In the urban space, there are more obvious signs of conflict than the call for police. The Little Malop Street Mall in Geelong has become the subject of many such calls because of frequent events that make the space the focus of media attention.
But the author Ross Mueller called for the police to investigate “criminal neglect of our public places” in 2015. This is a new perspective.
“Yes,” Mueller began. “We need a whole department to investigate who has approved the brilliant idea of building two large shopping malls next to each other.” He proposed “the biggest bee in our history” to make room and start from scratch.
Even if the said work bee succeeds, it is necessary to understand the space problems behind the malaise of shopping centers. Although the influx of police is generally considered to be a way to “repair” shopping centers, this method only deals with symptoms, not the causes of such spatial conflicts.
The story of the shopping mall provides important lessons for cities across Australia. The most important of these is that public spaces not designed for everyone may become a stage of conflict and alienation. Although the center can remain in focus, the edges of these spaces can remain critical.
“Mall” paradise
In the 1860s, the area where the Little Malop Street Mall is today was part of the Market Square, and then the large public reserve in the east of the city center. Its story has always been controversial, with the privatization of commercial interests gradually eroding this space over time.
In 1985, the Market Square and the streets were replaced by the Market Square Shopping Center. In this way, the narrow public space has been lined up to the south of the current shopping center.
Soon after, the shopping center and another shopping center built opposite the shopping center were closed on a network of connected streets in a form similar to Melbourne’s famous Hoddle grid. Due to the loss of lively streets and driveways, this part of Geelong’s city centre is inconvenient to traffic and less friendly to pedestrians.
Although introverts flourish, shopping malls have become a scary and annoying space as locals laugh at the “mall rats” associated with them.
Despite various interventions, including redevelopment and propaganda campaigns against anti-social behavior, public perception of the space is still declining.
Information conflicts with purpose
The conflict between users of Little Malop Street Mall stems from two larger interrelated conflicts. One of them is between the space operation as a public place and the profit space. Another reason is the conflict of messages sent by the space to the user.
People are interpreting space, and the information we receive is affected by many factors. These ranges include our interactions with physical factors (such as objects in space, the edges of space, and how we navigate in space), all the way to the recognition of the French philosopher Henri Lefebvre as “space Representation” discourse or text.
Successful public places or messages sent in public places are welcomed by everyone. The space encourages interaction and invites people to linger.
In this case, defensive interventions designed to exclude specific groups are particularly problematic, for example, playing loud classical music to deter so-called “big rats.” Measures that try to exclude a group often create spaces that hinder everyone.
More successful interventions to activate shopping malls involve organized event plans, such as food trucks and live entertainment. However, when the carnival continues, design problems still exist.
Design conflict
The opening of the shopping center is obviously a decisive blow to the privatization space. However, more importantly, the design of the center turns back the sight of the public space and surrounding streets.
This illustrates the importance of the edge in urban design. Although the square in the center and the sheer size of the shopping center eclipse the mall, the biggest problem is the street. Here, long blank concrete walls, loading and unloading stations, labeled storefronts and safety grilles form the center of the shopping center.
The message of this sharp edge is that this space is unsafe and unwelcome, positioning the public function of the shopping center as a secondary position of a profit-driven center. In theory, a shopping center is a public place, but the clear message from these hard edges is that it is not a residence for people.
In sharp contrast to this is a lively space, the edge between the street and the shops is open, attracting many people and eyeballs. The Danish architect Jan Gehl is a key figure in the revival of Melbourne’s city centre. He wrote in his 2010 book “The City for the People”:
When the urban fringe comes into play, they enhance urban life. Activities can complement each other, rich experience, walking becomes safer, and the distance seems shorter.
The good news is that the tips for creating a better shopping mall are actually only a few meters away from the hotel. On the Little Mallop Street on the west side of the shopping center, the one-way street and narrow storefronts on both sides of the pedestrian zone form a lively edge. These laid the foundation for the revival of urban life: dining, events and a new atmosphere.
The fringe of the shopping center is not the only problem facing space, but it is fundamentally important. If the edge of inactivity still exists, other interventions (such as Street View) will be useless.
