ADVERTISEMENT

Only Failed Spaces Require ‘Programming.’

Author:Steve Patterson November 12th, 2008

“Programming” is one of those catch words used by many to indicate events like festivals, concerts, bazaars and such. These are often suggested for spaces that otherwise have little to no natural active users.

At the riverfront design charrette this  phrase was used often.  I’ll get to the exact presentations in a separate post later this week once they’ve all been uploaded.

Having a concert in an urban space doesn’t mean it has failed as a space.  But having to bring events to otherwise seldom used space is a good sign it is a failed environment.

The Gateway Mall is a good example of such a failure.  The space itself doesn’t attract people.  We hold big events on a few blocks a few times per year.  Otherwise the space remains a big void. Good urban space will have visitors on a normal Tuesday morning.

One factor the Project for Public Spaces (PPS) considers important to look for is how comfortable couples feel sharing intimate moments - holdings hands, a kiss, etc.

We need to not rely on “programming” spaces and simply design better space.  Of course, “bold” “world-class” “statements” are often among the worse spaces.

Downtown St Louis has an enormous amount of acreage tied up in space that needs programming to attract anyone.  But programming is expensive and it takes a lot of work.  One of the best un-programmed spaces
in our city is Soulard Market.  Whenever they are open you will see people.  It is a great place for people watching.

Most farmers’ markets are great.  They are not programming — they are commerce.  Bring food to the city from the country is an old tradition.  People may go to Soulard Market and buy very little but still leave enriched.

The former 14th Street Pedestrian Mall in Old North St Louis is another example of a poorly designed space.  The once active street was deliberately killed off in the name of saving it.  It failed big time.  Work is nearing completion to reopen the street.

Whenever you hear anyone suggest “programming” for a space be wary.  It is a red flag the space needs more than three concerts in the summer.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

  • new reader
    I agree with your thoughts entirely, but I think there might be a possibility you aren't giving the charette particants enough credit. I don't know your background so you may know this already, but in architecture, "programming" often simply means "what they're going to put in this space." I.e., the programming for a new library might include a cafe and a small art gallery. So maybe they weren't talking about bringing in big concerts and festivals, but using jargon. (yucky.)
  • James R.
    A quote from Jim Kunstler's TED presentation (looking at some european plaza) "This is an example of a good urban space.... You don't have to have a craft fair to get people to come here. They want to be here."
  • I'm interested to see how popular the Old Post Office Plaza ends up being. It has a lot more going for it than the Gateway Mall or other green spaces that have been forced on us over the years (how about that pointless little park over by the Eagleton Courthouse?).

    To my knowledge, it will feature programming, but it has other factors - most importantly, its proximity to a good mix of office buildings, hotels, residential buildings, shopping, etc. - working in its favor that other downtown green spaces seem to lack.
  • Jim Zavist
    And as the politicians are fond of quoting, "It's the economy, stupid!" Downtowns thrive when people want to be there (NYC, DC, Chicago Loop, etc.). It's more than design issues - in thriving areas, even marginal(ly-designed) buildings and spaces get used. There's a reason, probably multiple ones, why ours continues to struggle. We need to make a brutally honest assessment and then fix the negatives.
    .
    One perspective is http://www.stlbeacon.org/voices/in_the_news/dow... He states that "An international study by Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy (1999) analyzed downtown parking levels in 32 cities. They were hunting for a correlation between a city's livability and amount of parking in downtowns. . . . Newman and Kenworthy arrived at a ratio: 200 parking spaces per 1,000 employees downtown was the upper limit of a "livable" city. To breach the ratio brought about familiar symptoms of a moribund downtown: crime, abandonment, pollution, et cetera. Los Angeles -- a widely panned downtown until recently -- had 524 spaces per 1,000 employees. Detroit, similarly challenged, had 473. Chicago and New York, true 24-hour downtowns, reported 96 and 75, respectively. If we accept that downtown St. Louis has 46,000 parking spaces and 88,000 workers, then St. Louis's ratio is 541 spaces per 1,000 employees, higher than LA and Detroit. Chicago has around 360,000 downtown office workers, but it offers the same number of parking spaces as our downtown!"
    .
    And in the realm of the news doesn't change that much, check out the New York Times perspective from 25 years ago: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=... "In 1970 St. Louis had 15,000 businesses and 376,000 employees, but by 1978 those figures had dropped to 10,700 businesses and 294,000 employees." Our parks and streets and open spaces seem empty simply because there are fewer and fewer people using them!
  • Rory Nicholson
    Steve, thanks for the feedback at the charrette!

    In response to Kael Anderson:

    I think you hit as close to the problem as anyone could. If park success is measure in public usage by volume, any park space in a dense area with high ambient activity would be a hit. Millennium and Central Parks enjoy a high level of demand from their adjacencies. Neither park is supported solely through visitors to the downtown area, but through regular occupants, both commercial AND residential. Just as important, they are readily connected to those surrounding properties. The Gateway Park area enjoys neither benefit.

    As one my fellow charrette participants, Andrew Faulkner, put it, I'm also happy that "none of the teams fully accepted the Danforth Foundation's recommendations. We all believe that in order to reverse the two decade long decline in arch visitors actions must be taken to attract more people downtown and to build a base of St. Louis residents who will use the grounds for something other than a place to bring out-of-town relatives."

    http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.n...

    While I don't subscribe to the sanctity of the park grounds, the infrastructure is readily available in St. Louis to increase occupancy to a level that would make 'programming' a moot point. The push to develop inside the Arch grounds as a means to 'revitalize' downtown St. Louis when so many vacant, gorgeous buildings already exist in the immediate area. As an out-of-town visitor, I found the Washington Blvd. strip an exciting example of what St. Louis is capable of.
  • Kael Anderson
    You raise an important red flag. PPS thrives by selling programming to struggling parks. But programming is not a cure all. I think it's worth noting that one of the major issues that affect the success or failure of a space is the neighboring environment.

    I've read numerous articles suggesting that the biggest impediment to the success of the Gateway Mall is the National Park Service. Granted the NPS is not particularly known for it's innovated practices. As a matter of circumstances, it is laden with arcane mandates and budget shortfalls, and an orientation toward pastoral open spaces--which isn't entirely surprising given that most of it's parkland is in rural areas. But these circumstances don't necessarily mean that their practices and plans are misguided.

    The Gateway Mall is surrounded on all four sides by barriers and underutilized properties. Consequently, those park users (neighboring workers and residents) that would normally be the largest contingent doesn't exist. Golden Gate Park, Central Park, Millenium Park and other keystone parks aren't successful just because of the programming, but because they're surrounded by thousands of potential users and attractive cultural assets. Gateway Mall planners should place an equal amount of attention on connections to the park as that placed on activities or amenities within the park.
  • GMichaud
    There is certainly skill involved in designing environments so that they have a threshold of use without scheduling special events. Commercial activities, such as the example of Soulard Market are important, but the market is also in a walkable neighborhood (much more so before the highway ripped through the area), as well in a generally dense, populated environment and convenient to transit.
    It is the responsibility of the government to lay the framework for such success, but as the arch grounds demonstrate, as well as the feeble attempt with the sculpture park they are not doing their job.
    The previous post about Habitat for Humanity building homes has similar attributes, the problems are not the homes themselves necessarily, but how they relate to the environment. It is too much to expect this developer, or any other to know what is right. Thus the failure is in the realm city government with its lack of leadership and understanding on how to build public space. This type of guidance in the creation of public space should be the responsibility and role of the city government.
    It is also why leaving redevelopment of the northside in the hands of Paul McKee is dangerous and foolhardy.
  • john w.
    ...which is why the Gateway Mall sculpture garden is yet another example of this city needing to take corrective action rather than promoting quality urban activity. Seeking out existing frontages and adjacencies to shape future urban activity (hopefully spontaneous activity) is like sitting in the cart and looking backward at the horse, which is trying to figure out how to get itself to the front, strapped into its harness and, well, you get the metaphor. William Whyte's great book on this very subject is a must read for everyone, and if you can get a copy I highly recommend it.
  • Jim Zavist
    BPV is a different animal - at its core, it's retail entertainment, much like Disney World and Disneyland, and programming is an integral part of its business model. Check out the Cordish website (http://www.cordish.com/sub.cfm?section=newdev) - it's what they do pretty much in every city they're in.
    .
    It's also going to be more like a shopping mall, where the "public" spaces can and do have their access limited by the developer. Check out one Louisville blogger: http://www.smorty71.com/2004/06/fourth-street-l...
    .
    And from Wikipedia: "Fourth Street Live! has attracted occasional controversy for its dress code policy enforcement. On August 4, 2006, a judge ordered two clubs to publish their dress code and apply it to "blacks and whites equally". Both clubs are operated by JP 4th St. Live LLC. The ruling came a day after two African Americans filed a lawsuit claiming they were denied entrance to the clubs in February because of their race. A federal judge eventually overturned the order to post the dress code, and found no evidence of racial discrimination.
  • Kara
    One of the problems with the ball park village plans is that the word "programming" was brought up many times. It was considered to be a bonus that the developer was going the extra mile to provide this programming. Basically they were admitting that this project is a failure before it has even begun. I agree, if someone has to work to enliven an urban space, then that space has failed. The practical uses surrounding a space are very critical to the success of a public urban place. If people don't have a reason to go, they won't, no matter how pretty it is.
  • Well I do think good places are also programmed but your right just because there is a place doesn't make it a good "place". To me here in Milwaukee I have two examples that I think fit many examples in any city. First is Cathedral Square, a good "place" that yes has programming but has activity during the day and night even without programming. Part of why I think this is true is because of the surrounding uses. In that on two-sides it has a retail/tavern mix and basically access facing the park for pedestrians for all the uses. Whereas MacArthur Square has all institutional uses surrounding it and very little access facing the park, and this square is normally very under utilized to the point where "programming" it wouldn't even help.
  • Jim Zavist
    The other half of the equation is how difficult it is for entreprenuership to occur in these puiblic spaces. You need permits and insurance just to open a hot dog stand. Street performers may be encouraged, but are many times run off. Heck, many areas even have curfews.
    .
    Similarly, the public sidewalks in front of individual businesses are highly regulated, sometimes fairly, sometimes not. Great urban ares tend to be a bit messy. Most American public spaces tend to favor pristine and regulated, which is probably why programming is needed as an antidote . . .
blog comments powered by Disqus