end have the last word for the meaning of the space, and how and in which way the conceived space is going to be navigated and used. Therefore, it is through the social action and interaction (lived space) that the space acquires its attributes and qualities (ibid). As for Harvey (2003) “we individually and collectively make the city through our daily actions and our political, intellectual and economic engagements” (p.939). And for Galdini (2016: 2) the success of public spaces is not solely in the design, but especially in the use and management of the space by the people. “People make places, more than places make people.”. Thus, the production of space can not be conceived as a closed or fixed system, but dynamic and open to change. Through the presence, uses, practice, interactions and meaning that people give to space and to the tangible elements present in those spaces. It is through this flexibility and forms of imagination, even utopia, where Lefebvre (1978 [1967]) sees the possibility of transformation and appropriation of the urban, and therefore, the right to the city. In other words, where the
urban space is not only a transit zone and users are passive subjects in it, but where users are also active co-producers of the urban spatiality.
2.3. Play-element and public play spaces
Johan Huizinga (1970) in Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture, (referenced in Jones, 2013) delves into the importance of the play element, concluding that it is intrinsic, and necessary to cultures. The key characteristic is fun, but also other five features are essential: 1) play is freedom, 2) it is not real or ordinary, 3) it creates order, as for instance through rules in the play, 4) it is different from ordinary life in locality and time, and 5) it has a non-materialistic quality (imagination). Jones (2013) takes Huizinga’s works to explore the playfulness of the social practices in play spaces and other non-play settings of the everyday life in the public space. The ways people use the public play spaces, and non-play spaces, and their tangible urban elements provide the reading of their interpretation and their own imagination of the space (Jones, 2013: 1148), a key element to appropriate the space, and a key quality to experience the urban space as theirs (Jones, 2013: 1162). Play space is co- produced through the uses and practices of the public. Thus, the role of individuals is crucial in making space playful and this is possible through its visibility, practices and uses.
Furthermore, the existence of such spaces is not only for the per se action of play but also, because leisure oriented spaces influence the quality of life of urban residents. Play spaces in the public space, provide the grounds for social interactions, developing abilities and capacities of the individuals in their emotional (such as empathy, emotional intelligence), social (i.e. work in groups, co-operation), physical (for instance, strength, coordination) and intellectual level (resolve problems and conflicts) (Woolley & Lowe, 2013: 60). Thus, a play use value of space is that one, in which someone, while playing, fosters and improves these abilities and capacities. (Woolley & Lowe, 2013; Verstrate & Karsten, 2011; Lloyd & Auld, 2003). In addition, it serves social needs, and gives meaning and shape through the way it is being used, which is in opposition to the exchange value of space that supposes the profit of the space and its commodification (Logan & Molotch, 1987).
As Jones, other scholars (Verstrate & Karsten, 2011; Woolley & Lowe, 2013; Lloyd & Auld, 2003) have explored the importance of play spaces in the public space for society. Verstrate
& Karsten (2011) have tracked the production of play spaces, specifically playgrounds for children in Amsterdam and the different agents implied in that historical-political battle. Play spaces, as playgrounds or other tangible elements in the public space, are established to satisfy the demands and necessities of the population. This has been possible thanks to the performance of multiple agents: planners, parents, pedagogues, entrepreneurs, architects, politicians, etc, who have demanded and proposed such spaces. Therefore, the grass-root input is crucial for the existence of play spaces (Verstrate & Karsten, 2011; Lloyd & Auld, 2003). In the case of Amsterdam, the city tried to present a role model of the ideal urban society where different spaces for different activities were proposed: home space, work space and recreational space, this last space can also be linked to Oldenburg concept of third space that will be explained later on in this chapter. According to Verstrate & Karsten (2011: 95) the “ideal type of play space, is freely accessible to every child, open and safety”. Furthermore, the high quality of urban tangible settings, like playgrounds, and the cheap cost for the municipality is also important for their existence in the public space.
The act of playing in the public space becomes visible mainly by observing children. Even though the play-element is also seen in different ages, adults are confined to public play spaces or other spaces, one example being for the purpose of sports. Thus, the right to the city is not only at stake, but also “the right to the enjoyment of public space” (Verstrate & Karsten, 2011: 95).
2.3. Third place
As explained before, ideal urban society differentiates three spaces: home space, work space and recreational space. The last one can be considered in what Oldenburg has coined as “Third place”. These places, aim to provide an explanation of those public social spaces different from home (first space) and work (second space). In the words of Oldenburg & Brissett (1982: 270):
“Third space is a public setting accessible to its inhabitants and appropriated by them as their own. The dominant activity is not "special" in the eyes of its inhabitants, it is a taken-for- granted part of their social existence. It is not a place outsiders find necessarily interesting or notable. It is a forum of association which is beneficial only to the degree that it is well-
integrated into daily life. Not even to its inhabitants is the third place a particularly intriguing or exciting locale. It is simply there, providing opportunities for experiences and relationships that are otherwise unavailable.”
Any space can be a third place if it holds the eight main characteristics (1989: 20-42; ): 1) neutral ground (the neutrality of the place makes more informal and intimate); 2) leveler (by nature is inclusive, social status is not important, personal problems and moodiness should be aside; 3) conversation is the main activity; 4) accessibility and accommodation (time - the idea that one can go there at any time, and location - in terms of proximity to the dwellings); 5) the regulars (the regular visitors of a place, making it alive), 6) low profile (where the physical setting is plain and unimpressive for the majority) ; 7) playful mood (is the key spirit of third places, joy and acceptance rule the space and some sort of magic involves the
participants in those places); and 8) home away from home (the capacity of the third place to provide the sensation of being at home, even sometimes competing with the first space). Thus, third places are possible through the common interest of people of gathering together just for the fun of enjoyment of each other. This free association, according to Oldenburg & Brissett (1982: 268-269) provides the opportunities for creating healthier individuals and a sane society.
These places invite user to participate with other individuals. This participation provides people a socially shared experience, where the magic of the unexpected is present. This feeling of uncertainty is a vital element of experiencing third places (1982: 274). Furthermore, a third place is a meeting on neutral ground for people with different backgrounds, providing diversity to the place and an inclusive atmosphere, where “the full spectrum of local humanity is represented” (1989: 14). Another element of third places is the vivid, loud and boisterous atmosphere, making the experience extraordinary emotional expressive (1982: 278). They provoke the user to meet, talk and socialise. They are the best spaces to develop pure sociability, a term proposed by Simmel where people seek to associate themselves for the intrinsic propose of fondness, delight, playfulness and enjoyment (1982: 270).
All in all, third places provide to individuals a continuous experience with social reality outside their first and second spaces. They are important spaces for society at large, in the way that they promote democracy, civil engagement, grassroots associations, and social relationships (Galdini, 2016). They are crucial for the development of human shared experience, providing a sense of belonging to the place, and therefore, emotional attachment to it.
2.4. Emotionally Owned Space
When a public space, as a play space and a third place, becomes part of the everyday lives of people through their routines, uses, practices and part of their biography, it is possible to develop feelings and emotions towards that place. Furthermore, if that space means something important for an individual, it can also lead to what Chevalier (2015) have conceptualised as emotional ownership. This term refers to the sense of ownership of a place founded in emotional attachment to space and not through a legal process (p. 209). Three main characteristics (p. 120) define the status of this term: 1) the existence of social interactions in a space; 2) the meaning that space has for the users of the space; 3) there is a certain control over the space by its users. Moreover, a key element in this process is the responsibility (p. 120) that people develop towards ‘their’ places. This responsibility wants to improve the space itself, not only for his/her satisfaction but for other users (present users and futures). As Chevalier (2015: 121) has stated, this term provokes a certain type of rights over the space, but also duties of care and responsibility for that space. This right and duty is developed not only through the interest in the improvement of the place, but also in the social encounter and interactions with others, where a person that feels emotional ownership in space also claims more ownership because she/he has been there for a longer period than the others (p. 209). These facts do not mean that space stops being public and accessible to everybody. The emotionally owned space can be measured “on a continuum, from space over which no one feels emotional ownership to space over which one specific person holds exclusive emotional ownership” (p. 122). This sense of emotional ownership also participates in the production of space (p. 122).
2.5. Conclusion
Lefebvre’s triad conceptualization of the social production of space and his triad is the theoretical umbrella of how a public space with a table tennis table (TTT) is produced. But also the relationship of these settings within the public play space and the right of enjoyment of the citizens. As well as, the meaning of play space and its use value as a third place for the people. And finally, the development of emotional ownership of the space by its users.
3. Methodology
This chapter explains the strategies used to acquire the data for the research study, which is based on three case studies to understand and grasp the social production of the space, tables tennis tables in the public space and the quotidian life around such settings. First, I explain the type of methodology used and why. Secondly, I describe the three sites under study. Later, I expand the type of methods used, why I used these methods and how they developed during the fieldwork. I continue with the exposition of how I analysed the data, and finally, the validity of the research.
3.1. Research strategy
As stated by Hennink et al. (2011), a qualitative research study starts with a qualitative research question. The research question of this study aims to give an understanding of the social production of public space with table tennis tables and its meaning. In this way, I understood that the best strategy for this purpose was the qualitative approach. Qualitative research aims to understand the behaviour, the perceptions, opinions, feelings and beliefs (Hennink et al. 2011), in this case, of the users of the table tennis tables. Nevertheless, the question was not static but dynamic and in constant change, therefore, open and flexible for new inquiries. In this way, the research also incorporated inductive reasoning. Furthermore, in order to diagnose the social reality in those areas and to collect the data for a solid understanding, I took a descriptive and interpretative position.
In addition, the research can be considered a case study, in concrete, the analysis of three case studies, which I will explain in the findings section. Case studies, according to Weiss (2004) “make the reader aware of the respondent’s experience within the context of their lives: this is what it is like to be this person in this situation”. In addition, the research incorporates an issue-focused interest because it seeks “to describe what has been learned from all respondents about people in their situation” (Weiss, 2004). This was possible through the fieldwork, which was an ethnographic approach. The research methods were developed through triangulation, through three qualitative methods: observation, interviews, and written material (policy analysis). I also added two aid methods, visual and sound aids, with the purpose of the apprehension and representation of the diverse and symbolic universe of our object of study. The methods are explained further in this chapter.
3.2. Case studies
Several criteria were taken into consideration for the selection of three spaces.
At first glance, one can observe that the city of Barcelona has numerous spots with table tennis tables in the public space. However, is difficult to state exactly how many, since there is no updated database from the municipality. Although the map shows several places with TTT, in some occasions when visiting those place no TTT was found. Another constraint was the lack of time. Since the thesis fieldwork and the thesis itself had a limitation time, I considered that the number three was appropriate to give a wider perspective and understanding of the social production of those spaces in the city.
Furthermore, I decided that these three cases should cover different districts. The city of Barcelona is formed by ten districts. The three districts chosen were Gràcia, Sants-Montjuïc and Ciutat Vella. The reason of this was because each district has their own nuances in demographics and lifestyles. This information was first provided by my key informant and later on confirmed through observation and database documents from the Barcelona Statistics Department (see appendix). I present and delve into the characteristics of the three cases in the findings chapter.
After deciding the number and the district, the criteria selection of the exact place was chosen firstly, because my key informant (who is considered to have a wide knowledge of table tennis tables in the public space of the city) suggested those spaces (Hennink et al. 2011: 191) primarily because they have more than one table tennis table. Secondly, because of the type of space; each TTT is located in a different type of public space: a square, a complex terrace, and a park therefore covering a variety of the physical ‘textures’ posible in the public space. In another chapter of the thesis, I describe these in depth.
3.3. Data collection
The fieldwork was carried on from the 5th of April till the 8th of May 2017, in the city of Barcelona, Spain. During this period Spain celebrated Easter week from the 10th to the 17th of July, with school holidays during that week and national holidays from the 13th to the 17th. This matter affected the observation method to some extent since people were on
holidays and the landscape of the settings under research were quieter than the rest of the period of fieldwork.
Observation
Following Hennink et al. (2011) observation methods allow you to “obtain a detailed description of social setting or events in order to situate people’s behaviour within their own soci-cultural context” (2011: 170). Thus, in a period of three weeks within the time of fieldwork, I placed myself in the three settings. Each week was dedicated to one setting. I decided to observe from Wednesday to Sundays. From Wednesday to Friday, the observations were from four in the afternoon to eight in the evening approximately. On weekends, I was observing from eleven am to eight pm, with a break of two-three hours for lunch and rest. Therefore, for each setting I expended around thirty hours. On one occasion, in the park setting, I stayed until ten in the evening. I took a notebook to write down the observations, which were mainly non-participant. Only during one afternoon-evening, I did participant-observation. The reason to choose non-participant observation was that I tried to place myself in a position where I could obtain an in-depth description (Geertz, 1973) of the social setting and people’s behaviour. Moreover, with this method I wanted to have an etic
perspective of each place and to be what Hennink et al. (2011: 185) called a “fly on the wall”.
However, even though I did not want to influence the settings, as the authors also pointed out, sometimes this was not possible. On three occasions in the three differents settings, people asked me what I was doing. Other people got annoyed because I was looking at them, and on a third occasion I changed people’s behaviour because while playing ping pong they tried to impress me.
Equally important, is that the observation targets were not only the users of each setting and the users of the table tennis tables, but also the physical layout of the space under observation. For this matter I developed a standard template (see appendix) in order to systematize the information collected.
I typed all my observations during the following weeks on my computer, so I could have them ready for the analysis.
With the qualitative interviews, I tried to have the emic insights of the people under research. I opted for the semi-structured interviews because they are open, flexible, and more dynamic. However, there was a script (see appendix) that to a certain extent was followed. The interviews allowed me to understand “how the interviewee frames and understands issues and events” (Bryman, 2012), in this case, the social space, meaning and its dynamics of interviewees’ perspective of the table tennis tables settings. This method was recorded with an ultra-compact stereo Zoom H1 Handy Recorder and was divided in two ways.
- Street interviews. In total I carried out 16 street interviews of people that were playing. Because they were streets-interviews and therefore spontaneous each setting has different number, even unequal, of interviews. These are as follows: the square two street-interviews, the park four. In the area known as the complex, I could carried out the most, ten interviews (this was mainly because I could interview people coming in a group of three to play). My method was to approach the people that were resting after a game, or when another friend would take over the table, or people who were observing the game and seemed to be users of the table tennis tables. In general, people were collaborative and interested in the topic of the research. Only on four occasions did individuals refuse questioning. On another occasion, individuals told me to come back the next day for the interview, which I did. I would take with me the script (see appendix) of the semi-structured interview, and try to follow that script. Sometimes more questions were added because of the circumstance but questions always related to the social production of those spaces and how people perceived, understood, and lived them. I transcribed all the interviews online using Google drive and Otranscribe. The interviewees were mainly males in their twenties or thirties. Only once, did I interview a female.
- Arranged interviews. I had two arranged interviews; one with my key informant who was also a user of the table tennis tables. The other was with a profesional from the municipality. As Chevalier (2015: 55) has stated: “professionals are persons with a professional relationship with space, and who talked to me in their professional capacity”. These interviews were with Jordi Raboso Alonso (Managerial of Licenses of Public space of the District of Gràcia) and Alberto Lacasta (Counselor of the Gràcia District). Since the three settings are located in three different districts, I tried to contact the three managers of licenses of public space of the districts. However, I
only succeeded once, thanks to the caretaker of the Gràcia district who managed to pass along my contact, so I could arrange an interview.
Written material
- Policy analysis. The third method used in the data collection was based mainly on the document: Pla strategic de l 'sport de Barcelona 2012-2022 (Strategic sports plan of Barcelona 2012-2022). This document was used in order to better understand the sports policy that Barcelona municipality is trying to implement. The document aims to develop and achieve six main points. To some extent the goals are connected to the sports table tennis. However, during the fieldwork, I realized that the table tennis tables are considered to be street furniture rather than sports facilities, as I will explain in the following chapters of the thesis. This change, made me think of the validity of the policy analysis used for this research. Nevertheless, I introduce it here because there are some connections with the goals of the document and the other data collection.
- Online database from Barcelona municipality. The other written material was information from the online database of Barcelona municipality, specifically the three districts where the three case studies where placed.
Aids
In order to reinforce the research and to give a better understanding of the cases, I took visual and sound aids of each setting or case study.
- Visual aids help to capture the instants of that moment, and to present images of the observations. I took pictures rather than video because I think that is less intrusive. I did not ask permission for this, but the pictures represent moments of the everyday life in the public space. I am conscious that the pictures I took and present in this research come from my own perspective, therefore, my own subjectivity and interpretation (Hennink, Hutter and, Bailey, 2011: 189).
- Sounds aids. In The Acoustic City (Gandy and Nilsen, 2014) a series of essays on sounds of the urban life are presented. I found the study of the urban matter intriguing from this perspective, therefore, I thought that it would be interesting to incorporate soundscapes into this work, the soundscapes of the three settings, to give the reader
(or listener) a wider understanding of the atmosphere, and the type of social relationships of each place. This soundscapes and the link is presented in chapter three.
3.4. Data analysis
The strategy for the data analysis was based first on a re-reading of all the data collected. Using Google drive, I started to add comments, as a sort of memos, in the paragraphs as first insights of the type of material I have. This allowed me to introduce the Grounded Theory (Carmaz, 2001), developed by Strauss and Glaser, by a back and forth of the fieldwork data and theory. I continued with gathering the material related to the different concepts under research. Afterwards, I proceeded with sorting that material. In the words of Weiss (2004:168): “material that deals with the same issue must be brought together no matter where the material originally appeared in the interview transcripts. (...). Integrating is likely to be done in two stages: a first stage of bringing together material into coherent scenes and a second stage of inclusive integration, in which scenes are linked into coherent story”. I did not use any programme, I did it through gathering the information in different documents.
3.5. Research validity
As stated at the beginning of this chapter, the nature of this research is qualitative. Golafshani (2003) explains the debate around the validity of the qualitative approach, concluding that the validity of such research should be explained through its “credibility, transferability, and trustworthiness” (2003: 600). In this way, she supports the idea that it’s in the ability, effort and ethical position of the research(er), where validity is reliable. As well as the different strategies used for generating the understanding of the phenomenon under study.
Taking this into consideration, the validity of this research is built on two main lines. One is my own ethical, engagement and effort to complete this research.
Secondly, the validity of this research relies as well on the strategy I developed to gather the data, which is triangulation methodology. As some authors have stated: “triangulation is defined to be a validity procedure where researchers search for convergence among multiple and different sources of information to form themes or categories in a study” (Creswell &
Miller, 2000, p. 126, quoted by Golafshani, 2003: 604). In this aspect, the quality of the research lays upon the variety of the data collection in order to have a wider understanding of the processes of the production of the social settings, helping me to eliminate the bias when using only one method. Therefore, “engaging multiple methods, such as observation, interviews and recordings will lead to more valid, reliable and diverse construction of realities.” (Golafshani, 2003: 604)
These realities are never one but multiple, which creates the richness of the social production of space.
Nevertheless, there are always weaknesses in a research study and especially in qualitative research, because the subjectivity of the own researcher always comes into play. Being conscious of this, I think that a qualitative researcher has a stronger possibility of showing, and interpreting the richness and complexity of the everyday life, despite the bias of the researcher. That is the reason of importance for this chapter to show the methodology process. Furthermore, one can argue about the generalization of the nature of the case study approach. However, I am not trying to develop a generalization through the three case studies. Rather, my aim is to contribute to the debate of the production of social spaces in the urban realm, through the concrete cases of the life with and around the table tennis tables. To sum up, a qualitative research study compared with a quantitative study is more vulnerable to questions about its validity, since it relies on the ethical background of the researcher, and the methodology strategy. As stated before, different authors agree that triangulation can provide a better validity because it collects data through a combination of methods. This research then, stands on these two issues.
4. Findings
This chapter presents the findings and analysis according to theory, questions and data from the fieldwork. The findings integrated the social production of space with table tennis tables (TTT) and their contribution to the production of third space and emotional ownership of space. Therefore, to answer the main question: How are public play spaces with table tennis
tables socially produced? I look into the three interrelated directions of Lefebvre’s conceptual
triad and, therefore, the three subparts:
- The spatial practice of space (the perceived space): how people perceive and act in the urban public setting with TTT.
- The representation of space (the conceived space): how and why those urban settings were conceived by the municipality.
- The representational space (the lived space): 1) who the ‘inhabitants’ and ‘users’ are of these spaces 2) How it is being used 3) How people experience and live the act of playing tables tennis in the public play space, 4) How users change the manifest functionality of the TTT, 5) How these play spaces triggers imagination.?
First, I answer the question of the representation of space (the conceived space): how and why those urban settings were conceived by the municipality. Given an overview of Barcelona municipality reasons and process for established those facilities in the public space. Afterwards, I present and describe the three spaces, which are the three case studies, in order to expose the features (physical and social) in depth of each space and their relationship with the table tennis tables. In this way, I not only present the conceived space from my own observations and perceptions but also the perceived space and lived space by the ‘users’ and ‘inhabitants’ of each space. Since is three space, I first introduce the square: Plaça de Gal La Placídia. I continue with the second space, a complex terrace: Jardins de les Tres Xemeneies. The third space presented is the park: Parc de la Ciutadella. Afterwards, I conclude the three case studies with an analysis of the differences and analogies of the three urban spaces. Within the three case studies are also the findings on the sub-questions: how the production of these spaces can contribute to the production of third place and emotional ownership space?
As mentioned before, the main questions and sub-questions are intertwined, contributing to the social production of space, through the uses, practices, visibility, the play-element, third space and emotional ownership of space.
4.1. The social production of public play spaces with table tennis tables
How are public play spaces with table tennis tables socially produced?
For the representation of Space (the conceived space): how and why those urban settings were conceived by the municipality? I looked first, to the policy Pla strategic de l 'sport de Barcelona 2012-2022 (Strategic sports plan of Barcelona 2012-2022). Linking it with the findings from the interview to the professional of public spaces.
The policy aims to achieve, during the period of 2012-2022, six goals to promote sports in the city of Barcelona. The six points are: 1) educational sport (educate and guarantee accessibility to sports for all children); 2) Sports and clubs (promote and support different clubs and sport entities); 3) Sports, city and well-being (to link health and the practice of sports as well as leisure and recreational sport. Plus introduce sport facilities in the public space accessible for everyone, as ) ; 4) Social cohesion and sports (use sports as a tool to create social inclusion. With a special focus in marginal social groups); 5) Sports, economic engine of the city (commercialization of sports in order to create new economy through job creation, new technologies and new sport-industry sector in the city); 6) International projection of Barcelona (international and attractive city for sports, as well as a sporty tourist destination.)
To some extent these six aims can be applied to the table tennis tables in the public space because there has been an increased establishment of these facilities in the public space, promoting in this way its uses and accessibility to a wider audience since they are a collective good. It is a public service, the facilities are open and free to people of all ages, and promote cohesion in the neighbourhood because people gather to use that tables. In reference to point five, economy, there is no profit in it besides the act of buying the TTT to a company. Finally, Barcelona from the international perspective is well known for its sports brand but mainly because of the football team. However, in the street-interviews, some foreigners
brought out to light that having these table tennis tables in the public space made a very good impression of the city. For instance, a twenty-four years old Canadian said:
“So I think it is pretty cool that this city is trying to comfort by providing different resources
or structures, so something as silly as a table is making, ahh, how you will say it available?, ah, or accessible? Yeah, so where I am, you might have some in your school, but you can not play for hours unless you have one at your house. So you can’t really play. So, I’m really impressed with Barcelona making the...eh.… I really like how the space is produced, you can really tell they have had good designers that came to the city and ah, I think is really cool how they…” (street-interview #2)
This quote gives insight into how some visitors to Barcelona might perceive the city with such settings; the tourist thinks it is gives a good impression of the city, provoking life in the public space through the use of table tennis tables. The idea that is free and accessible to everyone also gives a positive conception of the city.
However, there is a flaw in relation to this policy and the table tennis tables in the public space; table tennis tables are not considered sports facilities, but street furniture. This changes the relationship and the production of representation of space (the conceived space) to the municipality and to the policy.
Furthermore, according to the respondent from Barcelona municipality, there is no policy linked directly to table tennis tables in the public space. Rather the establishment of this street furniture belongs to a bigger process called the Participatory design process or Framework of
the participatory process1. With this modus operandi, according to the manager of public
spaces, the process provides two main things: 1) it gives answers to social necessities and
1 Phases:
1. Definition of the idea: the representation of space. A proposal of the construction (or renewal) and distribution of the space and its elements.
2. Presentation of the proposal to civil society through different session. The number of participants in these session are according to the type of space and the dimensions of the public space. In these phases, work groups are generated with a certain number of citizens (eg neighborhood representatives). First the project is presented, they are asked for their opinion, requests, complaints, suggestions, or different proposals. All this are collected and proceeds to the approval or rejection
3. Second return session, where the technicians explains the reasons of approval or rejection of the groups.
demands of the neighbourhoods and its residents, and 2) it is built according to who is going to use that space. The tables tennis tables belong to one of the different possibilities of street furniture that through the framework of the participatory process, people can demand to include or not in the public space. This matter also attends on the dimensions of space and the possibilities or not of contentions with the residents and the TTT, mainly because of the sound that a ping pong ball can generate if people play after midnight. Therefore, the representation of space is built through a participatory process of different social agents: entities, neighbourhood associations, businessman/woman associations, representatives of groups like elders, etc. This provides a democratic process of the production of social space. Which corresponds to the work of Verstrate & Karsten (2011) and Lloyd & Auld (2003) on the co-production of play spaces in Western cities through the inputs and demands of different agents. Therefore, there is no an unidirectional way of representation of space that comes from the planners, urbanists, engineers, technocrats as Lefebvre has stated, but a participatory action from the residents and users of the space. Nevertheless, new questions come into light with this way of proceeding that will be debate it in the conclusion-discussion chapter.
Another intriguing matter of TTT is that the municipality is not aware of the number of TTT that are in the public space and neither the specific budget they use. This is because, they are considered street furniture of entertainment and play which “is part of the design of the public
space and the whole cost of urbanisation” (interview to the professional, fieldwork 2017).
Moreover, and the most intriguing part of all is that this element doesn’t belong to any normative or standardised process. Being this say, the professional explained: “the ping pong
table as such, as an object is not within the approved catalogue of urban elements of the city. Therefore, this element floats between the regulation and the not regulation. Is much more an urban game that a real street furniture (....) It is an element that you put or remove regardless of what the regulation establishes because the ping pong tables are outside the normative”. Thus, they do not belong to any protocol, regularisation or guidelines to its
establishment. They work much more as a peripheral aid element which provides entertainment social satisfaction to civilians in public space, because as Verstrate & Karsten (2011: 95) have observed there is also the necessity and demand of “the right to the enjoyment of public space”. This is also reflected in constant frequency and uses of the TTT by different people. Covering a wider spectrum of ages who also have the need of entertainment and play in public spaces, than the common playgrounds for children. These
work well, and are cheap and durable. To put it in words of the professional: “We are talking
about elements that work well, which last for long so they are amortised. In other words, their cost over time is proven to be hard, they are used and they give life in a public space.”
In conclusion, I will answer the question of how and why those urban settings were conceived by the municipality. First of all, there is no policy related directly to the establishment of TTT in the public space. However, the ideological main policy points presented are related to some extent to the TTT, because 1) it has an international perception from the visitor of the city, 2) it covers different ages who practice this game, therefore, creating social inclusion. And 3) it provides the practice of a sports entertainment in the public space of the city. Furthermore, it contributes to the right to the enjoyment of the public space because it is also considered an urban game furniture, trying to cover a wider spectrum of ages of the urban population, given answers to social needs, like the need of enjoyment in the public space.
Moreover, how it was conceived, belongs to the convergence of the role of different agents who participate directly or indirectly in the framework process through its presence, suggestions, demands or complaints. In this way, the establishment is not unidirectional but multidirectional. Nevertheless, intriguing factors influence the way the municipality understood and established this facility because rather than be considered a sports facility it is considered street furniture, and is not regulated and opens questions that will be discussed in the last chapter of the thesis.
Map 2. Shows the three case studies with table tennis tables (source: Barcelona municipality web page and the author)
4.2.1. The square: Plaça de Gal La Placídia
“The square is like a village, you come down [from the dwelling] and there is always someone to meet” (one mother) “Exactly, you always find someone when you come down”. (another mother) “Yeah, I love it!”
(Conversations on the bench, fieldwork observation, 2017) The square is located in the middle of a neighbourhood of Vila Gràcia, a neighbourhood that belongs to the Gràcia district. According to the Barcelona municipality web page, Vila de Gràcia is the third quarter in terms of the population of the city. The district area covers 1.3 km2, with an irregular urban layout, narrow streets and sixteen public squares.
From that sixteen squares, Gal La Placídia is a wide pedestrian area, where the main street is parallel to it. The separation of this main street is made first, by a wide pavement. And secondly, through a hedgerow of bushes. From the side of the square, the hedgerow of bushes
is surrounded or held by a line of benches, benches of two. In the same side of the square, at the very entrance, there is a small street where the cars can drive to the main road. At the exit of the narrow street, there are half and whole cement balls attached to the ground. They are displaced as a set of art, but it seems to have another functionality, that is to stop cars from entering into the direction of the square, diverting them to the main street.
The square is surrounded by many businesses such as a small grocery shop, a bakery, a lottery shop, a furniture shop, an ice cream shop, a bar, a dentist, and a language academy. All of them are situated on the first floor of the medium-high buildings, that look into the square. Also, a line of trees looks into the square opposite to the hedgerow of bushes. Near the square, there is also an underground stop train. The square can be divided into three sections: 1) one open and wide space (middle of the square) with some games drawn on the ground (like running lines), 2) an area where a playground is situated (in one of the ends of the square), and 3) the area with the three table tennis tables (opposite end of the playground).
Picture 1. Kids playing table tennis on the square Gal la Placída (source: the author)
The table tennis tables (TTT) area has three TTT, which are very well maintained. They are situated parallel to each other. Different benches face the TTT. Some litter bins are spread along the square, and only one fountain can be found. There is no public toilet and no green area except the bushes that have pointy leaves (making it difficult when people lose ping pong balls and want them back). The square has several street lamps that also illuminate properly the TTT. The material of the ground is asphalt. According to an old man in his 80s’
“that table tennis tables are there since 5 or 6 years ago. They are very good because people come here to play and doing sports is very healthy. It keeps you in a good shape and healthy.” (Conversations on the bench, fieldwork observation, 2017)
The old man was a frequent user of the square and a resident of the neighbourhood, his testimony proves the idea expressed in the theoretical framework on the importance of public space and its urban tangible elements, which facilities the use of a public space and its urban elements as the TTT. The idea of exercise and health is related to the good use value of the play space provided by Woolley & Lowe (2013: 60). And last but not less important, the entertainment factor of the observers, in this case, the elderlies sitting and observing from the bench.
The spatial practice of space (the perceived space): how do people perceive and act in the urban public setting with TTT? And, who are the ‘inhabitants’ and ‘users’ of space? How is it being used? How do people experience and live the act of playing tables tennis in the public play space? What kind of new appropriation do they develop? How do users change the manifest functionality of the TTT? How do these play spaces triggers imagination? These two elements of Lefebvre's’ triad are intertwined because as people perceived the space they act in it. But also, how they lived and imagine new ways.
The people who use the space and the table tennis tables in this square, through observation method, are mainly Catalans, some Spaniards, and a small number of Western-Europeans. They are mostly families, parents from age 35 to 50 and children from one year to 12 years old. They have a middle-income appearance. In general, people who use and come to the square are from the neighbourhood. The peak time of use for the ‘inhabitants’ and ‘users’ of this space is around five in the afternoon, where children and teens finish school and some parents finish also working. Their leisure routine is expressed in their presence in the square daily, especially children who live very close to Gal la Placídia.
In the square numerous activities are expressed: people eating, cycling, skating, speaking. Children running, playing games, painting on the ground and on the cement balls with colour chalks. People walking their dogs, sitting on the benches while speaking with others, reading the newspapers, drinking coffee/beers/cans, smoking cigarettes, people walking with religious (Catholics) symbols on their hands (Beginning of Easter week), people greeting each other from distance, and others stopping for a short small talk. The square also holds many different ages with different roles. Children from 1 year old to elderly people of +80
