I have no interest in rioting - apart from
anything else, these days I would not fancy my chances running from gendarmes
who are 30 years younger. But what does interest me is the humorous &
non-violent repossession of public space, such as shopping centres. On the
other hand, the growing trend for deadly dull, corporatist use of ‘art’ and
‘street theatre’ to somehow ‘humanise’ commercial places (and more particularly
to control our use of them and movement around them) is a distraction – or just
bad taste – and we could all do without it.
We all need to be more aware of the extent
to which urban planners try to make sure we use what was once genuinely public
space in an economically ‘efficient’ way. That is, their only aim is to deliver
the biggest possible profits to retailers in the shortest possible time.
Once you dismiss tiresome (and hypocritical)
middle class nose-pulling at such blatant commercialism, this, in itself, might
not be so objectionable. If the real target was a
‘customer-centred-experience’, what could be the objection to professionals,
for once, actually giving us what we want, not what some marketing air-head
thinks is this year’s fashion?
But of course, the real problem is that what the (paying) customer wants was never the target. And where it gets
murkier is when urban planning, in practice, begins to consider how to exclude
‘undesirables’, zoning in instead on the use of the smallest space for shortest
time by the most economically active.
For example, some years ago an
architectural student on work experience I knew was startled to discover how
much thinking goes into making seats in indoor shopping centres too
uncomfortable to sit on for more than, say, a 10 minute breather between shops.
More recently I was equally surprised when an ‘insider’ revealed to me just how
much work the Douglas redevelopers have done – for example around Strand Street
– to ensure benches and shop doorways cannot become improvised overnight facilities
for the homeless.
Then there is the care taken in developing
lines of sight within indoor plazas. In my architectural student friend’s case
(and incidentally, this was well before the current terrorist-obsessed CCTV
era) he discovered all about this while
sitting quietly one day on a bench in a shopping centre. Rather ironically, he
was there to study it for a class project.
He was astonished when a security guard
approached and informed him that, as he had been observed sitting on the same
bench for 20 minutes, previous to which for some 35 he had been observed moving
around the shopping centre but not entering any shop, using any eating facility
or purchasing anything in general, the management was evicting him. When he
objected that he was sitting in a public place, doing no harm, and had a right
to be there, he was informed that actually it was a private place, that he had
no right to be there if he wasn’t purchasing goods or services, and that all
round it might be better for his health if he left of his own volition, rather
than being assisted to fly face first onto the pavement outside. The security
goon was not quite that eloquent, but that was his general argument.
For my friend, along with others to whom he
related this experience, this was quite enlightening, and the start of our
attempts to establish if this was a ‘one off’ or a common feature of late 20th
century civil society, and if the latter what might be done about it.
One thing that quickly struck us was that
multi-store complexes, shopping centres and so on are typically built on former
public gathering places (e.g. town markets and other crossing places between
communities), typically at huge public expenditure and by public bodies supposedly
subject to the democratic process who hand over public land to private
developers, often for free or at a token price, with the excuse that the town
must develop economically or die.
It is also the case that in order for this
to happen, troublesome small shopkeepers and private householders find
themselves evicted by compulsory purchase orders. In past decades the excuse
would simply be that they lowered the tone of the area (i.e. appeals to class
prejudice), but one new variant on this is to play on cod-environmental
concerns. Incidentally, we could also list the increasingly use by employers
and government agencies of ’health and safety’ concerns to take away, rather
than protect, the rights of workers and state housing tenants.
In effect then, for the good of the
community the community is destroyed and its assets passed to fly-by-night
developers and multinational shop chains, who move on to the next complex as
soon as the rent or tax holiday ends and they are expected to pay their way
like ordinary citizens.
But take away our playing fields, market
places and parks, and what do we have left? What was the point of several
centuries in which our ancestors moved from the country to the towns, the fields
to the factories (and we more recently to offices and first-time buyer
developments) if all of the rewards and compensations wrung from reluctant
governments and employers are just taken away again? The other question is; 'What might we do about it?'
My suggestion is to take them back from
time to time – even if only for an hour or two - but to have fun doing it. Just
use them, but use them the way we want to use them, and not to the benefit of
those who stole them from us.
One of the funniest examples I know of
concerned elderly people in an Australian city, whose council shut the community
centre where they used to meet and handed the land over to a developer for a
shopping centre. These pensioners decided that as it was ‘their’ meeting place
anyway, not another hangout for the rich and unspeakable, they would just continue meeting
there. Which they did, by the hundred, with wheelchairs, Zimmer frames and all
the rest of the paraphernalia of old age, bringing the entire place to a standstill day
after day until the council and the developers caved in and offered an
alternative meeting place.
In about 1997 this example directly inspired
a Manchester
anti-consumerist group’s campaign to celebrate Buy Nothing Day (look it up at
http://www.buynothingday.co.uk/ ,
then act on it). ‘Workmen’ dragged sofas, comfy chairs and other household
items into one of that city’s dullest shopping centres. ‘Coincidentally’ a
number of ‘customers’ then started to use them to……well, to do little or nothing. As
enraged security guards managed to clear one ‘obstruction’, more furniture was ‘delivered’
to another area, or another level, or another shopping centre, and so it went
on all day around the city. Far from being annoyed, many people who came there
merely to consume had a great day out too. They saw the joke and joined in,
then went home, told others and in turn caused more people to see the joke, and
caused more discussions.
And did retail workers – people having little choice in
the late 20th century other than to take whatever ‘Mcjob’ is going – get annoyed?
I think not. How else did the group know exactly where to bring in all that
furniture, where to put it, and precisely when?
For another elegant variation on the theme,
see, for example, http://thechap.net/cms/2012/04/the-siege-of-savile-row/
or the earlier attempts by ‘The Chaps’ to ‘Civilise the City’ or poke
imaginative fun at the decidedly unmaginative modern art that wins major prizes
and gets sold to the dull entrepreneurs who run drab corporations.
Think of such disruptions of the modern
nightmare as quiet rioting, gentle striking, or any other play on such terms
you want to invent. In a world from which an uncivilised minority is intent on
disenfranchising us, sometimes just doing nothing – creatively rather than
because you are meant to – can be the best response. And anyway, everybody
(even consumers) needs the odd day off to do something interesting instead.