Urban place

This is another reading response for the course Urban Design Theory given by David Monteyne at the University of Calgary.

The major theme I got from this week’s texts is the social meaning of urban space and the collective construction (or deprivation) of place. Norberg-Schulz [1] gives a philosophical account of what the essence of a place might be. Relph [2] and Oldenburg [3] problematize the impoverishment of public space and place in North America. Massey [4] provides a more critical and global understanding of place, whereas Hayden [5] sees urban place as a space for public history. Along these readings, I will discuss in the following a) how place can be conceptualized and b) how place should be transformed for the better.

What is (urban) place?

Christian Norberg-Schulz [1] understands place as a “qualitative, ‘total’ phenomenon” that can be understood along dualisms (e.g., inside/outside and private/public), its relation to the natural environment, and its “general ‘atmosphere’”. While I appreciate the idea of integrating scientific, environmental, everyday knowledge of a place, in my view, his understanding of place is completely missing out on the social aspects of place. The character of a place not only depends on “how things are made”, but also on the people that inhabit, use, and appropriate it. Consider an independent music club (or coffee shop) that becomes overly popular, some veteran guests will say “this place just aint the way it used to be.” If character is denoted only by adjectives, where do the verbs carried out by place dwellers come in? Don’t they also contribute to the spirit of a place? I don’t think that a place can have a universal essence. Maybe there are shared interpretations, but usually experience is very subjective. To “become friends with a particular environment” also includes people. While one may dislike Calgary’s cold winter, good friends and warm coffee shops may help to overcome this. While I agree that a meaningful connection to nature is important, but so is a meaningful correspondence among people. I am not sure, what I take from etymological similes for understanding place. While this may tell how humans have thought about it in the past, what will happen to place, space, and environment in the future? Even though I found Norberg-Schulz’ text hard to read and don’t agree with everything, I think it is good to put focus on environment and take urban design toward place making that is meaningful and possibly sustainable.

Fifteen years later, Doreen Massey [4] puts forward a more progressive account of how place can be understood. She notes that demands for sense of place can be reactionary when too much emphasis is given to the inside and its history. Instead she argues, place should be understood more holistically, in context of global structures, networks, and processes. In particular Massey looks at mobility and how it is unevenly accessible to the rich and privileged leaving many people behind in the periphery. If we assume that mobility is a good thing, how can places be made open to strangers so that both visitors and residents can benefit from each other? I like Massey’s textual sketch of Kilburn High Road and how it includes shared struggles and conflicts. Instead of focussing on recreation and relaxation, shouldn’t we see urban places also as the public space for carrying out struggles and negotiating conflicts? I must say I subscribe to Massey’s conceptualization of place as dynamic, interconnected, and contested space. It seems to be a proper corrective to the rather essentialist view of Norberg-Schulz.

What should (urban) place be?

Edward Relph [2] juxtaposes two types of places: place as an emotional, subjective, experienced counterpart to space and placelessness as sheer social insignificance. Even though this text has been written more than 30 years ago, I think the main critique of lack of meaning is still valid for today’s cities and urban places. While I don’t take issue of blaming centralized authorities, I have troubles making causal connections to technology per se. Sure, the physical experience of place implies immediacy in contrast to the indirect and mediated processes through information technologies. Yet, I wonder what kind of possibilities emerge through new media use that enhance or improve spatial awareness and place making. I think comparing a significant place to home may not be so effective: to me home implies exclusive and private places, but I’d like to feel at home at different places in the world and experience social meaning beyond my original roots. Places should work for both those that have lived there for long and those that just arrived.

Along a similar vein, Ray Oldenburg [3] criticizes the lack of what he calls the third place in North America: a place beyond home and work that allows for casual, spontaneous, and non-commercial social interaction. While I heard before about this concept, it has struck a nerve in me. I felt grumpy yesterday after staying mostly at home reading, but I feel much happier when going through my readings in a third place (a coffee house or a library). On another note, considering that a significant demographic of those moving to suburbs are families, how can we make inner cities safer and funner? Comparing it to making buildings more accessible to the disabled, would making an inner city more compatible with families’ needs also be of benefit for those that aren’t/don’t have children? I like the simile of womb and rat race: what would be a good metaphor for a proper third place? Oldenburg doesn’t mention it explicitly, but it certainly is part of the concept: civic engagement and political activism. The Paris Commune probably heavily relied on the third place. After all I found Oldenburg’s text probably the most entertaining this week, in particular this line: “About the only need that suburbanites can satisfy by means of an easy walk is that which impels them toward their bathroom.”

Lastly, Dolores Hayden [5] discusses place with a focus on public history. While I don’t deny the significance of history, I would like to see how this can be integrated with experimentation for a better future that relates to the past. Somehow, I didn’t get some of her examples. How does a community garden really connect to the urban past? Is it the old Coke cans that are to be rediscovered when digging? I think Hayden is onto something when discussing how community members should be involved in historical place making. They could contribute their own stories and artifacts. But why do we have to go through lengthy processes and have great patience for this? Aren’t there more direct approaches? I think there is a need for creation and sense-making in the neighbourhood without having to attend long meetings.. After all it has to be fun! We don’t have to (always) “agree on what is meaningful and what is creative”, we should design places that accommodate multiple, divergent perspectives and still co-engage citizens. I wonder how GPS-technology could allow for public, urban memory that is multi-vocal and contradictory.

[1] C. Norberg-Schulz, “The phenomenon of place,” Architectural Association Quarterly, 1976.
[2] E. Relph, Place and Placeessness, ch. Prospects for Places. 1976.
[3] R. Oldenburg, The Great Good Place, ch. The Problem of Place in America. 1989.
[4] D. Massey, “A global sense of place (1991),” in Space, Place, and Gender, pp. 146–156, University of Minnesota Press, 1994.
[5] D. Hayden, The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History, ch. Place Memory and Urban Preservation. 1995.