University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Social Sciences Master’s Urban and Regional Planning
THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC SPACE
Deconstructing the approach of a temporary space in Brussels, BelgiumLola Dirkx August 2016
COLOFON
Public Space as a Social Construct:
Deconstructing the Approach of a Temporary Space in Brussels
15th of August, 2016
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Social Sciences Master’s Urban and Regional Planning
Author Lola Dirkx
dirkx.lola@gmail.com
Supervisor
Prof. Dr. Tuna Tasan-Kok M.T.TasanKok@uva.nl
"I think the problem with an intervention that is done by the municipality is that they see public space as a final product. They build it up and then they’re like ‘ok, it’s done, we don’t have to look after it’. They have the services to clean it up, to cut the trees,… but the space is done. But from that moment forward, that space is going to decline; maintenance is going to be more demanding along the years. I think when you do a project in a public space, you should spare a part of the budget, understanding that you have created an unfinished work. Something that is not actually perfect. So after it is built, and you analyse how it is used, you can tune it in order to adapt it. And this process should always continue, because over time users change, and the space will demand things in a different way. Even if you create the most perfect public space, at some point, it will happen. You have very well analysed what the situation is, what the public is, what the use is. But that perfection will not last in time because, people change, politicians change, weather changes, and new establishments and businesses come and go. Public space is an element in transformation. It’s an organic thing, so you need to be ready to react on it." (Interview 3, 2016).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A space consists out of more than what can be directly observed. Similarly, this thesis has come to being through much more than can be read from it. I would like to thank my family for their support, my cousin Phil for her help, Jeroen for giving me a home in Amsterdam, Milena for the extremely helpful long discussions, and finally, my supervisor Prof. Dr. Tasan-Kok for her guidance and trust.
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1: The social construction of space ... 13
Figure 2: The social construction of space through temporary use ... 18
Figure 3: Initial condition of the square, Source: own picture ... 33
Figure 4: Purpose of the temporary occupation ... 38
Figure 5: Progressive transitional projects in the long run ... 39
Figure 6: Strategy assessment ... 43
Figure 7: Is something happening? Carpets, Source: own picture ... 54
Figure 8: Is something happening? Books, Source: own picture ... 54
Table 1: Reports Toestand ... 25
Table 2: Reports participant observation ... 27
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter one: introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Research goals and approach 2
1.3 Relevance 3
1.4 Motivation 4
1.5 Outline 4
CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
6
2.1: 6
Public space as a social construct 6
2.1.1 Introduction 6
2.1.2 The meaning of public space 7
2.1.3 A concept in constant crisis 7
2.1.4 Public places 9
2.1.5 The social construction of space 12
2.1.6 Conclusion 13
2.2: 15
Temporary use as an instrument 15
2.2.1 Introduction 15
2.2.2 Time matters 15
2.2.3 Temporary places 17
2.2.4 Conclusion 19
2.3 20
Conclusion theoretical framework 20
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
22
3.1 Introduction 22
3.2 Research question 22
3.4 Case selection and description 24 3.5 Research method 24 3.5.1 Documents 25 3.5.2 Participant observation 25 3.5.3 Interviews 28 3.6 Data analysis 29
3.7 Reflection and conclusion 30
CHAPTER FOUR: CASE STUDY
31
4.1: 31
Marie-‐Janson square: Context 31
4.1.1 Introduction 31
4.1.2 Initial condition 31
4.1.3 Actors 35
4.1.4 Purpose of the project 37
4.1.5 Conclusion 39
4.2: 41
Marie-‐Janson square: Strategy assessment 41
4.2.1 Introduction 41
4.2.2 Role 41
4.2.3 Strategy 42
4.2.4 Is something happening? 53
4.2.5 Conclusion 55
4.3: 56
Conclusion case study 56
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS
58
List of references 59
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
“Every river is more than one river. Every rock is more than just one rock. . . . Of course, humans reside in a natural . . . world that is there... but this world is meaningless. Meanings are not inherent in the nature of things” (Stedman, 2003).
1.1 Background
Increasingly, literature suggests that urban planning and urban reality are no longer aligned with one another. Our conventional planning system, dictated by a neoliberal logic, is seen to produce space alienated from the socio-spatial needs of the urban dweller. Large-scale real estate and building capital that dictates the distribution of land, operates without any personal ties to a place. Neoliberalism has affected somewhat every aspect of urban development, and it is in the public space, an essential part of every city, that the consequences of this gap are the most apparent. It has led several theorists to proclaim the decline of the relevance of public space in our society. However, in reality it would appear, following numerous protests and actions in public spaces all over the world, that the concept still holds its central position in an urban society.
The guiding principle providing the framework for this thesis has been a key question leading the work of urban justice theorists such as Heather Campbell and Susan Fainstein, namely: How can planning within the constraints of the neoliberal still plan for the better? (Campbell et al., 2014: 47). Rather then obtaining a pessimist view, it tries to look passed and beyond these constraints and focus on what is possible. With these thoughts in mind, the concept of temporary use will be introduced.
Through the reactivation of vacant land that has lost its meaning, and embedding it in its surroundings, temporary use projects seem to successfully create places responsive to needs. What initiatives such as temporary use essentially shows, is the societal need for spaces based on use-value and content, instead of homogeneity and control. This, in turn, could suggest that our conventional planning processes are no longer equipped to respond
2 to such socio-spatial needs. Therefore, this thesis suggests that claiming the decline of public space is not based on actual societal evolutions, but rather describe the spatial consequences of an alienated planning process.
To argue this reasoning, it is necessary to return to the actual nature of space. Space has a dual character, it does not only exist out of the physical, but has a social component as well. It is through the mutual influence of these components that it obtains its specific character, and it is through the presence of people that it obtains its public character.
1.2 Research goals and approach
Following this background, the goal of this thesis and research is to obtain answers to the central research question, namely:
How can a forgotten public space be socially constructed into a place?
This theoretical research question is tackled through the qualitative analysis of a practical case. The goal is to understand how a public square can be socially constructed, and this will be done through observing the transformation process of a public square in Brussels, Belgium. More specifically, their approach to social construction will be deconstructed.
However, the goal is not to provide a toolbox for social construction, but rather to contribute to the literature through the deconstruction of the transformation process of temporary use (and potential links with the planning process) in this particular case. The thesis will focus on the attitude of the initiators, instead of focusing exclusively on their actions and goals. In this regard, adopting an open participant observation method, will allow me to draw conclusions that might have been left unnoticed in an interview based approach. The case study is based on a comprehensive theoretical framework.
However, I am aware of the positive angle from which the concept of temporary use is approached. Such initiatives have been equally criticized for triggering gentrification processes and instrumental use by urban governments. But in light of this research, an elaboration on these externalities did not seem necessary. I focus in this thesis on what they
3 are actually able do with a certain space. Moreover, in light of the case-study used in this thesis this did not seem relevant. The critique is often vey correct when the temporary use is situated in derelict areas, that are put back on a mental map for the hip and privileged. However, this case is situated on a public space, underused, but in the midst of one the most vibrant parts of Brussels.
1.3 Relevance
Many authors argue that there is a need for research and action that can devise new strategies for resisting neoliberal globalization and for enfranchising urban inhabitants (Purcell, 2002). It is in this context that the concept of temporary use has been elaborated and set forth by many authors. However, the scientific relevance in this thesis lies in the particular nature of the case. In essence, temporary use is connected to vacancy, and is an act of appropriation of space by the initiators themselves. The temporary use case provided in this thesis, by contrast, is operating on a public square. Therefore, this case not only differs from its usual functioning because of the nature of the space that is a public square. The main difference is the fact that the initiative was not taken by the organization itself, but was a bold choice of a Brussels municipality. What this case therefore shows, is that the alternative character of the practice doesn’t have to stay alternative, but that it is in fact possible to incorporate the informal unplanned into the formal planned.
Moreover, the praising of temporary use in academic literature for its ability to transform spaces into places is mostly based on the results of such a project. Little research has focused on what it actually is these projects do with a site or how they do this. This research will take this as a focus, and will therefore contribute to academic understandings on the subject.
The societal relevance of this research flows from the same starting point. There is a need to resist the alienated production of space and a need to enfranchise urban inhabitants in this, and this can written of the news. As Perry (2016) rightly notices in The Guardian: “From the Taksim Square and Nuit Debout protests to bank takeovers in Barcelona, the pressure for more inclusive cities is mounting”. In other words, people are claiming their so-called ‘right to
4 the city’. In this regard, this thesis tries to bring forward an alternative for the conventional, by including the alternative in the conventional.
1.4 Motivation
During the Master several events draw my attention as an urban citizen to the role of public space in Brussels. One the one hand, I was participated in an action group defending the public space on one of the squares in Brussels that risked being taken over by commercial activities and thus excluding a large part of the original users, from diverse social groups. On the other hand, the security responses to the terrorist attacks provided vivid examples of shifts in public space. In all cases, there are always keen defenders of inclusive public space, often informal and outside of conventional city planning processes. These have inspired me to conduct the case study on one of such initiatives, whereby even with temporary use an attempt is made to counter the demise of public space in my beloved city of Brussels.
I believe a lot of future improvements in this field will be driven by such bottom-up efforts, and this has always been a great interest of mine. I see them as a source of renewal, of innovation and inclusiveness, against the backdrop of neoliberal city planning in which development is dictated by the intangible force of capital. As such, I have tried to bring these interests together in this thesis, and have been very motivated to argue them.
1.5 Outline
To build up the answer to our research question, this thesis consists of five chapters divided into different sections. The second part will outline the theoretical framework underpinning this research, and will try to deconstruct the main concepts, public space and temporary use, and the guiding theory of social construction. This framework is divided into two main sections. The first section will elaborate on the meaning of public space as a concept, and will try to form an answer to the following question: is public space a social construct? The second section will introduce the concept of temporary use, and is guided by the question: can temporary use serve as an instrument to observe the social construction of space? The
5 part will try to conclude on the suitability of the concept of temporary use to serve as an instrument to observe the social construction of a public space.
Part three will elaborate on the methodology obtained to answer the following research question: how can a forgotten public space be socially constructed into a public place? To this end, the research design, the case selection, the data collection technique and data analysis obtained in this research will be discussed.
Part four kicks of the analysis part, and will attempt to deconstruct the approach of the case study to transform a public space into a place. It consists of two sections. The first section outlines the context of the case study, namely the temporary project and the square being temporary used. In order to provide a comprehensive overview, this section is guided by three questions: What is the problem? What is the goal? Who are the actors? Section two will provide the last piece of the research puzzle and is guided by the question: how does VZW Toestand transform the Marie-Janson square in Brussels from a forgotten space into a socially constructed place?
Finally, the last part will bring forward some concluding remarks, and will attempt to link the analysis back to theory.
6
CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This chapter consists of a theoretical outlining of the main concepts, public space and temporary use, and the guiding theory of social construction, based on academic literature. In the first section, public space will be elaborated. In order to formulate the main argument, the theory of social construction will be introduced and linked to public space. This sets the stage for the second section and its introduction of the concept of temporary use. This section will attempt to bring temporary use forward as an instrument to observe the social construction of space. In the final concluding section, both earlier two sections come together, and a theoretical argumentation is made for the production of public space.
2.1:
PUBLIC SPACE AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT
“We live in an age when for many commentators, if it is not dead, public space is terminally ill and, if it was a species, extinction would be beckoning. I endeavour to look through, between, past and under the apparently omnipotent forces seeking to degrade or destroy genuine urban public spaces” (Leary-Ohwin, 2016: 4).
2.1.1 Introduction
This chapter will attempt to elaborate on urban space as a social construct. To this end, the meaning of public space as a concept, by definition and through time, will first be refined. Finally, a conceptualization of the social construction of space will be set out to set the stage for the introduction of the second concept, temporary use.
7
2.1.2 The meaning of public space
By definition, public spaces are spaces that belong to the public domain, that are open and accessible to all, and where difference is encountered and negotiated (Cilliers & Timmermans, 2014; Catell et all., 1990). They are a fundamental feature of cities and represent sites of sociability and face-to-face interaction (Catell et al., 2008). In our Western tradition, public space contains a positive connotation that evokes the practice of democracy, openness and publicity of debate (Hou, 2010). This can be traced back to the Greek agora and its function as "the place of citizenship, an open space where public affairs and legal disputes were conducted” (Mitchell, 1995: 116). It is in these places that “one should expect to encounter and hear from those who are different, whose social perspectives, experience and affiliations are different” (Mitchell, 1995: 116). The very idea of democracy, it is argued, is therefore inseparable from that of public space (Hou, 2010).
Besides holding an important ideological position in democratic societies, an extensive body of research has correlated several positive attributes with qualitative public spaces, ranging from improved emotional health (Catell, et al., 2008), to a greater sense of community (Francis et al., 2012). The quality of public space is commonly perceived to be a measure of the quality of urban life (Catell et al., 2008).
2.1.3 A concept in constant crisis
However, the story of public space is as much a story of exclusion as it is an inclusive one (Hou, 2010). Take, for instance, the long history of exclusion of women in public life, or new measures undertaken to prevent homeless people from sitting or sleeping in parks. The above described ideal definition of public space is thought to be losing its ties with urban reality, because “contrary to the rhetoric of openness and inclusiveness, the actual making and practice of public space often reflect a different political reality and social biases” (Hou, 2010: 6). Public spaces are increasingly designed on the basis of security rather than interaction, and entertainment rather than politics (Mitchell, 1995). As Hou (2010: 4) notes, “in the post-9/11 world of hyper-security and surveillance, new forms of control in public space have curtailed freedom of movement and expression and greatly limited the activities
8 and meanings of contemporary public space”. In addition, public spaces are being privately managed at a rapid pace. The emergence of these so-called privately owned public spaces (POPS) is said to contribute to fragmentation and social segregation due to a diminution of the ability of individuals to meet and interact freely with others (Kirby, 2008). This subordination of social to economic principles is seen to homogenize and aestheticize space (Groth & Corijn, 2005).
These developments thus decrease the ability of public space to enable the co-presence of people different from each other, as leading theorists such as Arendt, Habermas, Jacobs and Young once idealised it (Watson, 2006).
A scan through the extensive body of literature on public space where “the erosion and decline of public space and public life have been a predominant theme” (Hou, 2010: 7) suggests that ‘the end of public space’, as Michael Sorkin predicted in 1992, is just around the corner. However, we should keep in mind that “definitions of public space and the public are not universal and enduring; they are produced rather through constant struggle in the past and in the present” (Mitchell, 1995: 121). Moreover, public spaces themselves are in effect always in a state of emergence, never complete and always contested (Watson, 2006). It is only through the actions and purposeful occupation of a space that it becomes public (Hou, 2010). A such, the struggle for public space will be, and should be, a never ending process and this “is the only way that the right to public space can be maintained and the only way that social justice can be advanced” (Mitchell, 2003: 5).
Not only in academic circles, but amongst city dwellers as well, it would seem that public space is now actually more relevant than ever and the struggle for its use ever the more visible. In cities all over the world, various initiatives, ranging from ‘Nuit Debout’ in Paris to protests at Taksim Square in Istanbul, all protest abovementioned claims of a demise of public space and point to the existence of an undercurrent looking to counter any such development. What is being expressed, is that public spaces should be for the public good (Perry, 2016), and this ‘good’ cannot be predefined by a ruling elite. Moreover, it is in the public rather than private sphere, that cities get ‘remade’, though the privatization and monitoring of these spaces decrease this possibility. As such, ‘the freedom to make and remake our cities’, as David Harvey would say, is being constrained (Garrett, 2015). Public space, then, is the threatened space in which citizens can demand change and Lefebvre’s ‘right to the city’ has become the global slogan to enforce alteration.
9 Thus, the role and meaning of public space is, once again, changing considerably and is moving further away from its ideal definition due to several developments in our contemporary society. However, stating that public space is irrevocably in decline is rather misleading. Public space should be regarded as a process rather than an end-product and it is only when citizens stop struggling for both public space and their right to public space that Sorkin’s prediction of the end of public space would become truth. The upsurge of new social movements, numerous protests against spatial injustices, temporary space appropriations claiming ‘the right to the city,’ and the rise of what Jeffrey Hou (2010) calls ‘Insurgent Public Spaces’, suggest that public space is far from dead. Indeed, a lot of these initiatives are producing “the beginnings of an alternative society beyond capitalism” (Purcell, 2014: 148), a form of public space that has yet to be defined. Therefore, as Leary-Ohwin (2016: 5) notes, it is pointless to elaborate on public space characterized by public or private, freedom or control because “in the 21st century public space should be regarded as a more complex socially constructed entity”.
2.1.4 Public places
With regard to the development of public space, the main arguments at the moment are twofold. First of all, the belief that the market allows some kind of efficient order in planning and design is increasingly contested. Secondly, the assertion that public space should grow with social capital has gained recognition worldwide (Herd, 2016). In effect, these insights are two sides of the same coin that make up ‘the right to the city’ as founding father Lefebvre envisioned it.
Today, however, in almost every city in the world, “the property rights of owners outweigh the use rights of the inhabitants, and the exchange value of property determines how it is used much more than its use value” (Purcell, 2014: 142). Moreover, large-scale real estate and building capital that dictates the distribution of land, operates without any personal ties to a place, and has led to “a total lack of connection between the exploitation of land and capital and the end users of the spaces” (Oswalt, et al., 2010: 87). ‘The right to the city’ then, revolves around the production of urban space and must be understood as a struggle to augment the rights of urban inhabitants against the property rights of owners, as an attempt
10 to ‘de-alienate’ urban space from the market and reintegrate it into the web of social connections (Purcell, 2014).
Although highly relevant, it should be noted that the scope of this master thesis does not allow a profound elaboration on Lefebvre’s views. Moreover, for many commentators his work and findings are ‘too radical’ to be of use. In addition, many researchers have attempted to make Lefebvre workable (Purcell, 2014; Gottdiener, 1985), but “there is no consensus about the best approach and methods for researching the production of urban space” (Leary-Ohwin, 2016: 18). Therefore, Kofman and Lebas (1996: 8) note in their introduction of ‘Writings on Cities’: “being a Lefebvrian, is more a sensibility, rather than a closed system”. In the same vein, Mark Purcell (2014: 141), a leading author on Lefebvre, states: “while it calls for profound change, Lefebvre’s vision is also eminently practical; it can very much serve as a guide and inspiration for concrete action to change the city today”. Indeed, Lefebvre’s theory has been, and is, first of all a starting point from which to perceive urban space and it is in this capacity, as a guide and inspiration, that it was used in this thesis.
Thus, following Lefebvre, the city needs to be reoriented away from its role as an engine of capital accumulation, towards the city as inhabited, and this means an appreciation of space based on its use value (Purcell, 2014). The social usage tradition in urban design emphasizes the way in which people use and experience space (Carmona et al., 2010). Because the use of space is not a linear extension of its design, this tradition focuses on people’s perceptions and mental images, rather than studying the material and physical form of space (Carmona et al., 2010: 7). Indeed, “serving as a vehicle of social relationships, public discourses, and political expressions, public space is not only a physical boundary and material setting” (Hou, 2010.
Specialized in the sociology of the built environment, Milligan (1998: 5) uses an interesting dramaturgical metaphor to highlight this duality of space. She argues that “physical sites (however defined by the participants) become the stages for social interaction, stages that are both physically and socially constructed”. Thus the physical aspect of a site, is the ‘stage’ for interaction and it is constructed by ‘set designers’, namely “the architects, facility managers, property owners, and others who make decisions regarding the physical form of a site, often long before a given performance occurs”. After the work of the set designers then, the stage is under the control of the actors, because they have “the power and resources to
11 manipulate physical aspects of the site, and they are able to choose the locations of their interactions”. In a similar way, Gans (1968) highlights the distinction between physical setting and use by introducing the concepts of ‘potential’ and ‘effective’ environments. The physical setting is a potential environment, a design that provides a range of opportunities for people. What these people actually do with the space is the effective environment. Thus, “while designers create potential environments, people create effective environments” (Carmona et al., 2010: 134). In other words, while a certain space is designed to be of public use, it will only reach its full public quality through its users. Public space, then, is ‘co-produced’, meaning that the success of a particular space is not only in “the hands of the architect, urban designer or town planner; it relies also on people adopting, using and managing the space” (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2007: 8).
However, public spaces are essentially discretionary environments, meaning that people can choose to go to and use them or go elsewhere (Carmona et al., 2010). What exactly, then, influences the use of certain public spaces over others? In this regard, human geographers distinguish the concepts of ‘place’ and ‘space’. In a lot of domains these concepts are used seemingly interchangeable to reference to a certain site. However, as Healey (2010: 33) notes, “these are deeply political and social concepts”. A space is a physical construct, a material setting that is undifferentiated. It is a site that exists, but is not yet defined or known from the perspective of the user (Milligan, 1998). A place then, is a social construct, or a space endowed with value. A place “thus refers not only to the availability of particular material things, it also encompasses the meanings and values that people invest in what is around them and their perceptions of their ability to influence their surroundings” (Healey, 2010: 33). A well-planned physical site or public space does not ensure social meaning since meanings are not inherent in the nature of things (Stedman, 2003). We endow spaces with meaning through interactional processes, through our experience with them (Milligan, 1998). Contrary to objectivist believes, this means that “spaces are not static, physical objects stuck on a fixed natural surface, but are as mutable as ourselves, our lives and the worlds in which we live” (Healey, 2010: 44).
12
2.1.5 The social construction of space
As concluded above, people will go to ‘places’ in which they feel psychologically comfortable or engaged enough, rather than undifferentiated ‘spaces’. As such, ‘place’ is a meaning-based concept that is not intrinsic to the physical setting itself (Stedman, 2003). When applied to the production of space, the writings of Setha Low and her work on the anthropology of ‘space’ and ‘place’ are highly applicable. Low (1996) makes a distinction between the social production and construction of space. The social production of a space “includes all those factors of which the intended goal is the physical creation of the material setting” (Low, 1996: 861). In other words, social production is the creation of space, and unless produced with an inclusive participatory process, the individual or user has no influencing power. By contrast, the social construction of a space is “the actual transformation of space into scenes and actions that convey symbolic meaning” (Low, 1996: 862). Social construction thus leads to a place, and this is entirely dependent on the user “in the sense that the meanings of specific objects, including the site itself, emerge in the on-going processes of interaction” (Milligan, 1998: 2).
Thus, as stated, people will rather use and go to ‘places’. The transformation of spaces happens in a reiterative process of social construction that can be described as follows: through interaction with a space, meaning is ascribed, which, in turn, transforms the space into a place in the eyes of the user. The process of social construction can thus be visualized as follows (Figure 1):
13
Figure 1: The social construction of space
Extending this narrative to the core subject of this thesis means that we can equally make a distinction between public space and public place to highlight use and experience. Public spaces, then, “manifest as qualitative public places when supported by specific factors that are beyond the physical dimensions” (Cilliers & Timmermans, 2014: 415). These public places are embedded in the built environment but come into being through reiterative social practices (Friedmann, 2010). Of course, there cannot be a consensus on what exactly entails a public place, considering it depends on different meanings different people ascribe to them. However, they are surprisingly easy to notice; a public place is “one that is full of people, a place that tempts those people to slow down, to stop, to chat, or simply to watch the world go by, a place that enriches the lives of those who use it” (Gaventa, 2006: 7).
2.1.6 Conclusion
In this chapter, we elaborated on the concept of public space. It was stated that these public spaces cannot be solely defined in material terms, since they only reach their full public character through the presence of people. Consequently, this means that the use of a public
Interaction
Meaning
Place
14 space is not merely an extension of its material design, hence not only in the hands of the architect, planner or designer. In this regard, it was argued that people will rather use and go to a ‘place’, or a space endowed with meaning in the eyes of the user. The process of this transformation from space to place was approached as ‘the social construction of space’.
In order to bring this abstract theorisation closer to reality, the following chapter will introduce the concept of temporary use, a phenomenon that, as we will see, fits the theory of social construction of space. In the third chapter of this thesis, this will also be proven in practice through the case study on temporary use of a square in Brussels.
15
2.2:
TEMPORARY USE AS AN INSTRUMENT
“In our increasingly complex urban world, no single master plan can anticipate the evolving and varied needs of an increasingly diverse population or achieve the resiliency, responsiveness and flexibility that shorter-term, experimental endeavours can’’ (Németh & Langhorst, 2014: 145)”
2.2.1 Introduction
In what follows, we elaborate on the upcoming practice of temporary urbanism. This section will attempt to link temporary use to the social construction of space, thereby providing the last piece of the theoretical puzzle that forms the basis for the case study.
2.2.2 Time matters
Recently spurred by the global financial crisis of 2008, temporary use is, however, a much older phenomenon that arose as a consequence of rampant deindustrialization processes in the post-Fordist cities, creating undetermined urban spaces (Groth & Corijn, 2005). The transition from production-based urban economies towards service-based economies has left many urban wastelands behind, while the focus on long-term planning, with tools such as zoning plans, made municipalities inflexible to respond to these developments (Königs, 2013). Furthermore, more recently, the inability to adopt a new plan for these spaces as a consequence of a series of deadlocks, ranging from weak property markets to disagreement between stakeholders (Andres, 2012), allowed for the emergence of a non-planned, and spontaneous ‘urbanity’ in the so-called urban ‘no-man’s-lands’ (Groth & Corijn, 2005).
Definitions of the practice of temporary use converge in seeing it as activities outside the ordinary functioning of real estate markets, or as something that happens in the absence of
16 planning (Németh & Langhorst, 2014; Patti & Polyak, 2015: 123). Due to the dissociation from modernist utilitarian approaches and the conventional logics of planning, and because of their spontaneous, organic character, they epitomise a different notion of ‘urbanity’, one that is much more based on content rather than financial return (Groth & Corijn, 2005). Moreover, these sites and the actors involved are seen to spatialize and visualise a resistant and temporary alternative to dominant principles of urban development that are increasingly characterized by a “unidimensional logic of commodification, mono functionality and control” (Groth & Corijn, 2005: 503).
If their success can be dedicated to the fact that they operate outside dominant systems (Groth & Corijn, 2005; Kamvasinou, 2015), what then does that say about the conventional planning system? In academic literature, this phenomenon has led to a more profound consideration of the role of time and permanence in planning and design. Bishop and Williams (2012) captivate this as follows: “As architects, urban designers and planners, most of our professional training, much of our thinking and many of our strategies is strictly three-dimensional. In reality, of course, the city is four-dimensional, and we need to acknowledge the influence of time in our planning and design strategies”. Accordingly, in a world where the urban population and its needs are constantly evolving and extremely diverse, static master-planning has lost correspondence with urban realities (Németh & Langhorst, 2014). As such, their success shines a light on traditional regulatory and planning systems that are based on the perceived primacy of stable and certain environments for investment as well as the avoidance of conflicting land uses (Németh & Langhorst, 2014). Indeed, temporary use requires us to “rethink certain orthodoxies of urban development as usual: in particular the time-scales that inform conventional development models; the understandings of use around which sites are planned and designed; and the ways in which value is realized through the production of urban spaces” (Patti & Polyak, 2015: 123).
By contrast, the logic of the temporary use model is that of a continuous editing process of urban transformation (Németh & Langhorst, 2014). By definition, the physical premise of temporary use never reaches a finished state. It is constantly being updated, transformed, and adapted to new needs (Oswalt, et al., 2010). The goal is to try something out for a while, encouraging people to think differently about neighbourhoods and urban spaces by acting differently in them (Stevens & Ambler, 2010). As such, they act as breeding grounds for
17 innovations, as ‘testbeds for change’, and even as ‘trendsetters for the mainstream’ (Oswalt, et al., 2010; Tardiveau & Mallo, 2014).
2.2.3 Temporary places
Besides their adaptive and experimental character, temporary urbanism has been praised for its capacity to transform socio-political and physical spaces (Tardiveau & Mallo, 2014). Although these projects hardly ever operate in existing public spaces, as is the case in the temporary use studied for this thesis, they have proven to be masters in injecting hollow underused spaces with social meaning. Therefore, temporary use is approached here as “active repossessions and symbolic reconstructions of everyday urban spatial structures” (Groth & Corijn, 2005: 506). In this sense, temporary use can be seen as “a relational approach as it is a form of enactment, trial and action bound to a limited life span that intensifies and invests a space with new dynamics, allowing new socio-spatial interactions” (Tardiveau & Mallo, 2014: 460).
The places these initiatives create can be best described as ‘differential’, places shaped and dominated by its users from the basis of its given conditions (Groth & Corijn, 2005; Kamvasinou, 2015; Andres, 2011). Because such differential places remain unspecified regarding their ultimate functional and economic rationality, they allow for a wide spectrum of use that is capable of integrating a high degree of diversity, and an openness to change (Groth & Corijn, 2005: 521). Accordingly, stakeholders are given the possibility of participation and above all appropriation of their urban environment. Therefore, temporary use gives “prominence to the ‘lived’ experience of space” (Kamvasinou, 2015: 3). This, in turn, “empowers individuals and communities to increase their quality of life and assert their ‘‘right to the city,’’ both in physical terms and in terms of access to decision making channels” (Németh & Langhorst, 2014: 149).
These are important observations considering the fact that in many cases temporary use has now become an integrated element of long-term planning, allowing experimentation with different functions and target groups, before establishing a final program for a planned development (Patti & Polyak, 2015; Andres, 2011; Reus, 2014). The temporary places can, in this sense, be seen as sites where clashes in ‘urban meaning’ manifest themselves,
18 where invisible relations become visible and an unregistered space becomes acknowledged (Groth & Corijn, 2005, Tardiveau & Mallo, 2014). Different pathways of urban development are envisaged and tested, leading to a final development that is seen to correspond better to community needs. In this sense, they turn the planning system upside down. Experimentations with the site allows for different interactions, with different people. Through these interactions, new meanings are established and as such, they create use before the site is subject to renewal. This can be visualized as follows (Figure 2):
Figure 2: The social construction of space through temporary use
interaction
meaning
place
Testing of
different
pathways
19
2.2.4 Conclusion
As described in this chapter, temporary use is appreciated for many reasons that essentially come down to the fact that they bring a space closer to the end-user. Operating on a logic beyond the neoliberal, they seem to facilitate what has been called ‘the social construction of space’. Temporary use is increasingly used as an integrated element of long-term planning, allowing experimentation with different functions and target groups, thus providing alternative meanings that make a ‘space’ a ‘place’.
Therefore, I argue that observing a case of temporary use can serve as an instrument to understand how a space can be socially constructed into a place. Moreover, the case studied for this research provides an example of a rare type of temporary use, one that operates in existing public space, on a public square. As such, the study of the approach of this temporary use, and in particular those involved in organising the temporary use, may well provide new insights into the social construct of space.
20
2.3
CONCLUSION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Public space is an essential part of every city that is, however, considered to be in decline by many theorists. On a conceptual level it is recognised that the meaning and form of public space are subject to change through time. Society changes and so do our (public) needs. Therefore, this thesis argues that the current struggle for public space is not an act of adhering to something that has passed, it is an essential way to enhance social justice and thus part of the development, rather than demise, of public space.
In this perspective, perhaps the main conclusion isn’t the confirmation or negation of the decline of public space. The space itself is simply subject to change, as it has always been. However, what is clear is that at this point in time, one can conclude that conventional planning and design instruments seem to produce urban spaces alienated from public socio-spatial needs. First of all, still operating conform the logics of the market, they subordinate social to economic principles and are based on permanence rather than embracing change and process. Secondly, in these instruments, public space is seen as an end-product and is often given a pre-defined meaning followed by a supportive material design.
However, as described in this chapter, the successful use of a well-designed space is not an exact science and it cannot be obtained through a linear process to a static result. By contrast, the logic of use operates through social construction, i.e. people interact with a space, and as a consequence of these interactions they ascribe meaning to the space, thereby transforming it into a ‘place’.
Grown out of negative externalities of a neoliberal system (e.g. vacancy), temporary use initiatives are being praised for injecting undifferentiated spaces with meaning, operating on use-value instead of exchange value. The success of various examples all over the world is making the academic world question the logics of conventional planning and design instruments. Recalling Lefebvre’s views, urban space needs to be de-alienated in order to reintegrate it into the web of social connections that an urban space essentially is. He uses
21 this concept of de-alienation in terms of space appropriation by urban inhabitants. As stated in this chapter, temporary use can be perceived as such an act of appropriation, an act of people claiming spaces in the city, setting up initiatives corresponding to needs.
While temporary use challenges conventional planning and design, it is nevertheless increasingly becoming a part of long-term planning strategies. By nature, it allows experimentation with different functions and target groups, thus providing alternative interactions and meanings that make a ‘space’ a ‘place’. However, this requires longer-term planning strategies that are fundamentally different from the conventional ways in order to, following the theoretical argumentation, produce places that are less alienated and more adapted to needs and uses. The case study of this thesis will explore the way in which incorporation of temporary use in the planning process can thus serve as an instrument in itself for planners to reintegrate public space, or urban space in general, back into the web of social connections.
22
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
“Observation and curiosity of the world in which we live is the basis of intuition, questioning, critique and transformation” (Lefebvre, Kofman & Lebas, 1996: 15).
3.1 Introduction
The aim of this thesis is to illustrate how a seemingly meaningless, or forgotten public space can be socially constructed into a public place through temporary use. In the previous chapter we discussed the key concepts and theory underlying this research. This chapter will elaborate on the methodology adopted for this research.
This chapter is outlined as follows; first we will elaborate on the research question guiding this research. In section 3.3 the research design chosen to address this research question is discussed. Section 3.4 describes the case study as well as the rationale behind the case selection. In section 3.5, the various data collection techniques are explained. 3.6 elaborates on the data analysis and finally, some reflections and difficulties are described.
3.2 Research question
Chapter 2.1 outlined the theory underpinning this research. It was concluded that the use of public space is not a linear extension of its material design. People use and go to ‘public places’, i.e. spaces that contain meaning as a consequence of reiterative social interactions between space and user. This process was approached as ‘the social construction of space’. Chapter 2.2 explained how the concept of temporary use fits this theory of social construction. Through the testing of different pathways, they create interaction, invest a space with meaning, and create a place in the mind of the user. Therefore, it was argued that temporary use can serve as an instrument to observe the social construction of public space in practice. The research in this thesis is then guided by the following question:
23 The concepts of space and place have been discussed in previous chapters. They refer to respectively a physical construct and a social construct. My unit of analysis is the strategy used by VZW Toestand to socially construct the Marie-Janson square. The value of this research lies in the detailed description of this strategy, thereby contributing to the theory of social construction in general. Therefore the nature of this study is primarily descriptive. However, literature linking the temporary use model to the social construction of public space is almost non-existent. Therefore this research holds explorative tendencies as well (Mortelmans, 2011).
3.3 Research design
A research design provides a framework for the collection and analysis of data (Brymann, 2008). This study is designed as a single case study and therefore entails a detailed and intensive analysis of one case. Two reasons guided the choice for this design. First of all, the complexity of the concepts used in this thesis requires an in-depth analysis. Secondly, the particular and rare nature of this case, the temporary use of a public square, makes comparison very difficult. A comparative case-study design was therefore excluded.
A standard criticism of the case study is that findings deriving from it cannot be generalized, and this is even less plausible with a single-case study design (Brymann, 2008). However, generalization is not the aim of this research. The case selected in this research is an object of interest in its own right and requires an intensive analysis. Moreover, the relationship between theory and research in this thesis is inductive, which means that the goal s a generation of the theory (Brymann, 2008). The social construction of space is a very site-specific activity, therefore findings in this research represent by no means a ‘toolbox’ for other projects. Rather, they are appreciated for their valuable insights that can serve and broaden our understanding of social construction in general.
24
3.4 Case selection and description
In a single case-study design, a case is selected on the basis of the information they are expected to provide (Mortelmans, 2011). The case selected in this research is an extreme or unique one meaning it is not a common case and therefor it holds useful information. In the theoretical chapter we stated that the temporary use of space fits the theory of social construction of space. Indeed, much research has focused on how temporary use endows a space with new meaning. However, the temporary use of a public square is a very rare phenomenon, and differs greatly from public intervention. This case thus uniquely combines temporary use with public space, and can therefore provide me, as a researcher, the municipality of Saint-Gilles, as a stakeholder, and research on the social construction of public space in general with useful and new insights.
In this research, the term ‘case’ is associated with an organization, namely VZW Toestand (Brymann, 2008). Toestand is a temporary use organization based in Brussels that was granted with the opportunity of transforming the underused Marie-Janson square in the Brussels municipality of Saint-Gilles. This opportunity was given to them through a so-called neighbourhood-contract. The square will be completely renewed in four years, and in the meantime Toestand is charged with the task of installing a ‘progressive process of appropriation with the help of local stakeholders’. In chapter 5 the case will be further elaborated.
3.5 Research method
This study requires a qualitative data collection technique because of its constructivist approach to social realities (Brymann, 2008). Space and place are deeply social concepts, i.e. they only exist in the minds of people and therefore mean different things to different people (Carmona et al., 2010). Such meanings are constantly constructed and reconstructed and are impossible to measure with quantitative techniques.
A single case-study research design usually combines several research methods (Brymann, 2008). The goal is an in-depth study of only one case, and this can be better achieved using multiple data collection techniques. As is the case in most research, the first data collection
25 technique in this research consisted of information abstracted from documents. The second part consisted of a period of participant observation. In order to understand more profoundly the rationale behind the strategy of social construction on the Marie-Janson square, I have chosen to conduct interviews based on the observations as a third data collection technique.
3.5.1 Documents
‘Documents’, here, encompasses a great collection of varying sources. They were first of all used as a guide to explore the subject of my thesis. The composing of a research question is preceded by a profound literature study based on scientific and news articles, books, and reports, etc. Eventually, the problem is demarcated and more specific documents are consulted to form a theoretical base for the actual research.
In the research part as well, documents were widely used. For the most part, they were used to improve my understanding of the context of the case study. The official neighbourhood-contract report, and the websites of the actors involved are an example of this. One specific kind of documents used, were reports written by the project-leaders on the square. They brought useful information in the sense that they reflected their approach, doubts and goals. Therefore, they were a valuable complement to my own observation reports. I had access to the following three specific reports (Table 1):
Table 1: Reports Toestand
‘Happening’ Location Date
Report Toestand, 1 ‘Juiceful with balls’ Marie-Janson square 21/04/2016
Report Toestand, 2 ‘Pic-nick & circles & chalk’ Marie-Janson square 17/05/2016
Report Toestand, 3 ‘Fences out, benches up’ Marie-Janson square 20/05/2016
3.5.2 Participant observation
Participant observations delivered the primary data guiding this research and is often associated with singe case research designs. This data collection technique entails the extended involvement of the researcher in the social life of the object of study (Brymann,
26 2008). The choice for this technique was very self-evident. Participant observation is a method used to explore social realities in a natural setting (Mortelmans, 2011), and this corresponds with the intention of this research to grasp the strategy of social construction on the square.
The role I adopted in this can be best described as a participant-as-observer (Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994). This means that I functioned as a complete participant, albeit the members of the social setting were aware of my status as a ‘researcher’ and they knew the purpose of my involvement (Brymann, 2008).
One of the key steps in participant observation is gaining assess to the social setting relevant for your research (Brymann, 2008). However, in my case, general considerations such as access, and entering and exiting the social setting, have not represented factors to be taken into account. I have known and followed Toestand’s activities since their beginning and when I approached them for this research, they were directly open to collaborate. At that point in time, however, they had difficulties finding suitable people to lead the project on the Marie-Janson square, due to which the project and my ability to observe this, was delayed considerably. Once this problem was overcome, it was Toestand who took the initiative to introduce me to the project leaders, and from that point on the observations started.
Time is a very important consideration using this technique. Participant observation is a non-obtrusive method, which means that you cannot manipulate the research process, and you have to ‘wait’ until the targeted social phenomena occur (Brymann, 2008). Weather conditions, for instance, have influenced interventions considerably. Another example is the abovementioned delay of the project. On the other hand, however, not having to considerate factors such as access or the sampling of informants, saved me a lot of time. Finally, another way in which time played a role is the time-span of the project versus the time-span of my observations. The project will last for about four years, while I have only been able to follow them for three months. However, the start of the participant observation coincides with the start of the project itself. Nonetheless, the beginning, the establishing, of such a project is a very important part, and can reveal how the process is going to take form, and therefore entails essential information.
27 The goal of my observation was pre-defined, namely to observe how Toestand is transforming the public square (Brymann, 2008). Of course, when starting the observations, the form that this pre-defined goal will take is not known. Therefore observations were not exclusively restricted to reporting actions. The reports, then, were always written as fast as possible after an observation period. Being a participant-as-observer, rather than a complete observer, I did not make field notes while observing. Therefore it is of great importance to report immediately after observations, to avoid forgetting important details, or rely too much on subjective memory. In this regard, the pictures I took during interventions were a useful guidance to structure the field notes. The reports are organized as follows (Table 2):
Table 2: Reports participant observation
‘Happening’ Location Date
Report 1 ‘Juiceful with balls’ Marie-Janson square 21/04/2016
Report 2 ‘Brainstorm’ Alleedukaai 10/05/2016
Report 3 ‘Goal painting’ Marie Janson square 10/05/2016
Report 4 ‘Meeting Pousse qui Pousse” Garden of Pousse qui Pousse 11/05/2016
Report 5 ‘Pic-nick & circles & chalks’ Marie-Janson square 17/05/2016
Report 6 ‘Update’ Alleedukaai 24/05/2016
Report 7 ‘Meeting Boulodrome’ Boulodrome 28/05/2016
Report 8 ‘Pots and plants’ Marie-Janson square 02/06/2016
Report 9 ‘Meeting town hall’ Town hall Saint-Gilles 07/06/2016
Report 10 ‘Gardening dag’ Marie-Janson square 22/06/2016
Report 11 ‘Update’ Alleedukaai 12/07/2016
Report 12 ‘Pic-nick’ Marie-Janson square 27/07/2016
Insights derived from the whole period of observation will be referenced to as: Reports, 2016. These represent conclusions drawn from being involved for three months and do not correspond to one observation in particular. The mapping of the initial users of the square, discussed in section 4.1.2 ‘Initial condition’ is an example of this.
As can be concluded from the ‘location’ column in this table, the setting of my observations has differed greatly. The reason for this is the fact that although the object of transformation is the square itself, my unit of analysis is the approach of Toestand to facilitate this
28 transformation and this encompasses meetings with various local associations, brainstorms on location, etc.
3.5.3 Interviews
Qualitative interviewing is a very suitable data collection technique to grasp the motives and intentions behind actions. The attributes ascribed to them, flexibility, interactivity, non-directivity and the fact that they are conducted face-to-face, allows the interviewee to form in-depth answers (Mortelmans, 2011). The interviews were thus first of all conducted to get more profound insights behind the participant observations. Another reason is the prevention of too much one-sided interpretation of the data collected during that period.
The interviews conducted can be best described as semi-structured interviews, and each of them followed the same structure (Brymann, 2008). In the first part, the respondents were asked to describe the condition of the square, the transformation that is aimed for, the role they see themselves playing in this, the role of time, and the difference with conventional planning of public space. These general, contextual questions were mostly processed in chapter 5. The second part consisted of what can be best described as a topic-list (Mortelmans, 2011). This list consisted of the principles that were drafted based on the observations. The interviewees were then asked to elaborate on the importance and motivation behind each principle abstracted from the participant observation.
Four confidential interviews were conducted, one with each participant in the project. Namely, with the two project-leaders assigned to the project, working for and at the square on a daily basis, and the two ‘brains’ behind the project that follow and monitor the project. The people interviewed are listed in table 3. In the text, however, the interviews are given random numbers in order to safeguard the confidentiality of the interviews.
29
Respondent Role Duration
Bernardo Project leader 46’
Tim Project leader 39’
Pepijn Toestand 30’
Felix Toestand 21’
3.6 Data analysis
The data analysis of this research consists of two parts. The first part has been the interpretation of the observation reports on the strategy of social construction on the Marie-Janson square. The body of collected field notes on actions, interventions, brainstorms and meetings have been extensively read through and analysed. In order to assess the strategy that was used, I have tried to interpret the data from a more aggregate viewpoint and let the data speak for itself. Together with my active memory on the events, I composed a set of principles that I interpreted as the key strategy points for the targeted transformation of the square. These principles were then used to reorganize the data, and interventions and actions were categorized under the main principles. New principles were composed, others were deleted and the data was once again approached until a final list was ready to be subjected to further insights in the form of interviews.
The second part of the data analysis was based on the interviews conducted to get a more profound understanding of each principle. The first step in the analysis of these collected data was the transcription of each interview. The results of these transcriptions were then matched to the principles. They provided information on the importance of each principle, and therefore they made me rethink and question each one of them. Based on this information, then, the principles were again approached. The result was that some of them were deleted, because they seemed to be of secondary importance, and some of them were merged, as they seemed to come down to the same thing.
Finally, the data was puzzled together into one discussion supported with abstracts from reports, cites from the interviews, information from documents, and pictures taken on the square.
30
3.7 Reflection and conclusion
As explained in section 3.5.2 ‘Participant observation’, I obtained two roles in this period. The first role was that of a researcher, and the goal of the participation was to make an analysis of what they were doing. The second role, however, was as a volunteer; working on the square together with Toestand, I fully submerged with their mission, and participated where I could. Looking back on this period, it was the second role that prevailed, I really became a part of their group and I forgot about the main goal of my presence. Reflecting on this adopted attitude, it could have made my reports more objective, considering the fact I did not interpret actions having my research question in mind. On the other hand, however, connecting yourself too much to the group you are observing, makes a bias towards positive interpretations of actions more likely. In the end, I hope these two reflection points have cancelled each other out, and that I succeeded in putting down an objective discussion.
One difficulty really stands out when reflecting on the period of data collection, namely the bilingual character of the city of Brussels. On paper, the city is bilingual, in reality however, the city is mainly French speaking. As a native Flemish speaker born in Brussels, I can communicate in French up to a certain level. The project-leaders on the square communicated among themselves in French. I understood the main things, but it could be that some details skipped my attention. It was in the meeting whit the municipality in the town hall, when discussing the program in French with a group of nearly fifteen people, that the language barrier came up the most.
In conclusion, this third chapter of the thesis has elaborated on the methodology adopted in order to answer our central research question. Thereto, the research question, research design, research method, data collection techniques, and data analysis were discussed. Together with the first introductory part, and the second theoretical part, the frame is now set to move on to the actual analysis in chapter four.
31
CHAPTER FOUR: CASE STUDY
The fourth chapter in this thesis encompasses the analysis of the case, and consists of two main sections. The first section, 4.1, treats the context in which the case study is embedded. The second section, 4.2, is an assessment of the strategy used by the organisation Toestand to socially construct the space into a place.
4.1:
MARIE-JANSON SQUARE: CONTEXT
“Basically what happens is that everything starts to decay, and people feel like somebody doesn’t care, the municipality doesn’t care for a space so they automatically feel like they have the right or they’re being pushed in the direction of not respecting the space” (Interview 3, 2016).
4.1.1 Introduction
This section kicks off the analysis. In what follows, the context of the square, as well as the project itself will be extensively described. To grasp the full background in which the project is ingrained, this chapter is structured as follows: 4.1.2 describes the condition of the square prior to Toestand’s interventions, section 4.1.3 elaborates on the actors involved, and section 4.1.4 discusses the purpose of the project or the goal that is aimed for.
4.1.2 Initial condition
“Describing this square is quite difficult. It is empty, but you can definitely see the potential. You don’t notice its beauty directly. You can see that the square has been neglected. The surface is made out of cobblestones but there’s weed growing all over, and it looks quite mossy. From a distance you think that it’s grass, but when you stand on the square it evokes a mystic touch” (Report 1, 2016)
