Target stores
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanrules/3167906446/sizes/o/
This first image is one that surprises many people. It is the interior of a Target store, a pretty common site to most people. However, all those black circles in the ceiling? All cameras, making this a very, very jittery space, as defined by Flusty. Most people don’t notice these cameras. In my Target, which is a small one located in Milltown, NJ, there are 120 cameras. I used to work there, so I know a number of security specs and details. This picture is of the DVD section, one very potent for shoplifting, but it just goes to show how jittery a space can be regardless of whether the occupant is aware. But by entering the store, a private establishment, a person gives up their right to privacy and can be “watched”. Every aisle has a camera, and some aisles have multiple cameras. The segmenting of the store makes its recordability streamlined and very effective. However, the sheer number of cameras makes them impossible to all watch simultaneously. There is an entire department dedicated to “product retention” and they employ rent-a-cops and review tape if suspicious activity occurs.
However, the bottom line is that I know many employees and shoppers who have stolen from the store, without ever being followed up on. The cameras are there and make their presence known. They are black on a white ceiling, with high contrast. They act as a deterrant more than an actual security device. 120 cameras in a small store not even doing their job well sounds silly, but it likely saves Target millions. They could even just place these black bubbles in the ceilings with no actual cameras there and they probably would still retain more products.
These cameras attempt to control people to prevent them from shoplifting, and it attempts to keep these people out of the store altogether. This tends to support Flusty’s arguments of public space turning into more stringently watched private space, as old stores may have not been monitored because they were essentially public space, these spaces are clearly private due to the cameras and flexing their “private muscles”.
Burger Joint NYC (Le Parker Meridien, 57th Street)
This is a quite different example that I myself find very interesting. Inside “Le Parker Meridien,” a very expensive hotel and restaurant located on 57th Street between 6th and 7th, holds this secret in its lobby. You start in what looks like an innocent hotel lobby (image 1), and there is sometimes a line coming out of the curtains. Only when you come far enough into the lobby to see inside the curtain, you see where the people are going (image 2). The sign (image 3) is the first indication that this place exists, and that it serves burgers. After waiting in the line, you see the prize (image 4), a dirty-looking, underground burger joint. There is no indication outside on the street or in the lobby until one sees this sign. Though the reason for its secrecy is not security, it still chooses to make itself a stealthy and slippery space.
The reason for this secrecy is really just to monitor who comes in. It does not attract the usual crowd of the Parker Meridien, and due to its location it does not attract the usual crowd of, say, a McDonalds down the street. Its menu is a cardboard sheet, and the walls are plastered with rock and movie posters. The restaurant is mostly to filter to “hipsters” and those who know the NYC restaurant scene. It deters tourists, and only allows insiders who hear about it through word of mouth (like myself), since they do not advertise at all. Even the name, “Burger Joint NYC” is completely client-produced. Their “name” is the neon sign of the burger. I think the materials and settings are perfect for this public space, and I think they seem to disprove Flusty’s arguments, because they are not for security, paranoia, or really anything. They merely exclude those who don’t “know the ropes” of New York, and do not attempt to exclude anyone who hears about them.
East Brunswick Turf Fields
These are the topics of my possible unit 1 paper, the turf fields in my town. Though they are totally open to the public, only surrounded by a 4 ft fence (to keep balls and players on the turf), they are still a slippery space. The fields, as one can see, are secluded from the two main roads they are near, Cranbury and Dunhams Corner Rd. They are not visible from either road, and there are no signs to indicate where they are from the entrance on Dunhams Corner Rd. Their only indication for outsiders are their bright lights that are lit during the evenings. Though the spaces are totally public, they exclude those who weren’t previously informed of their existence. They, in this way, exclude people who shouldn’t be there, basically anyone who shouldn’t be watching or playing on or maintaining the fields. While I understand that the fields shouldn’t be ruined by too much human traffic, I just don’t understand this aspect of their creation. There is plenty of space closer to the roads, and even though this could be a safety hazard, they are intended to be public spaces, and their current location in no way “invites” people to come unless they know about them.
This combines some aspects of Target, reducing crime (like possible sexual predator crimes), and aspects of the Burger Joint, exclusion of those without prior knowledge. So just due to their location, the turf fields, which seem like the most public of the spaces, is really the least public. This is not to say that they’re private, but merely that they’re less public. The road you drive on to get there, in the desolate old farm fields, reminds one of the privilege it is to know of this free location, as it drives you away from society. These implications of privilege in public space speaks clearly to Flusty’s essay, and begs the question: who are the field makers really trying to exclude from the space?
Hi Michael. As always, an interesting post…The target surveillance cameras make me realize just how often I am surveilled without thinking about it. I can’t help but think about how many times I have been caught on tape at Wegmans in Syracuse taking a papaya strip from the bulk bin and not paying for it. Hah!
Anyway, the passage space to the stealthy space of the burger joint is a good example of how space is often used as a means of marketing and a means of keeping territory local. This post reminds me of how passage spaces outside of nightclubs are often prickly spaces for those who do not fit ideal norms of beauty. I was in line for a club in L.A. once and was talking to a guy who was opening a club down the street. After telling me about the club, he said you are pretty enough to get in, you should come down. I also think about how bouncers act as guards protecting the “unideal” from the slippery spaces of night clubs. Another time in L.A. a bouncer looked at my ID and said “God that is a bad picture but you can come in anyway.” Hah!!! These instances are funny, but on the other hand, they raise very problematic instances of how space and socially constructed norms of beauty and ability interact to control public space.
In regards to the last post,I think your use of “less public” is interesting and points to how public space can be defined along a continuum rather than along binary lines of private and public. I also think your inquiry about who these field are attempting to exclude is important. I will be very curious to see what you find out in your investigation of this public space should you choose these fields as your project.
I think the Target example is interesting because it shows how overly and unnecessarily surveillance has become in some spaces. Like you said, with 120 cameras there is no way to watch all the cameras at once, and once a crime has occurred it would be nearly impossible to find the person after they have left. While the cameras probably do save Target money, I think they are not as successful as they could be. We are so used to being watched that I think most of us don’t really pay attention anymore. A more successful route might be if Target could somehow figure out a way to package DVD’s, CD’s, etc. so that the security bar code could not be removed without an employee removing it. This way security would have a better chance of seeing someone trying to free the object and the alarms would be better able to stop someone leaving. Even using the video game seller technique of only placing the empty box on display, making buyers have to ask for them could be successful, especially if buyers were made to buy right then. I think the restaurant example is very interesting. Coming from Orlando, everything is touristy which can be very frustrating to locals who just want to eat without a loud family interrupting. It is nice sometimes to get away from the ‘Disney-scene’, or in this case, the “NYC-scene’, and stay local. I think this is a very effective way to ‘ban’ tourists without actually enforcing a ban. The only issue I really see is that it is located in a hotel lobby, so any tourist staying there could see the line and find out about it. If you were to use the fields for your paper, I think it would be beneficial to examine the economic status of the area around the fields compared to surrounding areas, and then map out how these correlate to the road system and points of access. You may find a similar situation to the one described by Flutsy where the poor weren’t given road access to the financial district of L.A.
I definitely agree that 120 cameras to cover one retail store is way to many, but I think that it would be much cheaper than having to repackage the products and still decently effective to protect their merchandise. I really like the burger joint hidden in the hotel lobby. A little burger place stuck in a nice hotel that only the locals know about. I really think that this could provide you with a lot of interesting things to explore if you talked to some people in it and see how they found out about it. Also, are there any sort of “unspoken rules” about who to tell or not about it? For the third area, if you did your research on that, would you focus on why it was located there? or would you focus on who uses it? I think that it would be interesting to see what property is part of that field and why they did it so far from the main roads.
I am very interested to see what you have to say about the farm lands. I don’t know much about lands and how they effect public space. I am looking forward to reading your paper.