Boundary of Architecture - Minutes from the Second Discussion Evening

Where does architecture begin and end? This question was posed by the organization Architects Without Borders. An organization that is interested in public space and interpersonal relationships. This led to the project of discussion evenings called The Boundaries of Architecture, which aims to bring architects and experts from other professions to the same table. The discussion evenings will provide a perspective on one topic from various angles, or, conversely, a cross-section may crystallize from different opinions. The discussion evenings of The Boundaries of Architecture are open to both professionals and the public. The involvement of the audience in the discussion, whether through questions or opinions, is welcome.
The second discussion evening focused on the topic of the Commercialization of Public Space. How does an anthropologist perceive public space and how does an architect? What is the influence of shopping centers on the city? Where is the boundary between public and private? These were the questions that arose during the discussion evening of The Boundaries of Architecture in March 2018. The invitation was accepted by architect and poet Anna Beata Háblová and social anthropologist Michal Lehečka.
Architect Anna Beata Háblová views public space as the living room of the city. She sees its essence in openness and accessibility to everyone, regardless of who owns the space. Social anthropologist Michal Lehečka pointed out the intangible aspects of this concept. It includes, for example, social discourse. It changes over time or under the influence of those who use it. The environment of a shopping center was mentioned as an example, which serves as a leisure place for visitors but represents a workplace and important social ties for employees.
The edges of public space, the meeting of private and public, are key. In these places, activities that support the viability of public space have the potential to arise. As with many other things, moderation applies here - excessive concentration of activities can be harmful as a result. Public space is shaped and altered under the influence of certain ideologies. However, we must not forget to observe what happens to public space under the influence of a particular ideology in the context of the current economic system. The growing attractiveness of a certain urban area results in pressure on its residents. On a symbolic level, we speak of displacement, where residents no longer feel at home. On a spatial level, complete displacement can occur - the original inhabitants leave the place entirely.
A suitable shopping center can support the city. Conversely, an inappropriate shopping center (due to its location, scale, or architecture) can drain life from the city. An example is the OC Nová Karolína in Ostrava, which transformed the Silesian metropolis into a ghost town; simply put, everyone is in Nová Karolína. The city's secondary response can be a process called mallization, which means that the city adopts the principles of a shopping center and applies them to its public space. There will be a reconstruction of the center, increased protection of the streets, installation of omnipresent cameras, and in extreme cases, the introduction of so-called operators for individual streets who manage the leasing of commercial spaces. Such conditions are favorable for multinational chains and brands, while the local uniqueness of the city fades away.
In the Dutch city of Almere, the shopping center has the character of a lively street: the ground floor contains restaurants, and its multifunctional structure connects to the existing street network. Similarly successful shopping centers can be found in Munich - Fünf Höfe and De Citadel in Barcelona. Among Czech examples, OC Nový Smíchov stands out, which is proportionate in scale and fits into the structure of the city. It connects the street with Sacré Cœur park and maintains a multifunctional character. In summary, it cannot be said that shopping centers are unequivocally bad. It depends on how they are designed.
Austrian architect Viktor Grün keenly perceived the shortcomings of American suburbia in the 1950s, which lacked a center where people could meet while taking advantage of service offerings. He then came up with the social idea of shopping centers, allowing families to solve everything they needed in one place. However, the commercial potential of this idea soon manifested, with only its profitable part remaining, which spread through American suburbs like a wave. The saturation of suburbs and cities with shopping centers subsequently led to original buildings standing empty, awaiting new purposes. Ironically, they become spaces for non-profit organizations, schools, and churches, creating the originally intended community centers.
The situation in which shopping centers evolved in America can also be interpreted as a process in the city referred to as displacement. In the 1950s, wild suburbanization occurred in the USA: the mortgage market peaked, and it was ideologically correct to live in a detached house, leading to depopulation of city centers, which gradually became homes for the poor. A change in societal attitudes two decades later attracted the middle class back from the suburbs to the city centers, pushing out the previous, socially weaker population. The principle of gain for the city is its constant change. But is this a necessary process?
This term has emerged since the 1960s and is related to two factors. Firstly, the transformation of industrial cities into post-industrial ones, which manifested in changes in the labor market and the weakening of the welfare state. The second factor is the financialization of the market, where the banking sector has gained a leading role with an emphasis on mortgages. The result is the understanding of housing as an object of exchange. For a long time, we overlooked the societal changes and transformations concerning the commodification of housing. Housing ceased to be seen as a right and as a fundamental need for existence and human culture.
When we speak in this context about public space, it is necessary to remember its original concept. Commons, or "občina," referred to community pastureland, serving everyone to graze their sheep, or a communal shelter where the weakest in the community found a roof over their heads. This idea remains relevant today: the state of public space can reflect the relationship of society to its weakest members.
The city belongs to everyone. As Michal Lehečka remarked, the city was created to enable easier living (originally to provide safer housing due to the accumulation of administration and military, later trade was added). A significant imperative of the current state is the fact that our cities are effectively collapsing; we no longer perceive the consequences of our actions. The way forward is to actively engage with our city and participate. To talk about the problems around us. To name the events that prevent cities from being sustainable.