USA's Destiny? Regulating Space and Creating Community in American Shopping Malls
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Urban Studies, Vol. 43, Nos 5/6, 977– 992, May 2006
USA’s Destiny? Regulating Space and Creating
Community in American Shopping Malls
Lynn A. Staeheli and Don Mitchell
[Paper first received, October 2005; in final form, January 2006]
Summary. In North American cities, shopping malls are heralded as the new town square.
Historically, the town square was a place where diverse people came together and where politics,
economics and sociability were intermingled. However, shopping centres, which are separated
from the old downtown by distance or design, seem for many people to be the new heart of
public and social life. It is argued in this article that the regulation of the spaces of the mall is
intended to create ‘community’ rather than a ‘public’. In the process of creating community, the
political potential of public space and the quality of publicity created are contorted so as to
muffle political opposition and critique in the name of civility. This argument is illustrated
through an examination of the Carousel Center Mall in Syracuse, New York.
Community is an appealing alternative to bench-squatters create a feeling of threat or
public life. It promises to provide the plea- insecurity for many people, leading some to
sures of sociability without the discomforts argue that disorderly behaviours threaten the
of the unfamiliar (Kohn, 2004, p. 193). norm of civility that is an essential feature
of the town square. Shopping centres, which
In North American cities, shopping malls are are separated from the old downtown by dis-
heralded as the new town square. Historically, tance and which are often designed to
the town square was a place where diverse mirror superficial features of the old town
people came together and where politics, square, thus seem for many people to be the
economics and sociability were intermingled. new heart of the ‘legitimate’ public, where
By contrast, the centres of many contempor- sociability, civility and commerce again
ary cities are cast as having been abandoned flourish. The regulation of these new com-
by all who can afford to leave at the end of munity spaces, however, contorts the political
the work-day, turning town squares into potential of public space and the quality of
sites where homeless people and drug publicity in and through it.
dealers appropriate public space and where In the preceding paragraph, we switched
economics and sociability are combined in between the words ‘public’ and ‘community’.
very different ways than they are during the In discussing civility, we argue that this dis-
day. But even during weekdays, homeless cursive move is significant and not accidental;
people, people asking for handouts and instead, it is a key element of the regulation of
Lynn Staeheli is currently in the Institute of Behavioural Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0487, USA. Fax: (303) 492
6924. E-mail: lynner@colorado.edu. From July 2006, she will be in the Institute of Geography, University of Edinburgh, Drummond
Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9XP, UK. Don Mitchell is in the Department of Geography, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA. Fax:
(315) 443 4227. E-mail: Dmmitc01@maxwell.syr.edu. This research was funded by National Science Foundation grant BCS-
9819828; that support is greatly appreciated. The authors also thank their anonymous reviewers and the Editors of this Review Issue.
0042-0980 Print=1360-063X Online=06=5–60977 –16 # 2006 The Editors of Urban Studies
DOI: 10.1080=00420980600676493978 LYNN A. STAEHELI AND DON MITCHELL
space in malls to create a space for commerce Center Mall in Syracuse, New York; this illus-
and an environment that is safe, secure and tration is based on reviews of newspaper
civil—at least for a particular portion of the accounts and interviews with officials and
citizenry. As Margaret Kohn argues in the activists involved with the mall. A brief
epigraph to this article, public implies ran- description of the mall and its role in the
domness, chance and confrontation with public life of Syracuse is initiated in the next
difference, whereas community emphasises section of the article.
commonality, smoothing over (or perhaps
excluding) difference. She argues further that
Carousel Center
community
Carousel Center Mall opened in October 1990
collapses the distinction between public
on a brownfield site north of downtown
and private. It fulfills people’s longing for
Syracuse, New York (Roberts and Schein,
sociability in a context that incorporates
1993; Short et al., 1993). Built by the
the appeals of private life: security, famili-
Pyramid Companies, an important Syracuse-
arity, identity, and (for some) control
based, East Coast mall developer, its buildings
(Kohn, 2004, p. 193).
and parking lots stretch for almost a mile along
In this way, community works with ideas of the shore of Lake Onondaga. Perhaps because
civility, drawing simultaneously on ideas the lake is heavily polluted from receiving a
about the importance of conformity to the century’s worth of industrial waste and raw
practices of citizenship, on orderliness and sewage, the mall does not take advantage of
on responsibility as a community member. its lake-side setting. Instead, it walls itself off
We argue that the emphasis on community, from the lake. In fact, visitors to the mall
then, creates a moral justification for the regu- could spend all day there without knowing
lation of space within the mall in ways that, in there is a large lake right next door. Nor does
the name of civility, blend public ideals with the mall open up to the city; nothing but two
particular forms of public control and private miles of empty, scrub-filled lots fills the
accumulation that many Americans believe space between Carousel and the centre of the
cannot be accommodated in the public city to the south. The nearest neighbourhood,
spaces of the city.1 to the east, is separated from the mall not
This article is organised in four sections in only by extensive parking lots, but also a
which we explore the differences between major interstate highway. Carousel Center is,
the ideals of public and community and how and was designed to be, fully self-contained.
ideas of civility function in each. In so It is a separate city, comprising five main
doing, we focus primarily on the ways in anchor stores, several restaurants, a large
which these ideas are deployed in political multiscreen cinema, and a ‘Sky Deck’, open
theory and then how they are translated into to community uses.
the material spaces of the city. We focus Carousel Center is massive. The interior
on three modes of regulation of the spaces of hallways stretch for almost a kilometre,
the mall that signal the move between the although the sightlines are broken by push-
creation of spaces for the public to the creation cart vendors, gleaming glass elevator banks
of spaces of community; these modes include and advertising kiosks. The food court and
the regulation of institutions, activities and seating areas are always crowded, as the
people. We conclude by arguing that these mall has become the premier gathering-place
new community spaces blend public and in the region. The mall management sponsors
private in ways that can be used to enhance Christmas concerts, blood drives, non-profit
the profitability of malls and to muffle politi- fundraisers and other community events. In
cal opposition and critique in the name of short, in a city like Syracuse, where snowfall
civility. We illustrate these points throughout averages almost 3 metres a year, where 30
the paper with the example of the Carousel years of deindustrialisation have taken aUSA’S DESTINY? 979
deep toll on downtown and its surrounding the world’s largest enclosed and integrated
neighbourhoods and where suburban sprawl structure . . . operating with a unique
is occurring at some of the most rapid rates single-owner model [where] all of Destiny
in the country, Carousel Center has become USA’s dining, shopping, entertainment,
the new—indoor—city centre. hospitality, and recreation venues are phys-
In fact, the earliest plans for the mall called ically and virtually connected, providing
for it to be even more of a centre. The plans guests with a matchless combination of
included construction of some 2000 new resi- experience and convenience (Destiny
dential units nearby, a hotel, other shopping USA, 2005).
centres and a marina in Lake Onondaga
To that end, Pyramid Companies has obtained
(which is under an Environmental Protection
a new PILOT agreement, hired numerous
Agency mandate to be cleaned up) (Short
planners and others, engaged in a concerted
et al., 1993, p. 217). To finance all this, the
public relations campaign to win the support
Pyramid Companies secured a 25-year
of a sceptical public and, over the past five
payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreement
years, released several revised plans for the
that freed it from ordinary property taxes. It
expansion. What links all the plans is a
also secured significant public financing for
desire literally to internalise the public life
environmental remediation, lakefront devel-
and to create an all-new community setting
opment, access roads and so forth. As a
governed by a “unique single-owner model”.
declining industrial city, Syracuse eagerly
Such a desire, coupled with the fact that
supported the Carousel development as one
Carousel, like malls all over the US, already
of the city’s last best hopes for economic revi-
functions as the de facto urban centre in
talisation (Roberts and Schein, 1993; Short
Syracuse, makes it all the more imperative
et al., 1993).
to understand how ‘community’ and ‘public’
In the more than a decade the mall has been
are constructed in publicly accessible private
open, none of the amenities called for in the
properties like malls—and to what end. The
plans has been built, but the mall has nonethe-
next section begins that analysis.
less thrived. The Carousel Center website
claims, quite improbably, that the mall drew
17 million people in 2001 (Carousel Center,
Publicity, Community and Civility
2005a).2 Whatever the true number of visitors,
one would be hard-pressed to find a Syracuse On 27 February 2003, during the lead-up to
resident who does not spend at least some time the second war in Iraq, the management of
there every year. By contrast, it is not difficult the Carousel Center informed a local peace
to find area residents who never go downtown. group that they could no longer have a table
Carousel Center is truly the new gathering- in the mall (Gadoua, 2003). No explanation
place for central New York.3 And it is of the decision was given by the mall
poised—perhaps—to become an even more owners. The owners may have felt it was
important new urban centre. In 2000, the clear that the status of the mall as private
Pyramid Companies announced plans to trans- property meant they could welcome—or
form Carousel Center into a massive, retail- discourage—groups as they pleased. This
entertainment ‘destination resort’, expanding principle was established during an earlier
the mall by millions of square feet of commer- debate in 2000, when the Pyramid Companies
cial space, developing numerous hotels and argued that access to the mall had to be con-
creating a massive, glass-enclosed park, por- sistent with its primary function: consump-
tions of which will be designed to look like tion. “This is a building the public is invited
a Tuscan village, others a bucolic upstate to, not a public building”, they argued
New York glade.4 In short, Pyramid Compa- (Brieaddy, 2000). Activists, however,
nies hope to create a resort called Destiny disagreed, arguing that it was a de facto
USA that would be public space. And the editors of the Syracuse980 LYNN A. STAEHELI AND DON MITCHELL
Post-Standard agreed, writing that “Carousel Fraser, 1990; Howell, 1993; Martin, 2004;
is, of course, within its rights. The mall is Meehan, 1995; Staeheli and Mitchell, 2004;
private property”. The editorial continued, Young, 2000). But the idea of a public and a
however, noting that public realm is basic to Western understand-
ings of democracy.
Malls take the place of town squares, parks,
As one moves from abstract concepts
streets, and other spaces that are publicly
related to the public to more material analyses
owned. That should imply a heavy respon-
of it, a space for the public to do its work—to
sibility. Putting limits on speech—even
interact, to deliberate, to confront and work
when you have the right to do it—is
through differences and disagreements—has
dangerous (Post-Standard, 2003).
to be created. These spaces may be traditional
The debate over public access to the mall, its gathering-places (for example, the town
function as a de facto public space and over square, speakers’ corners, sidewalks or town
the kind of speech rights that pertained to halls) or they may be less tied to specific
the mall, points to the importance of space places (for example, media spaces, the Inter-
in allowing public debate and, ultimately, net, blogs). The kind of space in itself may
to sustaining a sense of ‘publicness’ in not be as important as the quality of inter-
the context of the perceived incivility of the actions afforded by different kinds of public
contemporary city. In this section of the spaces including: the kinds of people
article, we outline arguments about the admitted, the ability of different voices to be
public and public sphere and about the cre- heard, the range of speech and participation
ation of political community. We argue—as allowed, and the ways in which ideas are
do many others—that the creation and main- expressed and received. In the ideal, there
tenance of an inclusive, civil public sphere probably should be few constraints on
and the spaces for it are vital to democratic the public and those constraints should
citizenship. We then discuss the notion of themselves be subject to public debate and
community and note its increasing promi- deliberation (Calhoun, 1992; Young, 2000).
nence in discussions about public space and Yet the traditional spaces of the city where
about the public realm. We argue that the these democracy-inducing interactions were
reliance on a warm and fuzzy form of commu- supposed to happen seem to have withered
nity can result in a diminished potential for a and to be increasingly characterised by
democratic public. uncivil behaviours that both limit the potential
for reasoned speech and deliberation and the
willingness of people even to go to those
The Public and Publicness
spaces. There are relatively few public
Most Western theories of democracy posit a forums that allow deliberation, for example,
public sphere of some sort in which citizens with talk radio and the polemics associated
or members of a community can participate with it substituting for discussion about
in deliberation and decision-making regarding issues. Public input is mandated in most
the way the polity is organised and governed. policy processes, but the discussion here
The degree to which the public sphere is tends to be limited to specific policies and to
autonomous from a private sphere, the ways be scripted by technical rationality and
in which the public is constituted and organ- language that are beyond many citizens and
ised, the extent to which the public sphere is that are in many ways exclusionary
characterised by equality and co-presence (Habermas, 1970). And the traditional town
are debated and there is often discrepancy square is argued to be overrun by drug
between ideal or normative ideas of the dealers, panhandlers and other people exhibit-
public sphere as compared wth the ‘nitty- ing uncivil behaviours that drive many other
gritty’ of ‘actually existing’ democracies citizens away from the city centre, to other
(see Benhabib, 1996; Calhoun, 1992, 1998; places where such behaviour is controlled,USA’S DESTINY? 981
or even prohibited. Legal rulings that seem to 1993). One is a member of a community to
give priority to the speech and travel rights of the extent that other members recognise and
people engaging in ‘nuisance behaviours’ are accept the commonality, or what is shared.
said to lead to a diminished public space, In the ideal, a political community is based
leading to more segmented public inter- on shared political values, particularly values
actions, with implications for the quality of related to the processes by which decisions
democracy and publicity that can be achieved are made. It is this emphasis on shared politi-
in traditional public settings (Allen, 1994; cal values related to process that leads Jean
Ellickson, 1996; Teir, 1993). In response, Baechler (1993) to argue that the identity of
settings in which norms of community and community members is that of citizen, but
civility can be achieved become the new that the community itself is not defined by
sites of engagement and interaction. content. Beliefs and values beyond partici-
To understand the implications of these pation should not be pre-given, but instead
norms for the construction of publicity, it is should form through debate. Exclusion
important to reflect on the relationship should be based on whether an individual is
between publicity and community as typically perceived to be able or willing to conform—
conceived in liberal democracies. The modern to share in the communal political values—
idea of the public is grounded in the Greek tra- rather than on attitudes about particular
dition of ‘polis’ and ‘political community’. As issues being debated.
Delanty argues, the polis was above all local This idealised notion of political commu-
and characterised by immediacy and civility. nities is in many ways compatible with the
He writes that idealised notion of the public described
earlier, but real political communities do not
Politics was based on the voice; in its pure
always work in such a fashion. Difference is
form it was indistinguishable from friend-
always created and the construction of differ-
ship and from participation in public life,
ence rarely stays within the tidy bounds put
which was both an ideal and a practice for
forth by political philosophers; this is not sur-
the Greeks, who did not know the separ-
prising when politics are understood as being
ation of the social from the political
intimately bound with and constituted through
(Delanty, 2003, pp. 12 –13).
social and economic relationships—relation-
In such a political community, politics is con- ships that are themselves based on hierarchies
ducted in everyday life (Arendt, 1958). While of power and exclusion. It is for this reason
this notion of political community is embra- that Engin Isin (2002, p. 22) describes politi-
cing for those within the community, it cal communities (or polities or cities) as
carries two implications that are important “difference machines” in which citizens or
for our evaluation of the quality of the members are continually defined in opposition
public and of civility in spaces of consump- to strangers, or to those who can be excluded.
tion. The first implication has to do with And he argues that, while the form or manifes-
exclusion and difference, while the second tation of difference and exclusion varies tem-
has to do with responsibility. porally and spatially, exclusionary processes
It is something of a truism to say that com- are always at work.
munities are inherently exclusionary and are Members of the polity may feel little moral
based on the construction of difference; this obligation as citizens to those who have been
is no less true for political communities than excluded, but civility implies a strong norm of
for other types of communities. Communities obligation and responsibility to others within
are often rooted in some element of common- the political community (Dunn, 1990;
ality, whether commonality is based on social, Horton, 1992; Smith, 1998). At minimum,
economic, historical or political relationships these norms include respect for other citizens,
(Baechler, 1993; Goulding, 1993; Kemmis, for the values that underlie the community and
1990; Lichterman, 1996; Mouffe, 1992; Post, for the decisions that citizens make;5 in short,982 LYNN A. STAEHELI AND DON MITCHELL
these norms speak to basic tenets of civility. the name of maintaining civility and commu-
Responsibilities also include following the nal rights; hence, it may affect the ways in
rules established by the community and the which people and institutions imagine the
institutions of governance. These responsibil- nation and society and the ways in which citi-
ities are sometimes described in terms of zens should move through the world. Delanty
procedures that must be followed and they writes that this conceptualisation of the com-
underpin many liberal formulations of democ- munity member/citizen emphasises
racy. Political communitarians, however, add
less the entitled citizen than the dutiful
another layer of obligation or responsibility
citizen. . . . Community articulates disciplin-
to the community.
ary strategies, such as community policing,
There are several strands of political comu-
neighbourhood watches, and a political sub-
nitarianism, each of which shares a concern for
jectivity that does not seek large scale sol-
the ontological foundations of community, and
utions to social problems but rather looks to
especially with the ways in which individuals
voluntarism (Delanty, 2003, p. 90).
are situated within communities and societies.
As Delanty (2003) argues, comunitarianism is This notion of community as a disciplinary
not necessarily hostile to or opposed to politi- strategy in governance is key to the ways in
cal liberalism and, as Giddens (1994) notes, which civility in public spaces—whether in
political comunitarianism is a discourse the shopping mall or the traditional town
deployed on both the political right and left square—is maintained. Rather than being
(see also Staeheli, 2003). Political communi- something natural, organic and voluntaristic,
tarians frame citizenship as more than a communities are also tightly regulated and
social contract (as is typical of liberalism), policed by agents and processes both internal
understanding citizenship as a civic relation- and external to the community itself, and the
ship between individuals and political commu- controls on community may effectively be
nities in which each has certain rights that hidden by the comforting and affirming aura
should be taken into consideration in develop- of community (Rose, 1999; Kohn, 2004).
ing a politics of a common good (Glendon, Regulation and control may proceed further
1991; Kemmis, 1990). Thus communitarians in private spaces, as well, reflecting a new
add another set of rights that must be respected conservative ideology in which politics are
in democracy, and these are communal rights private and non-confrontational.6
that may under some circumstances curtail or
qualify the unabridged exercise of some indi-
Regulating and Creating the Public
vidual rights (Glendon, 1991; Etzioni, 1993).
in the Mall
In and of itself, there may be nothing mena-
cing or undemocratic in this formulation. Yet Functioning as the new town squares, shop-
many commentators have identified an ascen- ping malls may effectively exercise the kind
dance of what Nikolas Rose (1999, p. 176) of control that Rose and Kohn were con-
terms “government through community”, in cerned about, creating a qualitatively differ-
which civility and the behaviours and expec- ent ‘civic’ or ‘community’ space in which
tations of citizens are regulated through invo- only certain kinds of people, ideas and
cation of community. Significantly, however, behaviours are acceptable in public. In this
the ideals of community deployed in govern- section of the article, we focus on the ways
ment through community often foreground in which the public is regulated in malls,
individual responsibilities to conform to com- using the example of the Carousel Center.
munity; community’s responsibility to the
individual is muted and depoliticised. In
Regulating Institutions and Functions
moving towards government through commu-
nity, the notions of deliberation, dialogue and The first (and perhaps most obvious) mode of
confrontation with difference may be lost in regulation is in the kind of functions orUSA’S DESTINY? 983
institutions that are allowed into the mall. manager of the Carousel Mall was completely
Consistent with the rights accorded to prop- clear on this point, saying that they can refuse
erty owners, malls select the tenants allowed to allow different users into the mall precisely
into the mall and thereby regulate the kinds because the mall is not downtown and is not a
of activities to be found there. Mall owners traditional civic centre
do not have complete control over this, of
We have the ability [to control functions in
course, as business owners exercise their
the mall]. It is private property. You prob-
own agency, but owners set the parameters
ably get to the point where everybody
for the kind of institutions and functions
thinks that it ought to be like a street
allowed into the mall. Mall owners are clear
corner and everybody can do what they
that malls are first and foremost spaces of con-
want. But the mall is not a street corner.
sumption and so they will try to create a retail
. . . If I look at a downtown corner in the
mix that will attract a particular segment of
city, I think anybody could go there and
the consuming public. The flipside of this is
stand on the corner and do what they
that they are unlikely to allow functions that
want. I think you have the ability to do
will interfere with commerce or that will
that within reason. But the people that
allow a non-commercial institution to
control that would be the police. The
‘compete’ with services available for pur-
police would control as to when you’re
chase in the mall. Competition in the mall is
going overboard and things like that. I’m
carefully managed, based on comments from
not sure that’s something that we want . . .
tenants, consumers and management’s predic-
There’s a lot of people here. They feel
tions about future retail trends. As Carousel
that they’re not shopping downtown.
Center’s manager commented
They’re shopping here.
Our primary purpose it to make money. . . .
Furthermore, he argued that it was the
We are constantly looking at traffic to see
responsibility of mall management to ensure
how we’re doing from day-to-day, month-
that the services provided by non-profit,
to-month, year-to-year, looking at sales
local government or community groups did
reports to see how tenants are doing.
not compete with the paying tenants in the
We’re getting feedback from customers to
mall. Restrictions on the community functions
see who they would like, all those kinds
allowed into the mall, then, are intended to
of things”.7
ensure that they are consistent with the
In this sense, the function of the mall as a primary goal of consumption; access is
gathering-place or as a new kind of downtown limited and permission to use the mall may
is clearly secondary and the mall considers its be rescinded at any time.
primary purpose of profit before other At the same time, the restrictions cannot be
concerns such as building community or a too strict and mall owners recognise a certain
public sphere. symbiosis; when people use the mall for com-
Mall owners do, however, often recognise munity or civic functions, they may also do
their role in the community and allow func- some shopping and the ‘generosity’ of the
tions into the mall that are not obviously mall in making space available for community
commercial. In Knoxville, Tennessee, for functions can generate a loyalty to the place.
instance, a newly built shopping centre Newly developed malls try to foster a sense
offers a host of civic functions, in the name of community and of the mall as a place of
of taking the services to the people (Kohn, sociability; comfortable chairs clustered in
2004). Since the population is growing at the ‘living rooms’ that shoppers can use to
periphery of metropolitan areas, it makes gather and to chat are one part of this effort.
some sense to take services there. The kinds Also important is making the mall available
of services and community functions, to ‘mall walkers’ by making walking circuits
however, may be tightly controlled. The through the mall where senior citizens get984 LYNN A. STAEHELI AND DON MITCHELL
cardio-vascular exercise in the climate-con- (the elected governing board for the city)
trolled comfort and safety of the mall. And who was involved in working with the mall
many malls, such as Carousel Center, offer to make it more accessible to city residents
community rooms that non-profit organis- did not know there were community rooms
ations can use for meetings or special in the mall, as this exchange makes clear
events. At Carousel, these rooms are known
as the ‘Sky Deck’, which has two rooms and DM: There are already community rooms in
a kitchen that caterers could use on the top the tower [the Sky Deck] that we’ll be
level of the mall. The manager of the mall going in today. I don’t know what all the
argued that these two community rooms restrictions are, the ways to get access to
served the public good, providing a meeting- the community rooms.
place. He neglected to say, however, that the Respondent: See, I didn’t even know that. If
meeting place required $300 for room rental. there are rooms, they are not well adver-
Furthermore, there were limitations on the tised . . . And I don’t want to say that’s on
way these rooms could be used. purpose, but once again, with a for-profit
It is not clear, for example, that the rooms attitude, they’re worried about tenants and
were used by a wide variety of groups (as people shopping, not people using it for
one might expect, given the relatively steep other purposes.
room rental). The mall manager’s description
of the users was vague, but what he did Indeed, the community rooms were not
mention hardly seems representative of the mentioned anywhere on the Center’s website.
community at large or of the range of activi- A second factor limiting public use of the
ties that one would expect to see in a public space may be cost. As noted, mall manage-
sphere ment charged a hefty sum for rental that
would be too expensive for many community
It can be used for weddings. Stores use it for
groups to pay. It also charged a 15 per cent
training, for interviewing. Proms. There
surcharge on caterers to serve food and only
was a Boy Scout dinner up there last
six caterers had the right to provide food
night. We also have a private community
there, thereby limiting competition amongst
room, which is an area for anywhere from
the caterers. In response to questions as to
a couple of people up to 25, 30 people,
whether the surcharges would be passed on
and it’s a little more private. . . . I know
to non-profit organisations, mall management
we have crisis groups that meet there, and
simply said, “I can’t answer that question.
you know. It’s a variety.
I hope the caterers would not be doing any-
While recognising that the manager would not thing like that”. When caterers were asked
be able to provide a complete list of users whether the restrictions on who could cater
from memory, the users he did list do not in events were fair, one caterer commented,
any way span the range of public or of non- “The Carousel Center can do anything they
profit organisations in the city; most of the want. It’s their place” (Carr, 1991). Appar-
functions listed are, in fact, private uses of ently, it was not the community’s place. It
the space. The users seem consistent with certainly no longer is the community’s
the idea that the mall is a building that is place, either, as the Pyramid Companies
public only insofar as some members of the decided in 2005 they would no longer allow
public are invited to it. the rooms to be used for community functions.
Part of the difficulty in seeing the public But was the issue of community access also
function of the mall may reside in the fact about definitions of community? When
that the mall management did not make it Pyramid negotiated with the City for a new
known that the Sky Deck was available for PILOT agreement in 2000 to create Destiny
community use. For example, one of the USA, the company promised they would
members of the Syracuse Common Council make educational spaces available for theUSA’S DESTINY? 985
public. As one member of the Common people are invited to come and to conform
Council recalled to norms of civility. It is in the process of
inviting—and uninviting—people that the
There was an educational aspect of the plan
kind of public gathering is shaped.
where they were going to have dedicated
Most mall owners undoubtedly would
space for basically an educational initiative,
argue that they have the right to exclude
where they’re going to allow people to get
people from the mall. They would focus on
their GED.8 They’re going to allow school-
the fact that the mall is private property and
ing to go on inside the Carousel Mall. So
argue that forcing them to allow everyone
that was something that was able to be
onto the property would be a ‘taking’ of
worked in. Although, it is not in the
their rights. Courts in the US approach the
PILOT agreement, it is once again ‘trust
issue somewhat differently, questioning
me’, a leap of faith. We have a commitment
whether the malls actually function as a
that the developers are going to allow that.
public space and weighing the relative import-
In another interview a few hours later, ance of property rights and individual liber-
however, we learned that the mall manage- ties, such as freedoms of assembly and
ment had a different idea of what that edu- speech (Freeman, 1998; Kohn, 2004). Their
cational initiative would involve. The conclusion has been that malls do play a role
‘learning centre’ would involve the Syracuse in providing a public setting and that property
library and some of the higher education insti- rights of owners do not automatically super-
tutions in the region, but would focus on job cede the rights to speech; rather, court
training and adult education for construction rulings have left the question of the balance
and retail workers as part of the proposed between individual liberties and property
expansion of the mall. This is rather different rights somewhat open, in part to reflect the
from a place to obtain general education or a constitutional protections on speech and
high school equivalency degree; it is edu- assembly that individual states might enact.
cation in support of the commercial function While we develop this point later in the
of the mall or of the mall as private property. article, for now it is important to note that
Other quasi-educational institutions proposed courts have recognised the rights of property
for the mall expansion—such as an aquarium owners—including mall owners—to limit
and a reconstructed Erie Canal village access to their property.
museum—would be commercial establish- There are a host of ways that mall owners
ments. Commerce, after all, is the primary can effectively ‘uninvite’ certain elements of
function of the mall and putatively public the public. The placement of malls in subur-
goods would be supported insofar as they sup- ban areas or areas without adequate public
ported that function. By regulating the kinds transit is one way that access can be limited.
of institutions—even ostensibly public insti- In the case of Carousel Center, the Pyramid
tutions—present in the privately owned Companies expansion plans call for a multi-
space of the mall, mall owners attempt to purpose, destination entertainment shopping
shape the community in ways that are consist- centre that remains disconnected from the
ent with commerce, which is not necessarily rest of the city of Syracuse and from other
consistent with an inclusive public sphere. redevelopment efforts. One design proposal,
for example, surrounded much of the mall
with four-storey parking decks, requiring a
Regulating Inclusion
long trek through the parking structures and
Malls require traffic—people—in order to across a highway if someone were to come
survive. Thus mall owners emphasise the to the mall using public transport. One
ways in which malls serve as a gathering- member of the Common Council commented
place; as noted previously, however, it is a that Pyramid was more interested in building a
gathering-place of a particular sort, in which moat around the redeveloped centre than in986 LYNN A. STAEHELI AND DON MITCHELL
building connections with the rest of the city. and threatening, disrupting the feeling of
While the mall manager agreed that it would safety that many expect in the mall. But
be nice to have a connection with the city, malls cannot simply exclude youth, since
he said it would be up to some other entity youth are also an important part of the
to design and build it. consuming public the mall needs to attract
Other strategies to limit access include for survival. One national study in 2003, for
codes of conduct and use of surveillance and example, found that nearly 75 per cent of
security teams to make people who do not youth between the ages of 13 and 18 either
‘belong’ feel uncomfortable or, in some had jobs or hoped to find jobs during the
cases, to remove them (Goss, 1993; school year and that over 50 per cent of
Hopkins, 1991; Kohn, 2004; Shields, 1989). them spent their earnings on clothing and
From the perspective of mall owners, this entertainment, including music, movies and
makes sense in terms of the kind of market video games (Auer, 2003). In American
niche they want to attract and in order to malls, clothing stores that cater to youth and
provide a feeling of safety and comfort for music and video stores are important tenants.
their targeted consumers. Many people do Youth not only purchase goods in the mall,
avoid the downtown centres of cities precisely they also buy food and are an important part
because they feel uncomfortable being con- of the fast-food customer base. But youth do
fronted with people who are different from not just buy their clothes and a hamburger
them or who seem threatening, thereby limit- and then leave. They often ‘hang out’ and
ing the kind of public that is created there socialise in the mall, using it as the gathering-
(Allen, 1994; Ellickson, 1996; Teir, 1993). place that malls promote themselves as provid-
But whereas this limitation arises through ing. Their presence in malls is obvious during
the choices of members of the public to weekend evenings, as the mall has become a
remove themselves from public space, malls place where youth can socialise indoors
try to limit access to the private space of the without the direct supervision of parents; in
malls as a way of attracting a very specific places with uncomfortably cold or hot climates,
kind of public—a consuming public that is malls are important social spaces.
not threatening to other consumers. As the The success of malls in attracting young
manager of Carousel put it customers, however, increasingly seems to
be at odds with the demands of other custo-
One of my objectives is to maintain a safe,
mers and so malls around the country have
clean environment so that, no matter what
begun to implement curfews for teens. The
time of the day or what time of the week,
Mall of America, the largest mall in the US,
anybody wants to come here, they would
may have been one of the first to implement
expect to find a place where they don’t
a curfew. Mall management estimated that
feel threatened.
over 10 000 unsupervised teens would gather
The effort to create a non-threatening, non- in the mall on Friday and Saturday evenings,
challenging environment has led many malls and would sometimes engage in raucous beha-
to exclude or to severely limit access to the viour, shouting, laughing and running. Even
mall for one segment of the public: youth. when gathering quietly, some older customers
Teenagers and young adults occupy an complained that the youth dressed in gang
ambiguous position within the public, with colours. After a shooting at the mall, a ‘par-
some rights accorded to them, but other ental escort policy’ for youth under age 16
rights withheld. What does seem unambigu- was implemented. While some mall users
ous, however, is the wariness that many were comforted by this, others argued that
older adults feel around youth and, in particu- the policy was racist, as most of the youth
lar, young males or young people of colour were African American whereas most of the
(Collins and Kearns, 2001; Pain, 2001). By people complaining about youth presence
their very presence, youth can be challenging were Caucasian (Freeman, 1998).USA’S DESTINY? 987
The Carousel Center management had been In this mauling of public space, democratic
reluctant to implement a curfew, but ulti- theorists have confronted extremely sophis-
mately imposed one in 2003. The policy states ticated marketing experts, and the demo-
cratic theorists have been the losers. The
Carousel Center has instituted a Parental
political theorists who are most concerned
Escort Policy on Fridays and Saturdays
with democracy have failed to offer a con-
between the hours of 4pm and closing.
vincing rationale to challenge the privatiza-
Anyone under the age of 18 visiting
tion of public space (Kohn, 2004, p. 80).
Carousel Center must be accompanied by
a parent or guardian 21 years of age or As a result, the public/private spaces of the
older. One parent or guardian (21 years of mall are cleansed of those people whom
age or older) is permitted to supervise up ‘legitimate’ members of the public find offen-
to five teens. Teens must remain within sive or worrying or, more specifically, the
the company of their parent or guardian. mall is cleansed of those people who may
Acceptable proof of age is a driver’s challenge social norms and expectations
license, state/provincial non-driver ID, related to civility (and perhaps to consump-
military or college ID, passport or visa. tion). Accordingly, the importance of respon-
This policy does not apply to the cinemas sibility to the community seems to have
or stores with exterior entrances. (Carousel trumped the importance of an inclusive,
Center, 2005b). democratic public sphere.
The policy was implemented after adult
patrons complained that groups of youth
Regulating Activities
were just ‘hanging out’ on Fridays and Satur-
days “running around, making noise, and The trumping of publicity is perhaps most
fighting” (Doran and Errington, 2003). In clear in the regulation of activities in shop-
implementing the curfew, Pyramid hired ping malls; it is in this way that the full
‘greeters’ to check identification and to ask implications of the regulation of institutions
teens to leave. A new ‘community room’ was and of the terms of inclusion may be most
established to hold teens violating the curfew clearly seen. As we demonstrate in the
until a ride could come to pick them up. following paragraphs, the regulation of
Teens, of course, complained, as did some activities in malls is justified in terms of the
older adults who wrote letters to the editor. responsibility of people invited into the mall
No one has seemed capable of mounting a not to upset or disrupt other members of the
defence of youth in the spaces of the mall, community who are using the space for con-
however, and the curfew remains in place. sumption and accepted forms of sociability
Youth are apparently part of the public when and civility.
consuming, but not when socialising—or at One can think of the teen curfews as an
least not on Friday or Saturday evening. example of regulating activity (such as,
What does it mean for ideas about ‘the hanging out) by regulating inclusion. In this
public’ to implement restrictions like this, par- case, the activities of some teens were deemed
ticularly when the behaviour of some people disruptive to other community members, justi-
means that other members of the public fying the exclusion of an entire class of
avoid a place? Democratic theorists have people—at least at certain times or unless
failed to take on the significance of the accompanied by a ‘responsible’ community
spaces in which the public can gather and, member. Another example—and one perhaps
by extension, the problems when privatised more obviously related to our concern for the
spaces—which legally can restrict access— ways in which a focus on community mutes
become the primary gathering-place for the the democratic potential of the new town
public. As Kohn writes in a word play on squares in malls—is the regulation of political
the ‘malling’ of America activities.988 LYNN A. STAEHELI AND DON MITCHELL If malls are to function as the new town Carousel Center and the Pyramid Compa- square or a new civic space, then the political nies have negotiated the rules set forth in activities allowed in public space should be Pruneyard by steadfastly maintaining that allowed in malls. If they are not, then allowing their primary goal in opening private property only certain kinds of community functions and to the public is to provide a space for con- certain community members into the mall sumption, not politics. Restrictions on politi- makes it possible for them to be shielded cal activities, therefore, have a real and from dialogue, confrontation with competing substantial relation to their goals. Further- ideas and dissent—confrontations that are the more, they point out that the restrictions do hallmarks of the spaces in which a democrati- not limit all political activities or assembly, cally constituted public can operate. The but simply attempt to manage them so that effect, according to Kohn (2004), would be as the activities do not interfere with the flow though civic functions and conversations were of traffic in the mall, do not create a safety surrounded by a moat, disconnected from the hazard and do not compete with the commer- people who actually live in the city. Yet that cial functioning of the space. And they argue is precisely what malls often attempt to do. that they have to provide a balance in political We have argued above that mall owners do perspectives. So for example, in 2000, the allow certain civic and community functions mall hosted debates between Republican and into the mall, yet they also rely on the status Democratic Congressional candidates in of the mall as private property to limit what the organisers called an “Old Fashioned speech and assembly. These limits have been Political Rally”. In addition to debates upheld by the US Supreme Court under between congressional candidates, the rally certain circumstances, and whether the mall included sessions where citizens could speak presents itself as a public space is key to inter- from the top of a real soapbox (Breidenbach, preting these circumstances. In 1980, the 2000). Court ruled in Pruneyard Shopping Center The mall is much more restrictive, v. Robbins that while mall owners could not however, when community groups want to claim complete supremacy of property put up a booth or distribute information. An rights, mall owners could limit speech and organiser for the Accountability Project, a assembly as long as the regulations were not local organisation trying to force greater “unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious and public access to the mall, claims that the the means selected shall have a real and sub- Project was denied permission to set up a stantial relation to the objective sought” booth for voter registration—an activity that (ruling cited in Kohn, 2004, p. 73; see also most commentators would see as enhancing Mitchell, 2003). In this regard, representations democratic governance and as consistent of the mall as a public space by mall owners with activities in the town square. Mall man- become important, as malls that sell them- agement counters that there are clear guide- selves as public spaces may be required to lines regulating the conditions under which meet a higher standard for protecting speech booths can be set up and that community and assembly (Freeman, 1998). The Court organisations can use the main spaces of the also allowed that states could set a higher mall; groups are only denied access when bar, but only five states do; New York is not they fail to comply with the rules or when one of those states. Furthermore, the political too many groups want to use the mall at one will to challenge speech rights in malls time. These conditions include restrictions through constitutional or legislative means is on the size of tables and booths, restrictions often lacking, given the ideological domi- on selling merchandise that would compete nance of property rights in the contemporary with what is already sold in the mall, staffing US and that many people prefer to shop in of the booths, times for set-up and a malls precisely to avoid political confronta- $1 000 000 insurance policy. As the mall tion and dissent (Kohn, 2004). management argued, the mall is a busy place
USA’S DESTINY? 989
and they have to regulate the space to allow Conclusions
people to do their shopping. All uses of the
If we are correct in arguing that a democracy
mall by non-profit organisations had to be
needs a space in which a public is constituted
compatible with the mall’s primary purpose:
and political ideas are discussed, the move-
shopping (Brieaddy, 2000).
ment of civic functions and sociability to the
Conflict over restrictions on use of the mall
highly regulated spaces of the mall is much
for speech activities came to a head during the
more than a spatial shift in a particular form
lead-up to the second Iraq war in 2003. As
of activity. Instead, we need to work through
noted in the beginning of the paper, mall man-
this movement’s implications for the kinds
agement refused to allow peace groups to use
of publics that are created in our cities. We
the mall for leafleting, picketing and for distri-
have argued that malls stand for civility and
buting information. Peace groups attempted to
community, rather than publicity, tightly
change their materials in order to comply with
holding to private property rights as a basis
Carousel rules, but the company refused
for regulating the institutions, actions and
access, nonetheless. Despite an outcry from
people allowed in the mall, or the new town
the press and from many community
square. It is not the case that these regulations
members, Carousel stuck to its policy. The
prohibit interactions with people or ideas
Central New York chapter of the American
different than ourselves; that would be too
Civil Liberties Union reluctantly decided
strong a conclusion and would deny the
that Carousel was within its rights and
expressions of dissent and acts of resistance
would probably win in court (Gadoua,
that do occur. Rather, ideas of publicity are
2003). This restriction on distributing political
mutated into community, thereby blunting
information is telling in that it represents the
the possibilities for building an inclusive, but
triumph of ideals related to private property
nevertheless civil, public sphere. This is
and the responsibility of individuals to the
accomplished in large measure by managing
norms set by a private corporation over a com-
the potential for randomness and by subtly
mitment to open, public, civil debate.
shifting the focus of community from public
It is hard to imagine that the ACLU, the
good to private gain. In so doing, the spaces
residents of Syracuse or members of the
and opportunities for democratic politics are
Common Council would have acceded to a
constrained.
similar restriction on political activities in
downtown Syracuse. While cities place a
number of restrictions on the ‘time, place
Epilogue: USA’s Destiny
and manner’ of protests (see Mitchell and
Staeheli, 2005) and while some city officials The plans for Destiny USA are nothing short
might like to ban political activity on their of spectacular. The opening sequence at the
streets, such a blanket restriction on political Destiny USA website (Destiny USA, 2005)
activity on publicly owned, publicly accessible shows a city of soaring skyscraper hotels
property would undoubtedly be challenged. and apartment buildings webbed together by
The Carousel Center’s actions are only a lattice work of glassed-in winter gardens
understandable in the context of the de facto and glassed-over glades and waterfalls. Sur-
(but not de jure) public space of the mall. As rounding the development is a lush urban
owners of the private property, the mall forest where now only small industrial build-
owners could justify their actions in terms of ings and toxic scrub brush exist. No parking
its need to regulate activities in the mall in facilities are visible. This is to be a fully inter-
order to accommodate the community of nalised, and completely separate, city.
consumers. What is remarkable, perhaps, is As residents of Syracuse know, the plans
not the action of the mall owners, so much for Destiny are ever-changing. Aquariums
as the acquiescence of the broader public to have come and gone; Tuscan villages seem
the regulation of this space of publicity. to remain; plans for a third-floor re-creation990 LYNN A. STAEHELI AND DON MITCHELL
of the Erie Canal also seem to remain, but no making it a de facto public space in the
sign of them can be found on the Destiny ways they want to use it and the ways in
website. And as residents of Syracuse also which they think about it.
4. There may be a contradiction between the
know, while ground for the big project has mall serving as a community space and as a
been broken several times, a number of new destination resort. This contradiction is not
employees have been hired (including some one that Pyramid Companies or the City of
40 unskilled workers promised $60 000 a Syracuse discuss, however.
year for jobs so far unspecified) and a con- 5. This is not the same as agreement with a
decision. As community members, citizens
certed television public relations campaign can give voice to dissent or can leave the com-
about the development has been unveiled, munity if the disagreement is strong enough.
no construction has begun—six years after Neither of these acts, however, is inconsistent
the expansion of Carousel Center was with respect for the community and for the
announced. obligations of community members.
6. See Berlant (1997) and Pratt (2004) for sum-
In mid 2005, Pyramid closed the Sky Deck maries of this argument.
to create a ‘Technology Command Center’ 7. All uncited quotations in this paper come
for the expansion (Destiny USA, 2005), from interviews conducted in Syracuse,
severing its even tenuous commitment to New York, in February 2001.
provide ‘community space’ at the mall. 8. The GED, or General Educational Develop-
ment, credential is for people who leave sec-
Even earlier, Pyramid refused to permit the ondary education before completing degree
Syracuse Common Council and Onondaga requirements. To obtain the GED, people
County Legislature to write provisions for must pass a test certifying they have the
community and political access to the mall equivalent knowledge of someone who has
as part of the new PILOT and bond financing passed the standard coursework. People
often take classes to obtain that information
agreements. Both legislative bodies acceded before taking the test.
to Pyramid’s refusal, despite the fact that
hundreds of millions of dollars of public
money will be devoted to the expansion.
Pyramid truly seeks to internalise all urban References
functions—except the political. And in ALLEN , C. (1994) The ACLU against the cities,
doing so it is providing a glimpse of not City Journal, 4(2), pp. 40– 47.
only what the new American city, but also ARENDT , H. (1958) The Human Condition.
what the new American civic community, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
AUER , H. (2003) A calmer Galleria: a year later,
might come to be. teen curfew has ended most disruptions, The
Post-Standard, 6 September, p. A1.
BAECHLER , J. (1993) Individual, group, and
Notes democracy, in: J. CHAPMAN and I. SHAPIRO
(Eds) Democratic Community, NOMOS XXXV,
1. We are sympathetic to Jon Goss’ (1999) argu- pp. 15 –40. New York: New York University
ment that malls can be sites of a variety of pol- Press.
itical acts and intentions, but will focus our BENHABIB , S. (Ed.) (1996) Democracy and Differ-
paper on the ways in which political action ence: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political.
is regulated and moderated. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. Original projections called for 1 million visi- BERLANT , L. (1997) The Queen of America Goes to
tors a year. The catchment basin for the mall Washington City. Durham, NC: Duke University
contains less than 1 million residents in total. Press.
3. We use the terms ‘gathering-place’, ‘public BREIDENBACH , M. (2000) Candidates square off in
space’, and ‘new town square’ rather care- WCNY event, The Post-Standard, 15 October,
fully, reflecting legal rulings discussed later p. B1.
in the paper. Since the mall is privately BRIEADDY , F. (2000) Activists petition City on
owned, it is not a public space in the same mall plan, The Post-Standard, 10 September,
way that a town plaza or street might be. p. B1.
Nevertheless, people in Syracuse think of CALHOUN , C. (Ed.) (1992) Habermas and the
the mall as being equivalent to downtown, Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.You can also read
