Fountain Gate Shopping Centre - Urban planning theory analysis

Paul Melenhorst © 2011 1

2 3569

10

1. Introduction 2. Definition of the problem

3. Theories of urban form aesthetics 4. Theories of power subjugation

5. Summary of findings 6. Further work 7. Conclusions

paul melenhorst

Fountain GateCase Study

Paul Melenhorst © 2011 2

Fountain Gate: Mecca to the Consumer Masses or Seat of Social Servitude?

Paul Melenhorst

IntroductionThe dichotomy between planning theory and planning practice is well documented with consistent planning theory not neces-sarily translating into consistent planning outcomes. An example that tests assump-tions about urban design theory as well as the power dynamics of urban planning is the shopping centre.

Shopping centres are the result of post-war decentralization and a suburban life-style literally fuelled by the convenience of private car-based consumption (Rice, 2009). They have dominated the retail sector for decades but unlike America’s troubled malls, Australia’s shopping cen-tres continue to grow exponentially. The largest discount department store-based shopping centre in Melbourne (Westfield, 2011) is Fountain Gate.

Fountain Gate lies in Melbourne’s fertile outer south-eastern in the City of Casey, which has been the major growth corridor for metropolitan Melbourne with a popu-lation increase of 33% in the ten years to 2007 and a projected population of 375,000 in the next 15 years. Currently, Casey is the most populous municipality in Victoria (City of Casey, 2011).

Fountain Gate is part of the portfolio of re-tail developments for the Westfield Group. Westfield is the world’s largest listed retail property group with 119 shopping centres located in Australia, the United Kingdom, the USA and New Zealand. Currently, Fountain Gate is undertaking stage three expansions that will increase floor space by and additional 30%.

This paper investigates the position of the shopping centre, specifically Fountain Gate Shopping Centre, in current urban design theory. It considers the origins of the shopping centre and its place in the New Urbanist paradigm. Also it considers how the spatial construct of Fountain Gate represents other social theories besides urban form, such as subjugation and control.

Paul Melenhorst © 2011 3

Definition of the problemAs a local authority, the City of Casey is aligned with the Victorian Planning Provi-sions and Melbourne’s strategic plan Mel-bourne 2030, a cornerstone of which is its ‘neighbourhood principles’ (Melbourne 2030, 2002, 101). These policies promote mixed used and mixed urban forms, vari-able densities and compactness, permea-bility and interconnectedness – all consist-ent with theories of New Urbanism. The council’s own Central Activities District Strategy also promotes ‘a new urban pat-tern of streets and blocks’ (City of Casey, 2006).

Fountain Gate, the retail behemoth at the centre of this local neighbourhood struc-ture, is, however, constructed on a very different premise. It is isolated from adja-cent residential estates by major arterial roads and hectares of bitumened parking. It has minimal public transport and pedes-trian access, lacks mixed use, open spac-es, porosity with other local public facili-ties and a permeable membrane through which public activity can ebb and flow.

Despite this, however, Fountain Gate can-not be dismissed as a planning anachro-

nism in a new urban paradigm. Although under private control, shopping centres like Fountain Gate have become soci-ety’s de facto public spaces in Australia’s suburbia, mimicking the complexity and interest of traditional villages and market places (Farrelly, 2008, 139). For example, a comparison of visitor levels in 2010 finds Fountain Gate’s 13.3 million annual cus-tomer visits (Westfield, 2011) far exceed-ing the combined attendances of 2.3 mil-lion for Museum Victoria’s five museums (Museum Victoria, 2011). And as part of the Westfield retail battalion, even exceeds visitor flows through central Melbourne.*

So, unlike the fossilization of America’s mega retail facilities (Dunham-Jones, 2009), and what Kaul (2007) describes as the ‘negative impact on consumer self-im-age in the spatially consuming mega-retail environment’, Fountain Gate is firmly en-trenched as a positive in the public mind-set and contributes to the very definition of what it means to live in suburbia.

Therefore, with the current planning con-sensus that this retail model, with its prob-lems of inefficiency, poor aesthetic, com-munity alienation and aloneness (Jaret,

*Melbourne’s public streets see pedestrian traffic of 65,000 per day, which equates to 24 million visits annually. Westfield’s six Melbourne stores (Fountain Gate, Southland, Doncaster, Airport West, Geelong, Plenty Valley) has annual customer visitation levels of 66 million (Westfield, 2011)

Paul Melenhorst © 2011 4Above: In readiness for the tilt slabs, cars line up for access into the modified entrance, left.

Top: Fountain Gate shopping centre is isolated from adjacent residential estates by major arterial roads and surrounded by car parking and big box retailers. Note, top right, civil works for current expansions.(Paul Melenhorst)

Paul Melenhorst © 2011 5

1983) is inappropriate and unsustainable, what planning paradigms explain the con-tinued growth of car-centric shopping centres in Australia and specifically the City of Casey’s alignment with the current expansion of Fountain Gate?

Theories of urban form aestheticsFountain Gate is a product of urban sprawl and whilst there is some support for the sprawl model, (see Gordon, 2004, O’Toole, n. d.) most current urban form theory sug-gests that sprawl – and its outcomes such as shopping centres – encompasses a ‘phoniness and visual illiteracy’ (Farrelly, 2008, 137) that compromises their com-munity value. The inability to define space meaningfully in the environment of a shop-ping centre (that Kunstler (2008) humour-ously explains is because of the ‘curvature of the earth’ – intimating the inappropri-ate scale of the buildings and the endless sea of car parking) results in a lack of civic pride and, therefore, spaces that are not ‘cared about’ (Kunstler, 2008).

In contrast, good urban design, as defined by New Urbanism (see Alexander, 1977; Jacobs, 1961; Tachieva, 2010), incorpo-rates more traditional architectural motifs, the intimacy of higher densities and what Grant (2006, 8) defines as an ‘attractive public realm’. Clearly, Fountain Gate is not

consistent with the aesthetics of current smart growth and the typology of New Ur-banism.

Why then is Fountain Gate so popular and is it actually ‘cared about’? Rubin (1979, 340) argues, from a position of post-mod-ernist relativism, that this New Urbanist in-terpretation of the ‘attractive public realm’ is in fact only one interpretation amongst an aesthetic heterogeneity. The premise that all ‘urban commercial environments are inevitably ugly’ (and by inference that rural or heritage environments are beau-tiful) is perpetuated and disseminated by planning professionals in order to incul-cate a mainstream aesthetic ideology and a homogenous ‘official culture’ that stand-ardizes community response. Going even further, Jaret (1983, 500) contends that planning by any urban design aesthetic, including New Urbanism is ‘a misguided notion of physical determinism’.

The urban aesthetic that defines Fountain Gate, rather than being superficially ugly or irrelevant, is in fact a carefully contrived visual conveyance for the processing of its customers. It is one of internalizing the illusion of fantasy and escape expressed by interior spaces that are excessively well defined (Tachieva, 2010, 131) juxtaposed against exterior spaces that have a distinct lack of narrative or definition. Everything

Paul Melenhorst © 2011 6

that contributes to Fountain Gate spatially and visually is consistent with this ‘archi-tectural merchandizing’ (Rubin, 1979, 356). From the unarticulated tilt-slabbed form, the lack of any meaningful pedestrian services, the discombobulated corollary of parking, the funneling effect of a road hier-archy that supplies this fantasy, as well as the lack of transitional spaces connecting public and private realms (Grant, 2006, 58) everything contributes to a spatial process covertly planned to build up a contrast-ing picture between the dullness of reality (outside) with the excitement of consump-tion (inside).

So whilst Fountain Gate lacks New Urban-ism’s aesthetic, it is actually utilizing an ef-fective urban design typology evidenced by current customer visitation levels and the responses to my limited survey* (see appendix 1). Planning officers from the Casey Council informally acknowledge this by accepting that the approval of such developments is a compromise between the ideals of Melbourne 2030 and the real-ity of market forces (R. Monahan, personal

communication August 21, 2011). This is confirmed by Taylor (2010, 144) who notes that ‘wider economic forces remain as central determinants of what local authori-ties can do’. Fountain Gate with its obfus-cating aesthetic, rather than turning away customers, is an effective agent for deeper societal machinations. Fountain Gate en-courages a modus operandi that results in the control and subjugation of mainstream society through the use of consumption and ultimately, for the same ends.

Theories of power subjugationThe universality of the New Urbanism aes-thetic is contested terrain. However, be-yond these contentions of urban design theory, Fountain Gate also demonstrates an approach that defies the communitar-ian intentions of postmodernist planning theory and is more readily explained by theories of power imbalance, capital ac-cumulation and societal control.

Control through planning is well docu-mented. Yiftachel notes that planning as

* In the context of this case study, visitors to Fountain Gate were asked a series of general questions about their opinion on the urban design qualities of Fountain Gate, the new developments at the centre, and the growth of shopping centres in the City of Casey. THe questions were designed to evoke personal value judgements about Fountain Gate. The methodology included a Likert scale questionnaire with people approached personally and asked if they would be interested in participating in this research. A representative cross section of the Fountain Gate demographic were targeted, although the responses were skewed towards the older age groups and female. It is not possible to know whether this is a function of the questionnaire or of the demographic. 50 interviews were conducted on August 4, 2011. It was decided to keep responses anonymous. Dunnington (1967 cited in Walonick) reported that responses became more distorted when subjects felt threatened that their identities would become known.

Paul Melenhorst © 2011 7Above: The messages are clear. Fountain Gate’s inhouse marketing of the new development reinforces the notion that shopping centres are firmly entrenched in the public realm; ‘Stay in touch with friends and neighbours… Stay connected’. Perhaps the ‘shadow people’ - translucent silhouettes digitally placed in the architectural concept (bottom), more accurately depict the true anonymity and negative self image of the consumer entering Fountain Gate.(Paul Melenhorst)

Paul Melenhorst © 2011 8

a tool for control and repression, whilst associated with authoritarianism, is also ‘undoubtedly occurring in Western (plu-ralistic) democratic societies’ (Yiftachel, 2002, 537). Foucault and Richardson (2002, 11) explain this as a function of the ‘crucial importance of power in shap-ing… the social construction of space’. But whilst Yiftachel’s control is through the overt cleaving of segmented societies (the ‘divide and conquer’ approach), Fountain Gate delivers, through its spatial organiza-tion, a subjugated society by a different route.

The shopping centre is not just an ef-ficient mechanism for the processing of the consumer enterprise but ‘a strategic space, owned and controlled by an insti-tutional power, which, by its nature, de-pends upon the definition, appropriation and control of territory (De Certeau, 1984). Fountain Gate’s representation of con-spicuous consumption subverts critical thought and social participation through the homogenization of pluralist culture and the assimilation of diversity. Manufactured, conveyor belt-like, in its car parks and on its escalators, the shopping centre ‘oper-

ates under the calculus of retail profit and applies behavioral theories of human ac-tion for purposes of social control (Goss, 1993, 35). Farrely goes further, implicating planning’s direct involvement in this pro-cess; ‘Controls are the forces of safety and comfort, the herd forces of cohesion and conservatism… but they’re also forces of mediocrity; the forces that turn interesting street theatre into the dull, safe, saleable West End’ (Farrelly, 2008, 141).

Mass consumerism, therefore, satiates (al-beit unsustainably) the needs of the lim-itless economic growth model as well as effectively managing complex and poten-tially unstable urban populations.‡ Talen notes this mindset with ‘a culture devoted to the single minded pursuit of efficiency, extreme individual mobility, relentless con-sumerism, uncritical worship of economic growth (Talen, 2002, 46). This Neo-Marx-ist interpretation sees a culture of collec-tive and anonymous consumption as the expression of a more deeply embedded form of control and ultimately the result of ‘capitalists’ need for a large, cheap, eas-ily controlled labor [sic] force’ (Jaret, 1983, 499). And spatial forms like Fountain Gate

* It is interesting to note the similarity in terminology between Huxley and neo-Marxist planners such as Amin (1994) who both refer to Fordism and Fordist modes of regulation].

‡ One only has to look at the recent urban disquietude in British cities to appreciate the potential for instability when social disparity surfaces.

Paul Melenhorst © 2011 9

offer an efficient conduit for this process and backdrop for the ideal stupefied and subservient consumer.

Aldous Huxley explores this idea of soci-etal control through consumption in his novel Brave New World*. Huxley inves-tigates a hypothetical utopia where indi-viduals work together towards untenable state of permanent bliss through the un-restricted consumption of drugs, leisure, and even other people. This seemingly ultimate expression of individual liberation is however, a façade and ‘a philosophy of futility’ where personal value is defined by “how many created wants can I satisfy” (Nystrom, 1928, 20). This shopping cen-tre world achieves nothing more than ‘the calm ecstasy of achieved consummation’ (Huxley, 1932, 76).

Summary of findingsCurrent theories of urban design are incon-sistent with the continued rise of the Foun-tain Gate phenomenon. New Urbanism aims to attenuate sprawl through physical design that addresses car-centred travel, low density and urban forms lacking in civ-ic design. This is acknowledged at council and state planning levels as a substantial part of the solution to the modernist sprawl problem. However, shopping centres such as Fountain Gate, also supported by local

authorities (and from evidence of visitation levels and my limited survey, very popular public forums) are opposed to New Ur-banism’s ideas of mixed use, traditional architectural grammar, and public spaces that encourage habitation and discourse.

However, if this process of consumption is viewed in terms of Foucault’s pervasive rationalist power and Yiftachel’s control, transmogrified from ethnic to economic control, the urban form of Fountain Gate is perfectly placed in order to optimize the processing of the consumerist dream. Hill (1977) summarizes this essential planning process as the ‘production and distribu-tion of articles of consumption’ and more importantly, the sustained ‘stimulation of an effective demand for these surplus products’.

Whilst it is doubtable that local planning authorities are clandestine accessories to this process (City of Casey planners cer-tainly would not admit as much to me), there is enough circumstantial evidence to assume that the mechanism for an acquiescent and indifferent society lies in the reward of conspicuous and continued consumption. And the allure of consump-tion’s siren is difficult to refuse at places like the phantasmagorical Fountain Gate. Chomsky explicitly makes this connection when describing the ideal conditions for a

Paul Melenhorst © 201110

functioning capitalist democracy:

“The bewildered herd is a problem. We’ve got to prevent their roar and trampling. We’ve got to distract them… They ought to be sitting alone in front of the TV and having drilled into their heads the mes-sage, which says, the only value in life is to have more commodities or live like that rich middle class family you’re watching and to have nice values like harmony and Americanism. That’s all there is in life.” (Chomsky, 1991, 23)

Planning as control is a powerful tool in achieving these ends.

Further workThe urban form of shopping centres, ger-minating in the early days of post-war prosperity, could now be a very effective way of corralling large suburban popula-tions with the ‘carrot’ of consumerism. But this short précis asks more questions than it answers. If this is the case, are practicing planners complicit in this insidious control? Or are they also snug under the blanket of liberalist consumption, equally oblivious to this form of spatial domination?

And this still does not adequately explain the popularity of the one-dimensional, in-ternalized aesthetic of Fountain Gate – an

urban outcome consistent with Kunstler’s (2004) ‘places that are not worth car-ing about’ and an aesthetic that leads to abandonment and decay, as is currently being witnessed in the USA (Dunham-Jones, 2009).

Why is this not the case in Australia? Is this simply market driven, where America’s prolapsing economy has made the shop-ping centre a less viable model there, but still workable in Australia’s healthier econ-omy? Or is this part of an intrinsic Australi-an aesthetic – one that is a reflection of the fetishist addiction to ‘McMansion’ owner-ship with its connotations of affluence, sol-ace and invulnerability (or as Farrelly (2008) says ‘bloat, boredom and misery’) and one that America, by contrast, is twenty years ahead and beginning to shed?

ConclusionsKunstler (2004) notes that ‘the public realm not only has to inform us of where we are geographical but where we are in our culture’. Pseudo-public realms such as Fountain Gate reinforce the predominance of a culture of liberalist consumerism and superficial individuality that defines (and confines) us as consumers rather than citizens. Kunstler (2004), again, notes the danger of this: ‘Consumers are different than citizens. Consumers do not have

Paul Melenhorst © 201111

obligations, responsibilities and duties to their fellow human beings’.

It is ironic that planning, in its original inten-tions, ‘came from the movement of social reform aimed at mitigating the human cost of capitalist industrialization’ (Jaret, 1983), but now actually contributes to mitigating economic and political instability and the spreading and strengthening of capitalist exploitation’ (Tveter, 2010, 5) by control of its citizens through spatial constructs like Fountain Gate.

Fountain Gate, and its representations of mass culture contribute to the loss of dia-lectic amongst people as well as between people and societal structures. Talen (2002), quoting Beiner (1992) notes how people are denatured into personal pref-erences and lifestyle choices within the context of “consumerist liberalism” (Beiner 1992, 191 in Talen, 2002, 46).

Whether this is a byproduct of consumer-ism or an intended consequence, will ul-timately decide just how derelict planners are in their obligation to plan for the so-cial environments of the communities they serve.

Paul Melenhorst © 201112

7 15 5 11 12

2. We enjoy going to Fountain Gate as a family.

144 5 6 21

3. I can get everything I need at Fountain Gate

10 2848

5. I go to Fountain Gate more than the main street of Narre Warren.

8 19 13 108. The City of Casey needs more shopping centres.

11 11 4

1. Fountain Gate is a beautiful place.

24

6 9 9 21 54. Fountain Gate is a good place to meet friends.

8 9 5

6. Fountain Gate should plan for future developments

16 12

7 8 11 16 87. I lose track of time at Fountain Gate

Percentage responses to questions

15% 21% 14% 37% 13

strongly disagree

disagree

neither agree

strongly agree

Appendix 1. Fifty respondents answered eight questions about developments and urban design at Fountain Gate and shopping centres in the City of Casey. Questions were framed positively and overall percentages suggest that, whilst there is a far spread of answers across the range, there is at least ambivalnce about the value of Fountain Gate, and at most, some consensus.

Appendix 1: Responses to questionnaire

strongly disagree

disagree

neither disagree or agree

agree

strongly agree

20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69

4 5 11 16 5Participants by age

male female

18 32Participants by sex

Paul Melenhorst © 201113

Alexander C., S. Ishikawa, and M. Silverstein. 1977. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chomsky, N. 1991. Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. The Open Media Pamphlet Series. Seven Stories Press.

City of Casey, 2011. Casey at a Glance – Our Vital Statistics. http://www.casey.vic.gov.au/demographics/article.asp?Item=30 (accessed July 4, 2011)

City of Casey, 2006. Fountain Gate Narre Warren CBD Incorporated Plan. http://www.casey.vic.gov.au/policiesstrategies/article.asp?item=11250 (accessed June 6, 2010)

De Certeau, M. 1984. The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Quoted in Goss (1993)

Dunham-Jones, E. and Williamson, J. 2009. Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs. New Jersey. John Wiley & Sons.

Farrelly, E. 2008. Blubberland: The Dangers of Happiness. Sydney, Australia. University of New South Wales Press.

Flyvbjerg, B. and T. Richardson. 2002. Planning and Foucault: In Search of the Dark Side of Planning Theory. In Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory, ed. P. Allmendinger and M. Tewdwr-Jones. 44-62. London and New York: Routledge.

Gordon, P., and Richardson, H. W. 2004. US Population and Employment Trends and Sprawl Issues. H.W. Richardson and C.H.C. Bae (Eds.), Urban Sprawl in Western Europe and the United States.

Goss, J. 1993. Magic of the Mall: An Analysis of Form, Function, and Meaning in the Contemporary Retail Built Environment. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 83(1): 18-47.

Grant, J. 2006. Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.

Jacobs, J. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York. Random House.

Jaret, C. 1983. Recent Neo-Marxist Urban Analysis. Annual Review of Sociology. 9: 499-525. Annual Reviews. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2946076. (accessed July 3, 2011)

Kaul, S. 2007. Consumerism and Mindless Consumption: Sustaining the New Age Urban Indian’s Identity. International Marketing Conference – Marketing and Society April 8-10, 2007. Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode. http://dspace.iimk.ac.in/bitstream/2259/331/1/529-534.pdf. (accessed July 3, 2011)

Kunstler, J. H. 2004. James H Kunstler dissects suburbia http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia.html (accessed August 6, 2011)

Museum Victoria. 2011. Museum Victoria continues to smash attendance record. Media Release. Museum Victoria. http://museumvictoria.com.au/pages/27598/2010-11-year-end-announcement.pdf?epslanguage=en (accessed August 13, 2011)

Nystrom, P. H. 1928. Economics of Fashion. The Ronald Press Company. Quoted in Chomsky, 1991, 23.

O’Toole, R. n. d. A Libertarian View of Urban Sprawl. Cato Institute. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/a-libertarian-view-of-urban-sprawl/ (accessed August 13, 2011)

Rice, G. A. 2009, Malls/Retail Parks. University of Helsinki, Finland. http://www.sciencedirect.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_imagekey=B9BWK-4 W N F N 1 1 - K 6 1 & _ c d i = 6 1 2 2 9 & _ u s e r = 4 1 3 6 1 & _pii=B9780080449104010609&_check=y&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDate=08%2F04%2F2009&_idxType=SC&wchp=dGLzVlzzSkWb&md5=931390362d69644efdb533f449223e2a&ie=/sdarticle.pdf (accessed June 27, 2011)

Rubin, B. Aesthetic Ideology and Urban Design. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 69(3): 339-361.

Tachieva, G. 2010. Sprawl Repair Manual. Washington. Island Press

Talen, E. & Eliis, C. 2002. Beyond Relativism: Reclaiming the Search for Good City Form. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 22:2. 36-49.

Taylor, N. 2010. Urban Planning Theory since 1945. London. Sage Publications.

Tveter, O. 2009. Anarchist Urban Planning and Place Theory. http://www.anarchistplanner.org/articles/AUP-for-reading.pdf (accessed May 22, 2011)

Westfield Group, 2011. Group Overview. http://www.westfield.com/corporate/about-westfield-group/group-overview/ (accessed July 4, 2011)

Westfield Group, 2011. Overview. http://www.westfield.com/corporate/property-portfolio/australia/fountaingate.html (accessed July 13, 2011)

Westfield Group, 2011. Westfield has 44 shopping centres across every major metropolitan market. http://www.westfield.com/corporate/property-portfolio/australia/ (accessed August 14, 2011)

Yiftachel, O. 2002. The Dark Side of Modernism: Planning as Control of an Ethnic Minority. In The Blackwell City Reader, ed. G. Bridge and S. Watson, 535-541

References