“New demographic” is a term blissfully unknown in the academic literature; Google Scholar, the standard source, contains not a single reference to it. But, I have learned, it has come into recent currency in marketing. The underlying idea is that new markets are constantly emerging through a combination of demographic and lifestyle changes, and that sellers of goods and services have to keep up with them in order to compete and finally to survive. Thus, if you study the work of international market analysis companies like Experian, you find that they subdivide populations into a bewildering variety of subgroups or tribes which have only a minimal relationship to the conventional socio-economic groups or classes which still form the mainstay of Census and other official statistical sources (Webber and Farr 2001). They carry names like Symbols of Success, Happy Families, Suburban Comfort, Ties of Community, Urban Intelligence, Welfare Borderline, Municipal Dependency, Blue Collar Enterprise, Twilight Subsistence, Grey Perspectives and Rural Isolation.
The underlying notion is that society is increasingly fragmenting into different groups which are categorized not only by income or occupation – though these, clearly, continue to have salience – but also by individual preferences and tastes in consumption, which are increasingly characteristic of our democratised, market-driven societies. These groups have very different ways of spending their leisure time and they may choose to spend it with people of similar ilk in places and spaces that they find sympathetic.
Culture at the Crossroads: The Comedia Study
This relates to another key feature: the erosion of the traditional boundary between “culture” and commerce. This has been explored in a challenging study by Marc Pachter of the American National Portrait Gallery and Charles Landry of Comedia (Pachter and Landry 2001).
Specifically, they notice a number of parallel developments in the economy and the wider society, affecting almost all groups:
• the ascendancy of the marketplace as an arbiter of value and taste and the rise of the entertainment industry;
• the rise of the knowledge-based economy;
• a decreased role for the state and the mergence of political formations beyond the left/right continuum;
• the demand by many publics to participate in defining the values and purposes of society;
• challenges to the unified canon of knowledge in many fields and a blurring of intellectual boundaries;
• the reordering of relations between the sexes;
• changing conceptions of place, space, time and temp particularly driven by technological advances;
• a general sense of fracturing ion the unity of a body politic; and
• a reconsideration of what identity means locally, regionally and nationally (Pachter and Landry 2001, 19).
“In the era of the mass-based marketplace economy ruled by commercial patterns of consumption”, they say, “many cultural institutions have an uneasy relationship with the underlying conditions of the era…So it is less clear what the role of culture is today” (Pachter and Landry 2001, 20).
This in turn is related to another trend: the breakdown of a notion of a hierarchy of knowledge. “At the heart of the 19th-century cultural institution”, they say, “lay the notion of the democratization of knowledge, whose purpose was to uplift and improve the broader public”, based on “an underlying philosophy or ethos built on hierarchies of knowledge and cultures, on categorizations and fixed boundaries” (Pachter and Landry 2001, 21). But this was progressively challenged, first around 1900 by the avant-garde and then – more significantly because on a far wider scale – from the mid-20th-century by popular culture, which ignores or rejects an exalted notion of culture even while it occasionally appropriates some of its elements (Pachter and Landry 2001, 22-23).
But the market economy, too, is changing: it has begun to recognize other demands than mere consumption, in particular, retailing is transmuting into part of entertainment (Pachter and Landry 2001, 25-26). “It involves creating settings where customers and visitors participate in all-embracing sensory events, whether for shopping, visiting a museum, going to a restaurant or conducting business to business activities” (Pachter and Landry 2001, 26). Thus, “Shops can develop museum-like characteristics, such as the Museum Store or Hard Rock Café, with its display of original artefacts, and vice versa, museums can become more like extensions of entertainment venues, like the new collection of museum spaces in Las Vegas, where “quality” is added to the menu of possible experiences” (Pachter and Landry 2001, 46).
Some critics find these trends deeply disturbing. They remain suspicious of the new stress on sensation and pleasure and a general willingness to be manipulated by commercial culture (Pachter and Landry 2001, 33). At very least, this raises a fundamental question. “Can a commercial society embrace a notion of quality?” (Pachter and Landry 2001, 34). The authors assert that cultural institutions have a vital role to play here, “in providing guidance and in helping us decode the sophisticated cultural developments in our economic and political environment” (Pachter and Landry 2001, 59). But some commercial companies, as well as noncommercial public institutions, “can invite exploration and challenge without foreclosing or having a fixed form” (Pachter and Landry 2001, 66). Waterstones and Borders bookstores, for instance, come close to this concept.
Both kinds of institution are increasingly trying to achieve the same effect:
New Public Spaces: The Demos Study
That challenge is taken up in a new study by Melissa Mean and Charlie Tims of Demos, a British think tank. People make Places: Enhancing the Public Life of Cities asked whether public space in Britain is living up to its potential, by looking at a broad range of places (such as parks, shopping centres and civic spaces) that support public life through social interaction.
Funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, it studied three UK cities, Cardiff, Preston and Swindon, through:
• interviews with 15-20 stakeholders from civic, public and private sector organisations in each city;
• nearly 700 interviews with members of the public in a range of public spaces in the three cities;
• in each city three focus groups with: people over 65, gay people aged 18-40, and people from black and minority ethnic groups aged 18-30;
• in-depth studies of five public spaces in each city.
Their report finds that the traditional core ideal of public space – free and open access to all – is being undermined by a focus on safety, which is creating bland spaces lacking any real ability to draw in or retain people. Yet, paradoxically, increasing diversity of individual lifestyles is splintering public spaces into a patchwork of specialised enclaves, defined by income, age, ethnicity and taste.
The Demos report argues that urban designers and city planners should start from the perspective of the people who actually use public space. “The current focus of both urban designers and city planners on creating grand plazas and iconic architecture ignores the role of the people who are meant to use them,” say the authors. “A new town square can be carefully, expensively designed, but there’s no guarantee that people will come and use it. Architects and planners need to start with people; they must understand public space from the perspective of those who live and work in towns and cities.”
The researchers borrow from the Expedian-Mosaic style of analysis: they identify ten broad types of people who use public space, covering a range of age, income and activities: Home Birds, Mallsters, Hoodsters, Patriots, Displayers, Brand Addicts, Bright Lights, Hobbyhorses, Urban Safarians and Public Spirits. Their different patterns of use reflect the resources (both of time and money) they have at their disposal, their social norms and their individual values.
Examples include:
• Home Birds – Living cocooned lives, they hardly ever come into contact with public venues, preferring the comfort of their living room. Home Birds on UK (and doubtless also Australian) TV screens include Jim from The Royle Family and Sushila from The Kumars at Number 42.
• Mall Walkers – Older women, young mums and unemployed people who frequent shopping centres, department stores and bus stops to fight boredom. An example would be Dot Cotton from East Enders.
• Displayers – From night-time revellers to street entertainers, everything about them is designed to be expressive – their dress, their body language and even their ring tones. Stuart and Vince from Queer As Folk and the kids from Shameless are TV Displayers.
• Hobbyhorses – From young executives doing a bit of acting on the side to committed skateboarders or gardeners, they live for their hobby. Hobbyhorses can be found from community and arts centres to parks and youth clubs. Fictional Hobbyhorses include Tom and Barbara in The Good Life and Seth Cohen from The O.C..
• Public Spirits – These can be found reading books on benches and collecting conkers in the park. Always ready to strike up conversation with a stranger, Public Spirits range from students and homeless people to the more affluent with time on their hands. Examples include Harold Bishop from Neighbours and Lou from Little Britain.
Some examples, with quotations from interviews, show how their usage of public space differs.
Urban Safarians: “We went out last night – went to all the new bars and that on the quayside. Then we went down Bute Town for some spit and sawdust places – the real Cardiff.” (White man, 50s, Cardiff). Urban Safarians “track down different places and types of places in search of novelty and authenticity…Their tastes are eclectic, but they tend to have a few favourite places that they think of as their ‘locals’ even if these are not actually near their homes…They take pride in knowing their cities and generally want to share their knowledge and their city” (Mean and Tims 2005, 38).
Displayers: “I don’t know their names but we’ve checked each other out. I’ve seen him before, him, him, him, that kid there, and her.” (White male, teenager, Cardiff). Displayers “prefer to be in town than in the confines of home…They use any public space as their theatre, often finding unpromising corners to make their own…Everything about them – dress, body language, ring tones – is designed to be expressive, often aimed at impressing the opposite sex or their friends…They can bring a liveliness to public spaces and leisure venues but can be seen as territorial, making others feel unsafe (Mean and Tims 2005, 32).
Home Birds: “Mostly I go round friends’ houses, or they come to mine. If you don’t drink alcohol there’s not much you can do here.” (Asian woman, 20s, Swindon). Home birds focus on their homes, their work and essential tasks, such as going to the supermarket. Their significant places tend to be away from their hometown, centring on pleasant resorts or the homes of loved ones and family. Some feel constrained into conducting their social life around their own homes or those of friends and family, as social pressures or prejudice make them feel uncomfortable elsewhere (Mean and Tims 2005, 28).
From public space to public experience
To find out exactly how these different groups use public spaces, the researchers identified ten different hubs of public life: some traditional cultural spaces, some very much not so. They included an allotment, an arts centre, a supermarket café, a library, a youth centre, a park, a car boot sale, an adult learning network (University of the Third Age) and a skatepark. The places supported different kinds of experience for different visitors. What made these spaces public was not who owned them, their physical design or aesthetic appearance. Instead, the researchers found, a better guide to whether a particular location was valued as a public space was whether it was actively used and shared by different individuals and groups. The following three examples give some insights into what experiences can foster social spaces.
Among the spaces that people found most welcoming were:
• The car boot sale: here, people feel comfortable passing the time of day with strangers, but are also likely to bump into people they know. There is also a sense of novelty and surprise in the possibility of ‘discovering’ a bargain.
• Supermarket cafes: people are drawn here by the welcoming atmosphere, and find escape from boredom and are able to relax and linger as they take a break from the hubbub of shopping.
• Allotments: these bring together people of different generations and ethnic backgrounds, allotment regulars report a strong sense of companionship, coupled with the pleasure of learning, often done through trading gardening tips and produce.
• The arts centre: users of arts centres appreciate the high degree of diversity, and the tolerance of people who are often not tolerated elsewhere. At the same time, cutting edge film and art helps confer a sense of status and esteem.
Only one of these is a “traditional” cultural space. But that of course is not the point. The report argues that the best public spaces are vibrant and welcoming because they are well used, and that this vibrancy is created by people and communities themselves. It is the use of public space, rather than its ownership, physical design or aesthetic appearance that makes a place public, and any space has the potential to play this role. This means that success can be measured in terms of a place’s ability to provide a platform for the creation of different types of experience by different kinds of people. Appendix One gives three examples from the report, each drawn from one of the cities.
In summary, then, the researchers suggest that the public life of places does not principally derive from their aesthetic design or their ownership, but from a combination of the quality of interaction between the people who use them and those who own or manage them.
Realising the full social potential of public space requires taking account of novel considerations:
• The issues that affect people’s use of public spaces include the resources at their disposal, social norms and their individual values. Some people are highly mobile and confident in moving around their cities; others remain constrained by where they live or work.
• Many of the places that best supported sharing and exchange were not traditional public spaces. While parks and markets were often important, a wider range of places including car boot sales, allotments and supermarket cafés could also be significant social hubs.
• These more successful spaces showed that certain factors could stimulate interest and engagement between different groups of people. These factors included opportunities for novelty and surprise or for performance and display.
• Those spaces that most encouraged shared use included those which: left room for self-organisation, encouraged a broad range of users by encouraging diverse activities, and made spaces accessible at all times of the day.
There are clear policy implications:
• ‘Public space’ should not be defined by aesthetics or ownership, but rather by whether it can provide a shared space for a diverse range of activities created by a range of different people. In theory, any place, regardless of its ownership or appearance, offers this potential.
• Spaces that support sharing cannot be created by designers and architects alone. Public space works best when it is ‘co-produced’ by the people who control or manage the space and those who use it; only then can it fulfil its democratic promise.
• Policies which foster social behaviour might do more to create shared spaces and increase interaction in public spaces than regulating anti-social behaviour.
Key principles for developing successful public space
From these examples, the researchers conclude that there are some key principles in developing successful public space.
Leave room for self-organisation: Many of the successful hubs of public life in Cardiff, Swindon and Preston dissolved the divide between the user and the authority controlling the space. They encouraged users to create activities for themselves and other users.
Diversify activities to encourage diverse people to participate: In the cities visited, the places that struggled tended to be spaces where only one type of activity or one type of user participated. People tended to feel more uneasy or even threatened when a space was dominated by a single group of people engaging in one type of activity.
Maximise access and availability: Most of the hubs of public experience were available either all the time (as they were open spaces) or had long opening hours. The best spaces were essentially ‘on tap’. All the spaces were either free or very low cost in terms of the activities or services on offer.
Ways of developing public space: Drawing on these ten hubs of public life, the Demos researchers propose a number of measures to help reinvigorate the public life of towns and cities.
These include:
• Street swaps – Exchanges between different neighbourhoods within a city would introduce people to previously unknown public spaces and build a greater sense of civic pride.
• City carnivals – Local agencies such as the police and park authorities should work more closely to make street festivals easier to run.
• Urban safaris – Cities should promote safaris within their borders to help build people’s confidence, knowledge and mobility. These could be targeted at groups with lower confidence and mobility, such as Mall Walkers and Home Birds.
These principles do not apply just to designers, town planners and architects. They may also require action from central government and local authorities, as well as civic and community organisations, commercial developers and businesses such as supermarkets and shopping centres. But any action will only be effective if it involves the everyday collaboration, participation and leadership of the people using public space.
As a start, the report proposes that local authorities should conduct a public experience audit: a local-authority-led audit of the quality and range of public experiences within its area, helping it to identify the relative strengths of areas, enabling planners and other stakeholders to gain a view of the overall quality of the city’s public space network. This could help them locate where the domination of certain groups in public space needs to be balanced with the encouragement of others.
Old Artefacts, New Spaces, New Events
Pachter and Landry go further: they show examples of how redundant urban space, often apparently very negative in character, can be transformed into new places for urban experience. In Glasgow’s year as European City of Culture, 1990, ‘The Ship’ recreated the city’s rise and fall in shipbuilding in a disused yard within which the audience was enveloped; in Helsinki, ten years later, the still-functioning 250-metre-long Hietilahti shed became the setting for ‘Twilight Nights’, a massive fantasy of sound and light and images, with shipyard workers providing support (Pachter and Landry 2001, 81). Likewise, in Germany’s Ruhrgebiet a massive redundant steelworks has become tourist attraction and a venue for extraordinary festivals of Light and Sound, welcoming artists from rock bands to Pavarotti. New forms of cultural institutions are arising, based on technology: the Arts Electronica in Linz, the Centre for Arts and media technology in Karlsruhe housed in a former munitions factory and housing a Media Museum, an institute for Visual media, an institute of Media and Acoustics, a media library, a media theatre, a Museum of Contemporary Art, and – under different direction – the State Academy of Design and the Municipal Gallery of the City of Karlsruhe, seeking to form the hub of a new urban quarter (Pachter and Landry 2001, 92).
There are other examples – not necessarily depending on a new or striking building to house them. New dining and debating clubs are arising in London and Paris: a recreation of the Parisian salon, aimed at stimulating debate (Pachter and Landry 2001, 84). Likewise, when the Argentine architect Margarita Gutman launched her exhibition on Buenos Aires in the year 1910, Buenos Aires 1910: Memoria del Porvenir, she did so not in a traditional cultural space but in a Buenos Aires department store, where it attracted many more visitors. And the 2004 Barcelona Forum was a remarkable extension of the same principle – albeit using a completely new and very ambitious building.
The Barcelona Forum
Barcelona’s Mayor, Joan Clos, was seeking an event to rival the 1992 Olympic Games, which his celebrated predecessor Pascal Maragal had carried to a triumphant outcome, making it a global byword for successful urban regeneration. He determined on an intellectual Olympic Games: a summer-long Forum which would bring in the world’s most influential thinkers and artists, holding continuous seminars on key issues in politics, philosophy, the arts. Around this would be an attenuated Edinburgh Festival: five months of concerts and exhibitions and events, creating a new kind of intellectual-cultural tourism (Hall 2004).
It lasted 141 days, May to September, in a brand-new conference centre, built and opened specifically for the event, with a next-door seaside theme park for the children and for adults suffering from intellectual indigestion. The offerings were serious, with subjects like: Information: Power and Ethics in the 21st Century; The Value of Words, Diversity and Identity in Narrative Language; Linguistic Diversity, Sustainability and Peace; Scientific Knowledge and Cultural Diversity; Conflicts: Prevention, Resolution, Reconciliation; International Justice; Towards a World Without Violence; Poverty, Microcredits and Development; The Role of Corporations in the 21st Century, and much more. The speakers included such big political names as Mikhail Gorbachev, the Dalai Lama, Felipe González, Ruud Lubbers, Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Gro H. Brundtland (celebrated for the report that invented sustainable development), as well as intellectual figures like Alain Touraine, Manuel Castells, Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman.
The consultants predicted five million visitors. In the event, there were only 3.2 million paying customers – but in all, an estimated 6.4 million visitors came to the city that summer. The Forum thus represented a new trend in culturally-led urban regeneration: instead of building galleries or concert halls, develop real events with real live people. But there was a physical regeneration goal too: the rehabilitation of the entire east side of the city, once a vast industrial zone, now effectively derelict. The Forum would complete what the Games had begun, replacing the industrial ruins with new apartments and hotels and shopping centres and a new high-speed train station – serving the new line linking Madrid with the French TGV network – not far away at Sagrera, a nondescript site on this side of the city. Symbolically, the new conference centre, where the Forum was held, stands at the end of the Diagonal del Mar, the hugely ambitious extension of Barcelona’s great central axis across this east side of the city to meet the Mediterranean.
Barcelona in 2004, without doubt, resolved what Pachter and Landry see as a constant tension: between the visionary and marketable, as seen in the year-long European City of Culture events or the Edinburgh, Adelaide and Charleston Festivals (Pachter and Landry 2001, 98). They say: “The jury is out as to whether these commercial experiments serve artistic or cultural values” (Pachter and Landry 2001, 99). Likewise, though the Swedes refer to their libraries as public living rooms, and this title could well be conferred on prizewinning libraries like those in Wellington (New Zealand) by Ian Acland, or in Peckham (Will Alsop) or The Hague (Richard Meier), the conversion of public libraries in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets into “Ideas Stores” allows the commercial language – of purchasing knowledge – to creep in (Pachter and Landry 2001, 105).
Conclusion
The conclusion is clear: all kinds of urban space, traditional and non-traditional, old and new, inside buildings or out in the open air, public and semi-public and private, commercially or non-commercially oriented, can prove attractive and exciting for different groups of people who will use them in very different ways. Some will attract quite distinct urban “tribes” and their presence may repel or discourage others; some may prove attractive to several different groups who will happily co-exist. There is almost infinite room for experiment and creativity in discovering what will work in particular urban circumstances. But there are still unresolved issues, even in a transformed world when old boundaries are almost completely eroded, as to what is truly cultural experience, a truly cultural place, and what is not. That is a debate that will continue, doubtless without end and without issue.
References
Hall, P. (2004) Cultural Tourism and the Intellectual Olympics. Town and Country Planning, 73, 340-341.
Mean, M., Tims, C. (2005) People make Places: Growing the Public Life of Cities. London: Central Books.
Pachter, M., Landry, C. (2001) Culture at the Crossroads: Culture and Cultural Institutions at the Beginning of the 21st Century. Bournes Green: Comedia.
Webber, R., Farr, M. (2001) MOSAIC: From an Area Classification System to Individual Classification. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 10/1, 1-15.
