background - cloud object storage...reference no. research report res-062-23-0223 urban aesthetics:...

REFERENCE No.

research report RES-062-23-0223 Urban aesthetics: a comparison of experiences in Milton Keynes and Bedford town centres Background Critics agree that the intention of aesthetic intervention into urban space is, implicitly or explicitly, to alter the experience of that space. It has been suggested that such interventions have become more commonplace over the last 20 years as urban environments are shaped by a post-industrial economy leading to an intensified commercialization of public space while city councils pay increased attention to the stylization of urban space (Degen 2003; Harvey 1989; Featherstone 1991; Hannigan 1998; Jacobs 1998). Recent academic debates also highlight that designed urban environments are becoming a key means of engineering 'affect' and thus of manipulating populations (Adey 2008; Allen 2006; Amin and Thrift 2002), and much of all this work emphasises the importance of the visual appearance of urban spaces. In UK policy circles, the debate surrounding urban aesthetics was reinvigorated by a report from the independent Urban Taskforce (2005) which concluded that British cities were still defined by poor design quality and consequently a poor quality of life. Urban design and an increased preoccupation with the visual impact of places has informed both urban theory and planning practices over the past decade. Yet, despite this increased preoccupation with aesthetics in general and visual appearance in particular, little empirical research has been done on understanding the impact that a visually enhanced environment has on its users. Exploring the relation between an aestheticised urban environment and the people inhabiting that environment, and building on an earlier pilot study (Degen, DeSilvey and Rose 2008), this project began from a position that understood visual experience as integral to a range of social practices, embedded in and folded alongside a range of other relations: material and social as well as sensory. The project has two case studies: Milton Keynes and Bedford. These two towns offer important contrasts: Milton Keynes is a new town built in a grid structure and with a shopping centre functioning as its high-street. Its recent urban transformation can be described as one of development and growth. Major regeneration schemes are underway in its city centre including a £20 million redevelopment of the shopping centre. In Bedford, a traditional market town, urban transformation is more about regeneration and renewal. Since 2001 Bedford Borough Council has been involved in an extensive redevelopment programme of the town’s centre. The redesign involved environmental improvement schemes such as its pedestrianisation, the updating of seating and lighting design and the introduction of a range of public art schemes. This project undertook a range of both established and more innovative research methods in these two town centres, in order to achieve the objectives listed in the next section.

14

To cite this output: Rose, Gillian et al (2009). Urban aesthetics: a comparison of experiences in Milton Keynes and Bedford town centres: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-062-23-0223. Swindon: ESRC

REFERENCE No.

Bedford town centre

Midsummer Place, Milton Keynes

15


REFERENCE No.

Objectives The first objective of this project was to develop the concept of aestheticisation of urban spaces as a complexly experienced visual performance. The project has achieved this objective both by working with its empirical materials, and reflecting on a range of theoretical materials. The results are discussed in the 'Results' section below. We emphasise the multisensory nature of aestheticised urban spaces, and the highly variable way in which they are performed. Secondly, the project aimed to examine empirically a range of experiences of urban space by exploring people’s experiences of two town centres in the UK. Our comparative approach addressed and achieved this objective. The results are discussed in the 'Results' section. The third objective was to develop an innovative methodology for assessing the quality of urban visual experiences. The project's methodological innovation was driven by two imperatives:

1 to access the practice and performance of urban spaces. 2 to explore how such experiences are differentiated.

We also achieved this third objective, by developing the 'walk-along' method (see the 'Methods' section). Methods The project began with two months of review work, allowing the Research Assistant to familiarise herself fully with the literatures and debates with which the project was to engage. Thereafter, the project was divided into four stages. Stage 1 experience and practice: an overview

a) ethnographic observation. Method. Intensive observation of the town centres over four months, timed to examine both daily and weekly shifts in the centres’ routines and rhythms of use. In three different locations in each city centre, using photography (over 650 photos were taken) and note-taking. Aim. To record the everyday practising of these town centre spaces such as routines and swerves, bodily comportment, gestures, objects, different ways of looking.

b) questionnaire survey. Method. Two large-scale surveys in each town centre, one on a weekday and one on a Saturday, achieving a total of 750 tape-recorded responses each to a five-question, open-ended questionnaire, ensuring that the full range of users were included. Aim. To examine the ways in which different practices produce different visual experiences of those spaces.

16


REFERENCE No.

Stage 2 analysis I Both data-sets from the first stage were analysed using Atlas-TI in order to understand how practices entail a particular range of experiences in the two urban spaces. The ethnographic notes and accompanying photographs were coded for analysis, paying special attention to visual and bodily comportment.

The survey responses were transcribed. These gave both an account of how people described what they were doing in the two town centres, and their descriptions of those centres. The descriptions were examined for key words using content analysis, to obtain a description of experiences. Correlations between responses and what interviewees were doing in the town centres were also sought; however, there were no clear patterns in this first stage of data analysis between what people said they were doing and how they described the two built environments (see 'Results').

From this analysis, as planned, we identified four key practices taking place in both town centres:

1. shopping, which needs to be divided into task-oriented shopping and browsing around the shops.

2. socialising. People go into town with friends; teenagers congregate in certain areas of the town centres.

3. caring, which broadly refers to looking after children or older people while using the town centre.

4. maintaining. This refers to various activities by security officers and cleaners, and includes surveilling, cleaning and policing public areas.

The next stage of research explored the first three of these four practices in much more detail. We could not pursue the fourth because questions of access to employees and employer permissions required complex negotiations which we did not have time to pursue.

Stage 3 experience and practice: detail and differences An innovative method was developed to link specific practices with detailed visual and other experiences of urban environments: the walk-along. Questions of movement and mobile methodologies have increasingly come to the fore within social sciences in the recent years, and have frequently centred on 'walking' as a way of understanding how all "the senses are integrated by the way in which the living body moves" (Lund 2006: 41; see also Ingold 2000, 2004; Lee and Ingold 2006; Lorimer and Lund 2003; Lund 2006; Wylie 2005). Thus, Lee and Ingold argue that ‘walking with’ people, living and moving as others do, can bring us closer to understanding how other people perceive their multi sensory environments and constitute place through their everyday practices (Lee and Ingold 2006; see also Pink 2007a). Our development of the walk-along both builds on this work and develops it by exploring participants' corporeal, sensory and reflective experiences. 1) the walk-along Method. Amalgamating aspects of two methods – the go-along (Kusenbach 2003) and the photo-diary/photo-interview method (Latham 2003) – we developed the 'walk-along' method. A research participant familiar with the town was accompanied on a routine trip to its centre. The walk-alongs lasted from 45 minutes to several hours. Conversations were recorded and the researcher occasionally prompted the participants to comment on the environment. However, the conversations were not always continuous and the walk-alongs were therefore only partially transcribed, focusing on direct comments about the environment. However,

17


REFERENCE No.

extensive walk-along notes were also written by the researcher about their perceptions of the walk-along experience. The notes included information about how the participants moved, used their bodies, engaged with their environments and with others if they were accompanied with family and friends. Participants were also asked to take photographs during the walk-along experience, and these formed the basis of the follow-up interviews. In these interviews, prompted by their photos, participants were encouraged to talk in detail about their uses of the town centres, and were asked to respond to the researcher's sense of what was happening as they encountered those spaces. We completed thirteen walk-alongs in Bedford and twelve in Milton Keynes, although a total of thirty three people took part in the research as sometimes the walk-alongs were conducted with a couple of friends or families. This total also included two urban design professionals in each town.

Bedford walk-alongers Milton Keynes walk-alongers Trevor Roff, urban professional Sarah Whitaker, urban professional

Lorraine Sparrow, urban professional Neil Sainsbury, urban professional

Michael and Simon, young men Jennifer and her two children

Tara, young woman Susan, young woman

Sally, older woman Mike, middle-aged man

Cecile, older woman John and Catherine, older couple

Burt, young man Angie and Emily, teenagers

Patricia, middle-aged wheelchair user Phoebe and Jo, young women

Peter, young man Stu, young man

Sandy, middle-aged woman Samantha, young woman

Nicholas, young man Michele, middle-aged woman

Louise, Dharman and Lucy, family Christopher, young man

Helen, middle-aged woman

note: all names apart from those of urban professionals are pseudonyms

Aim. Kusenbach (2003, 463) argues that "what makes the go-along technique unique is that ethnographers are able to observe their informants’ spatial practices in situ". The method allows immediate and intensive access to very detailed ways of seeing, talking, touching and hearing over an extended period of time as the bodies move through the town centres. The walk-alongs also emphasized the routes and pathways in the town centres that the participants walk through as meaningful multi-sensory and imaginative places (see Pink 2007a,b). The walk-alongs thus produce rich and fine-grained accounts of ways of ‘doing’ urban space. Our use of the walk-along showed that it is indeed a very productive method for accessing sensory encounters. Accompanying research participants provides a

18


REFERENCE No.

shared haptic experience of a place since both the researcher and the participant has the direct knowledge of the practice; but the follow-up interview was also crucial. It allowed us to calibrate our own observations and interpretations with those of our participants. It also allowed us to observe the multiplicity of ways in which people engage with the built environment: corporeally, sensorially, but also by representing it to themselves. We feel that this balance of observing and reflecting on practice was very fruitful in at giving immediate and intensive access to participants' multiple ways of seeing, talking, touching and hearing these built environments. Reflection on method. The total number of walk-alongs achieved was less than suggested in our original proposal since we found that recruiting research participants for this part of the project was particularly difficult. Perhaps this is due to the fact that this is a relatively new and an unconventional method that bears little resemblance to the standard interview format. 2) changing the urban environment. Method. We attempted a more experimental intervention into the built environment of the two town centres, in order to see how people reacted. This method involved changing in some way an object identified as significant in these urban spaces in the light of the first stage of research. Aim: to disrupt routine engagements with the urban environment and to assess reactions to such a disruption. This was a challenging part of the research, as it was difficult to identify an object that we were allowed to change. In Milton Keynes, people responded very fully to the place, not in terms of individual elements but in terms of its overall mood; therefore we asked both thecentre:mk and Midsummer Place if they would consider broadcasting some unexpected music or voices over their PA systems, but both refused. In both Milton Keynes and Bedford benches were identified during our ethnographic observation as important physical features in the engagements with the environment. In response to this, we instigated a smaller research experiment:

1) placing cushions on public benches in the town centres. To assess whether people did notice any changes and record their responses, we placed colourful cushions on public benches and observed people’s responses. In both places, in the hour or so we observed, only once were they picked up, in both cases by a young person. In Midsummer Place, two young women sat on them without comment to drink their coffees. Occasionally other people glanced at them; mostly they were ignored. These results are hard to interpret. Our sense is that they show an awareness of, but also a general indifference to, small changes in the urban environment, particularly ones that are not negative or confrontational.

During the period of our fieldwork, however, in both Bedford and central Milton Keynes, more significant changes were, or were rumoured to be, underway in the town centres. In Bedford, Church Square was being dug up as part of a redesign, in Milton Keynes, the oak tree in the centre of Midsummer Place was, according to some local newspaper reports, dying from lack of water. We therefore conducted:

2) survey of responses to ongoing changes. We conducted a survey of sixty people in each place to establish whether they had noticed these changes and what they felt about them.

19


REFERENCE No.

Stage 4 analysis II

This stage entailed analyzing individuals’ practised experiences of urban space. The different kind of data generated by all the methods outlined above (ethnographic notes; surveys; walk-alongs and follow-up interviews; photographs) were analysed thematically by all team members. As will be detailed in the next section, this did not take us in the directions we initially anticipated. Nonetheless, at the end of this stage, we are in a position to offer a more nuanced account of the experience of aestheticised urban space, which can describe how such aestheticisation is experienced – its quality – and can also acknowledge various differentiations within that space.

Results Our project concludes that designed urban spaces are assembled multiply, by a range of practices that are, in differing degrees, social, material, and sensory. Urban spaces are certainly experienced through a wide range of bodily sensibilities. This project shows clearly that both a sense of place, and the range of intensities with which the built environment is encountered, are multisensory. Not always and consistently so, but understandings of the built environment must take their sounds, textures and smells into account as well as their visual qualities. Bedford is 'rough' and Milton Keynes is 'smooth'; people commented on the range of smells in Bedford town centre, and on the apparent lack of smells (and temperature changes) in Milton Keynes, for example. What our methods also showed was the number of different ways in which people experienced these two town centres, which became more or less important depending on what they were doing: browsing shops, meeting friends, talking to researchers. In the town centres in particular, the variety of things people did there meant that their experiences were multiple rather than singular. The project has identified four key aspects of this multiple experiencing of designed urban space: 1 a shared sense of place Both Bedford and Milton Keynes have a very strong, and distinctive, sense of place. The graphs in this subsection are based on the evidence of the large-scale survey, which asked people to describe Milton Keynes or Bedford in three words. With the exception of 'nice', 'busy' and comments on the shops in each town, every other descriptor is strongly differentiated between the two towns. These distinct senses of place are shared among almost all participants, and appeared particularly clearly and evocatively in the follow-up interviews. Research participants in Milton Keynes shared a strong sense of the centre's overall atmosphere, which one participant described as being "like stroking a tile". Milton Keynes is cream, grey, light, angular. In Bedford too, there was a distinct overall 'feel' to the place, which is much more rough and textured than Milton Keynes, more “like brushing your hand over brick, so rough, not smooth at all”. People also tended to pick out specific aspects of Bedford's centre as particularly meaningful to them: the river, a particular shop, for example. Bedford also prompted a lot of memories of how it used to be, from many of our participants of all ages.

20


REFERENCE No.

source: large scale survey

source: large scale survey

21


REFERENCE No.

2 inconsistent attention to the built environment From the large survey, in both Milton Keynes and Bedford less than two-thirds of the survey respondents said they were in the town centres to shop (62% in CMilton Keynes and 57% in Bedford). Other activities described included socialising, working or enjoying a day out.

source: large scale survey We have already noted that from our ethnographic work as well as the large survey, we identified four significant practices – shopping, caring, socialising and maintaining – and that we were able to focus on the first three of these. We can now identify the somewhat different kinds of engagement with the built environment each of these entails. Shopping, for example, should be divided into two kinds: specific, where there is a clear intention to buy one specific item; and general, which is a more browsing kind of shopping. As an example of specific shopping, a man we walked with during his lunch-break was rushing through the Milton Keynes shopping centre to get a present for his wife in a specific shop. He walked purposefully, quickly, with his head either down or gazing straight ahead; his eyes did not focus in detail on the immediate surroundings but concentrated instead on navigating the space to the required destination. A different intensity of shopping experience – general shopping – is illustrated by two young men that we accompanied to Bedford. They regularly meet up in Bedford town centre to browse through a range of shops for video games, DVDs, clothes or guitars. They would slowly stroll through the high-street scanning people’s faces in search for acquaintances. Once in a shop, their bodies would gently bop with the music, while different video games would be picked up, talked about, compared. Socialising entails yet another experience of the town centres. Having a conversation with someone, either in person or via a phone, seems to make most of the awareness of the built environment disappear, leaving only the most minimal engagement necessary in

22


REFERENCE No.

order not to walk into anything. But beyond that, both the 'feel' and layout of the centre can fade away:

on a walk-along with a woman needing to buy, wrap and post presents to her family in Australia, we keep talking about her family and how she strategizes about sending the parcels as one pack or in groups. She keeps talking fast giving me all this information about how much she needs to get things sent and how she is behind on this. …During her talks, I realized we passed the Post Office. I paused and asked her if we passed the Post Office. She was not sure. We looked back and forth trying to figure it out. (walk-along notes)

Given the effect of such social interaction on perception of the built environment, it is important to note just how many people say that they are in both town centres to be with other people – and even those that say they are there to shop are, from our observations, very often with friends and family and socialising as they browse and search. This confirms work by Jackson and Holbrook on Wood Green and Brent Cross shopping centres in north London a decade ago. As they note, shopping is "an intensely social activity that involves far more than the simple purchase of goods" (Holbrook and Jackson 1996, 202; and see also Jackson and Holbrook 1995; Uzell 1995).

thecentre:mk Finally, caring involves complex attention to both the specific needs of those who need caring for, as well as a sense of the surrounding environment in terms often of its risks (both dangers but also things like avoiding shops where kids will demand that their

23


REFERENCE No.

parents buy them something). One of our walk-alongers reflected on going to Milton Keynes with her two children thus:

“It’s a bit like when you’re driving a car and that you have to pay attention to what you’re doing and what the other driver’s doing around on the road, and all that kind of stuff, but when you’ve then got the children in tow you have two more cars that you’re controlling but with independent thought and you have to think about your surroundings, and you have to think about the shop surroundings and the other people, so a way of doing that is to hold hands, and have them at all times, but you also have to still concentrate on physically where you’re walking. Can you and the person you’re holding hands with navigate the space, are the other person’s hands reaching onto things they shouldn’t be touching?” (follow-up interview)

These various examples from the walk-alongs illustrate how experience is very much shaped by the specific practices one is engaged in. However, it is crucial to note that while respondents to the large survey gave just one reason for being in the town centres, the walk-alongs made it clear that in fact any one visit involved many different practices. It therefore follows that in any one visit, the centres are experienced in a number of different ways. Hence the lack of correlation in the large survey between what one thing people said they were doing, and how they described their experience of the places. People do many different things in these town centres, even on a single visit, and this produces an erratic and inconsistent experiencing of the built environment. 3 people compare, assess and judge urban spaces This was a striking result in the qualitative work with individual research participants. It suggests that people encounter urban space experientially, but that their experience is not constituted entirely in that moment, as some of the more radical, non-representationalist accounts of urban space insist (eg Latham and McCormack 2004); people also carry memories of other places which are used to judge Bedford and Milton Keynes (see output 2). 4 attention to specific details In both Bedford and Milton Keynes, people's attention was caught by specific aspects of the built environment.

� interactive objects. � water is very much liked, especially fountains. � trees. When we asked people in Midsummer Place what they would like to see

there if the oak tree died, they overwhelmingly replied that they wanted to see another tree. Similarly, in Bedford people liked the Church Square trees, and also frequently commented on the tree-lined river embankment as the town's best feature.

� benches. Although very few people talked about benches in the survey, the walk-alongs or the interviews, it is obvious from our observation that benches are a heavily-used and important part of the urban environment.

24


REFERENCE No.

Bedford town centre These latter findings have been of particular interest to urban designers, landscape architects, public art practitioners and regeneration bodies in both local councils (see section on 'Impacts'). conclusions The project's commitment to an empirical understanding of urban aesthetics has been realised through a consistent analysis on the everyday doings of urban spaces. Methodologically the project has focused on two ordinary towns and the mundane activities of everyday users. Analytically we have sought to ally a theoretical emphasis on the ordinary and everyday dimensions of urban life, with a particular focus on practices and doings in urban environments. The project identifies urban experience as a range of unstable, shifting perceptual achievements between perceiving subjects and participating objects. Rather than regarding experience as relegated to a purely subjective realm, our research has highlighted that urban experience is distributed and formed in and through entanglements of sensing bodies and materialities. In particular our walk-alongs indicate that it is the practices or activities that individuals are involved in that frames their experience. Experiencing urban environments is guided by particular practices which produce perceptual fields of diverse depth and intensity. This confirms and extends emerging work on architecture and practice (see for example Jacobs, Cairns and Strebel 2008). The project has developed the debate about the visual impact of recent changes to town and city centres by focussing on everyday practice and showing that such practices, in all their diversity, complexity and multisensoriality, produce an inconsistent and erratic enagement with built urban spaces which is by no means entirely visual. The

25


REFERENCE No.

experiencing of such places switches and flickers, as people undertake a range of ordinary practices within them. Our results demonstrate not only a variety and range of urban experiences but moreover a sliding scale of experiential mutations framed through particular practices for which we have elaborated the new concept of ‘perceptual fields’ (see output 1). The project provided a space to experiment with the use of a range of traditional and innovative methodologies as a means of evaluating experiences of urban space. While our efforts to change the urban environment were less successful, the ethnographic methods, surveys, and, especially, the walk-alongs provided very useful strategies for investigating the sensory and performative nature of urban experience. A future publication currently in preparation will detail and evaluate the walk-along method in detail. The project has honoured its commitment to translating analytical insights into policy relevant writings. Most notable here has been our circulation of project findings and better practice at ixia, our end-of-project workshop attended by research participants and local council representatives, and a continuing professional development session for a major urban design consultancy in Milton Keynes. The setting up of the website further enhances the dissemination of the projects findings and ideas. The website's maps are also an innovative way of representing the multisensory, inconsistent and multiple experiencing of these town centres (see output 3). Activities A workshop was organised for nine urban professionals from Bedford and Milton Keynes on 20 February 2009 which aimed to disseminate the results of our research to local policy makers, to bring policy makers from the two towns together, and to generate further discussion about the design of the town centres in the light of our findings. All research participants were also invited to attend, and five did. A measure of the success of this event can be obtained from remarks by Trevor Roff (Head Of Regeneration, Bedford) and Sarah Whittaker (Design and Planning Manager, Milton Keynes Partnership) who not only found the findings helpful in terms of their own practice but also agreed on future discussions between the two towns. Outputs papers submitted to academic journals

1. Degen, M, Rose G and Basdas, B, Bodies and everyday practices in designed urban environments. Accepted subject to revisions by Science Studies, special issue on Accounting Society.

2. Rose, G, Degen, M and Basdas B, Architecture and affect: two shopping centres

from the inside. Accepted subject to revisions by Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers.

26


REFERENCE No.

3. Rose G, Basdas B and Degen M, Using the web to disseminate research on urban spatialities. Accepted subject to revisions by Geography Compass.

paper submitted to user audience We have put a paper on the website of the public art organisation Ixia (http://www.ixia-info.com/new-writing/), discussing our findings for a public arts audience. website See section 7 of the report form, and www.urban-experience.net. papers given at academic conferences Experiencing designed urban spaces: mixing methods and methods for mixing. Association of American Geographers' Annual Meeting, Boston, March 2008

Seeing and doing urban design. Society for Social Studies of Science Conference, Rotterdam, August 2008

Designing spaces of play, leisure, and consumption: public art and small scale urban design projects in Milton Keynes and Bedford, UK. Annual Conference of the Royal Geographical Society and the Institute Of British Geographers, London, August 2008

Experiencing urban space. Urban MultipliCITIES, Urban Geography Research Group Annual Conference, Queen Mary University of London, November 2008

Between narrative and collage: using visual images in social science research. Nordic Network for Visual Studies, Tampere, October 2008

Felt intensities: researching urban experience in mundane urban settings. International Sociological Association RC21: Landscapes of Global Urbanism: Power, Marginality and Creativity, Tokyo, December 2009

Bodies and everyday practices in designed environments. Culture-Theory-Space Research Group, Plymouth University, June 2009 Material visualities: experiencing cities. Visuality/Materiality: Reviewing Theory, Method and Practice, London, July 2009 Architecture and affect: two shopping centres from the inside. University of Tromso, May 2009 Impacts The workshop for urban professionals seems to have made a significant impact on local policy communities, particularly in terms of guiding more modest efforts to improve local environments. An informal visit to urban design practice David Lock Associates in Milton Keynes led to participation in their Continuing Professional Development Programme. The project

27


REFERENCE No.

team spoke to around thirty members of the practice on 2 June 2009 and received a very positive response to the work. Future Research Priorities The project identified three new priority areas for future research:

1. We could not pursue in depth the fourth practice identified in urban environments – maintenance – for lack of time. However we feel this is significant area for further research.

2. The interaction between users' perceptual experiences of city centres and the experiences intended by the centres' designers, planners and managers of ‘urban atmospheres’. This would include the interrogation of designers' sensory geographies in relation to those of users.

3. Discussions both at the end of project event and our presentation at the urban design practice point towards the value of further research into the role that commercial spaces play in contemporary urban public spaces.

References Adey P (2008) Airports, mobility and the affective architecture of affective control

Geoforum 39 438-451 Allen J (2006) Ambient power: Berlin’s Potsdamer Platz and the seductive logic of public

spaces Urban Studies 43, 441-455 Amin A and Thrift N (2002) Cities: Reimagining the Urban Polity Press, Cambridge Degen M, DeSilvey C and Rose G (2007) Experiencing visualities in designed urban

environments: learning from Milton Keynes Environment and Planning A 40 1901-1920 Degen, M (2003) Fighting for the global catwalk: formalising public life in Castlefield

(Manchester) and diluting public life in el Raval (Barcelona) International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27 868-880

Featherstone, M (1991) Consumer Culture and Postmodernism, Sage, London Hannigan, J (1998) Fantasy City, Routledge, London Harvey, D (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity, Blackwell, Oxford Hein JR, Evans J, and Jones P (2008) Mobile Methodologies: Theory, Technology and

Practice in Geography Compass 2 1266 – 1285 Holbrook B and Jackson P (1996) The social milieux of two north London shopping

centres Geoforum 27 193-204 Jackson P and Holbrook B (1995) Multiple meanings: shopping and the cultural politics

of identity Environment and Planning A 27 1913-1930 Jacobs JM, Cairns SR and Strebel I (2008) Windows: re-viewing Red Road Scottish

Geographical Journal 124 165-184 Jacobs, JM (1998) Staging Difference: aestheticization and the politics of difference in

contemporary cities, in R Fisher and JM Jacobs (eds) Cities of Difference, Guilford Press, New York

Kusenbach M (2003) Street phenomenology: the go-along as ethnographic research tool Ethnography 4 455-485

28


REFERENCE No.

Latham A (2003) Research, performance, and doing human geography: some reflections on the diary-photograph, diary interview method Environment and Planning A 35 1993-2017

Latham A and McCormack D (2004) Moving cities: rethinking the materialities of urban geographies Progress in Human Geography 28 701-724

Lee J and Ingold T (2006) Fieldwork on foot: perceiving, routing, socializing, in Locating the Field: Space, Place and Context in Anthropology, edited by S Coleman and P Collins. Berg, Oxford pp 67-86

Lorimer H and Lund K (2003) Performing facts: finding a way over Scotland’s mountains The Sociological Review 51 130-44

Lund K (2006) Seeing in motion and the touching eye: Walking over Scotland’s mountains Anthropological Journal 18 27-42

Merriman P and Jacobs JM eds forthcoming special issue on Practicing Architecture Social and Cultural Geography

PinkS (2007a) Walking with video Visual Studies 22 240-252 Pink S (2007b) Sensing cittàslow: slow living and the constitution of the sensory city Sense

and Society 2 59-77 Sheller M and Urry J (2006) The New Mobilities Paradigm Environment and Planning A 38

2007-226 Uzzell DL (1995) The myth of the indoor city Journal of Environmental Psychology 15 299-

310 Wylie, J (2005) “A Single Day’s Walking: narrating self and landscape on the SouthWest

Coast Path” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol.30, No.2, pp.234-247

29


background - cloud object storage...reference no. research report res-062-23-0223 urban aesthetics:...

Documents