Are you one of “the less desirable elements of society” mentioned in this piece on “the new neighbourhood for the city” in last week’s YEP?
They don’t mean people who display all the charm and appeal of an overflowing bucket of used syringes. And they aren’t on about the sort of folks who breath too spittily in your face so you react as if you were directly downwind of a busy knacker’s yard in the middle of a heatwave. Though I personally wouldn’t desire to be in the neighbourhood of those types.
No, you could be a shark in a suit with chronic halitosis and an extensive collection of bayonets from the blood-soaked battlefields of The Great War and still be welcomed into this new neighbourhood. What matters is not the content of your character. What counts is the colour of your money.
After skirting over the reason why the original “radical” design failed and the neighbourhood had to be demolished (“social problems” doncha know) the YEP positively gushes about the ambitious, transforming aspiration of the new “blueprint”; or is it the transformative, aspirational ambition? Or perhaps it’s aspiring to ambitiously transform… the words spin round and round in the sentence like cherries in a fruit machine and every combination hits a jackpot.
Maybe, the YEP opines, SOYO isn’t as “well-known or part of the city’s history” as Quarry Hill, but it’s a sign that the city “is attracting some serious investment… and we welcome it.” But, they say, let’s not be “blinded by the shiny newness of the scheme”. Let’s do what journalists do best, and “ask searching questions!”
Some of these searching questions include, “where will the people who live here park?” and “will they be shopping in the market as well as John Lewis?” which, I think we can all agree are questions that would make any developer quake in his concrete boots.
But the question that most had me thinking “search me!” was this:
Will the open spaces remain some green lungs for the city and not become meeting zones for the less desirable elements of society.
Soyo promises “apartments, bars, restaurants, a hotel and public realm spaces…. including a link from John Lewis and Victoria Gate.” (I think that last comment takes care of one of the searching questions at least.)
The mocked up pictures of the new “public realm space” look very tidy. No “undesirables” anywhere to be seen. Which makes the comment underneath the pictures a bit odd; “The whole city will benefit from new areas of public open space.”
The whole city?
Maybe all our lungs will benefit but I’m not sure about the less desirable bits.
A few days ago the Guardian published an article about the spread of privately owned public areas – “large squares, parks and thoroughfares that appear to be public but are actually owned and controlled by developers and their private backers” – in British towns and cities. Leeds was mentioned as one of the councils that refused to reveal any information about the extent of these “pseudo-public spaces”.
Won’t SOYO be just another addition to the stock of pseudo-public space in Leeds?
You only have to look at the Moda Living website (the planned apartments) to understand what a very unusual definition of “public space” they are foisting upon us.
It’s true that most pseudo-private space in the city is marked by some kind of boundary and patrolled and policed by private employees. This is most obvious in gated communities (we have a few in Leeds), but even in the open streets the private annexation of public streets is growing apace. Take City Square; half of this once public square is now fenced off as a private beer garden. You can’t step inside the fence without flashing your credit card. If you try you will be moved along – politely, but firmly – by one of the waiters, who also serve as boundary maintenance staff.
SOYO will be more like a shopping mall, Trinity or Victoria Gate. Rules and regulations will be prominently displayed. You won’t be excluded exactly, but there will be monitoring of behaviour by security staff and nudging away of undesirables who may just want to congregate without consuming.
In the end I’m not sure The Guardian has the right terminology. Do “private” and “public” space refer to real things anymore? Maybe there’s only “priced-space”? Space in the city made available to anyone who can afford it. You pays your money and you claims your place.
Most of us reading this will be priced out of SOYO.
Get prepared to be the “less desirables” of LS9.
Right on with this one Phil – as we used to say.
You are getting into my territory now and I must admit it is giving me a deliciously Sour taste in the mouth.
The use of the idea of “public space” worse “the public realm” has always caused me a slight disturbance in the stomach to continue the metaphor. Basically, because when you get right down to it I don’t think anywhere is equally accessible to everyone. Everywhere some people will feel unwanted, priced out, banned, fearful or whatever else makes them avoid a particular space physically or psychologically at any given time.
The term tends to be used by people who have some sort of axe to grind or image to promote. Developers selling us spaces or Councils talking big I can understand. But it is those humanistic urbanistas who really trouble my guts. They seem to imagine that their facile views of the livable, walkable, vibrant, café rich city will be a “Happy city” which is equally accessible and desirable to everyone: people who unsurprisingly are an exact clone of themselves. Fortunately, the amusing thing is their top down elitist view of the world exactly mirrors their critique of modernist planners of the past who they despise so much. They
might laugh at this paradox if they did but come out from all their
conversations and public engagement.
Anyway, getting to the point – as you say we have to consider who creates the language of “public space” as an urban construct and how access or denial of access to that space is operationalized. Here you give lots of evidence of the economics of environmental exclusion and the way in which it is enforced.
Personally, I would like to dig a little deeper into some of the underlying issues which make the situation you describe possible and which make the idea of “public space” even more problematical.
So, let’s begin with YEP article and the setting it describes. It’s obviously a pure puff piece for the developer and promotes the “success” of the city through the collusion (sorry partnership) between LCC and the private sector. The local media stepping up to their task of civic boosterism as is their role. What you didn’t mention was that underneath the piece you cite there was further waffle from Judith Blake “mother of the city” stating, “We want Leeds city Centre to be recognized as a place which is inclusive, friendly and innovative, creating jobs and driving economic growth but very much taking a people first approach” and naturally enough it follows in this utopia that “public spaces have a vital role to play”.
You actually undersold your original critique, Phil, because you didn’t really make to most of the articles self-exposure of who these people in SOYO are envisaged to be. Actually, they will be the users of a “boutique spa hotel from a brand new to Leeds” and live (possible not all the time) in “hotel style apartments inspired (presumably by the rent levels and property values) by New York and San Francisco living” not surprisingly then there will need to be (as you say) “a link to John Lewis and Victoria Gate”. Such are the people that Judith Bake is putting “first” and by such puff the idea of “public space” is created in words.
Of course, words do not by themselves create the actuality, as you say, “public space” has to be managed and policed in some way. There are several layers to this. First below the level of the hedges and roped off “beer gardens” are the legal and administrative regulations which make such physical arrangements possible. So here again we are into relationships this time between LCC and Leeds BID. Some have argued that the creation of BIDs in and of themselves are a form of semi-privatisation where functions formerly provided by the public authorities are passed over to the private sector in exchange for business rate concessions, relaxation of certain planning restrictions and so on. So now we have BID’s street rangers cleaning up and City Ambassadors doing whatever it is they do. We have unsought “street art” provided to add vibrancy.
In the end, all city centre space is a commodity from which value can be raised. It is logical then that if higher returns for the hospitality industry can be gained from clogging up pavements with seats and tables; selling drinks at the expense of anyone using a wheel chair or mobility scooter then this is what LCC will or have already facilitated through their relationship with Leeds BID.
The next layer we have to look at is the question of legal powers of exclusion. You mention “private employees” as an example. This is correct but again we now have a huge range of people with different roles, powers and responsibilities operating in the city centre – from Homeless Outreach teams from LCC and voluntary organisations, and Street Angels to (in extremis) the military. In between we have shop security, door staff, LCC street wardens and environmental enforcement officers (some of whom work under contract with private sector) and West Yorkshire Police. The Courts too, play a role in banning certain individuals from the area. It’s good to know that all these people are keeping us safe, improving the quality of the city’s retail and hospitality offer and enhancing our consumer experience.
Next layer down are all the surveillance and data systems which drive these hidden processes. I don’t know how many cameras public and private cameras track my moments in real time as I stroll around the city centre – probably several hundred all recently digitally enhanced presumably to improve facial recognition. Speakers can probably address us remotely but directly if we are in danger or showing signs that we may be a danger to others. I’m sure algorithms are or soon will be available so that undesirables can be apprehended before any potential disturbance is caused. You would have to talk to BACIL, Safer Leeds and West Yorkshire Police about all this.
But of course, this will not all be restrictive soon big data will be able to customize and curate our urban environment based on individual customer profiles. There will be sea of ever-changing signs and visual displays tuned as you walk past and who knows perhaps the mood music and lighting in shops will change if you arrive in at a quiet time. Beyond the V.I.P. lounges of today perhaps the physical and sensory environment will adapt specially for you and your peers with mysterious doors opening or barriers falling to allow or deny you access to particular consumer experiences. Fortunately, wherever all this develops first it will not be in Leeds.
Remember Phil in this world – in the words of Paris May 68 – “Nous sommes tous indesirables”
Ha, I’d forgotten that poster.
I reckon the screens on those new phone boxes in the town centre will soon be speaking seductively to us as we do our Saturday shopping.
And have you heard about the new “Evening Welcome Ambassadors”? For our own safety, of course…
Should have thought of those screens I can see in the future they will be “curated just for you”.
Regarding Ambassadors – I’m thinking “Replicant” as they “utilise the existing BACIL radio network, connecting over 350 retailers and night-time venues with each other and the police, to keep in touch and share information”.
In a sense they are robotised already – corporately uniformed, programmed to interact with revellers in particular ways, moved around in space by remote control and able to feedback with audio and presumably video.
But If they still are human now I’m sure they will soon be replaced by something even more low cost, compliant and efficient for the task.
In the PR they are dressed for summer but as winter approaches I guess they will have overcoats and those bowler hats that make me think Peaky Blinders or may be Oddjob from Goldfinger
kind regards
Sour