View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE
provided by Royal Holloway - Pure
DESIGNING PUBLIC SPACE FOR MOBILITY: CONTESTATION, NEGOTIATION AND EXPERIMENT AT AMSTERDAM AIRPORT SCHIPHOL
ANNA NIKOLAEVA Department of Culture and Society, Faculty of Arts, Aarhus University, Denmark. E-mail: [email protected]
Received: May 2011; accepted August 2012
ABSTRACT The paper investigates airport design, using the example of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, from the point of view of managers, architects and designers. It is argued that existing accounts of the airport as a space of transit as well as a place for shopping and entertainment have underrated the complexity and interdependency of the interests at stake in the airport design, as well the value of an airport terminal as an urban design exercise. This is particularly relevant in the discussion of the transformation of spaces of mobility, such as airports or railway stations, into multifunctional public spaces and may also be valid for urban spaces where mobilities are becoming increasingly important. The paper analyses the challenges and opportunities that arise in such design situa- tions, tracing the recent transformations of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol from the perspective of professionals who have played a key role in this process.
Key words: Airport City, Schiphol, interview, mobility, urban design
INTRODUCTION through controlling, sorting and surveilling movement of people, things and data (i.e. Mer- During the last decade the airport has become riman 2004; Cresswell 2006; Adey et al. 2007; one of the key objects of study for geographers Salter 2007). and sociologists working with the so-called Furthermore, mobility scholars have brought ‘new mobilities paradigm’ as a particular set to light the complexity of the airport as a mul- of research agendas, theories and methods tifunctional place of travel, work, commerce exploring the movement of people and things and entertainment and have shown that taking as processes through which identities and social people from A to B as fast as possible is not relations are produced, maintained and con- always the priority for airport authorities. tested (Cresswell 2006, 2011; Sheller & Urry ‘Dwell time’ of passengers has been gradually 2006; Urry 2007; Adey 2010). In this context increasing as the operators have to accommo- the ideas of the airport as a ‘non-place’ (Augé date ever more sophisticated security checks 1995) or a mere node in the ‘space of flows’ and try boosting non-aviation related income (Castells 2000) have been repeatedly criticised from restaurants, shops and other facilities. as images that obscure the complex picture of Large international terminals not only process power relationships that are enacted at airports passenger movement, but also invite travellers
Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie – 2012, DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9663.2012.00740.x, Vol. 103, No. 5, pp. 542–554. © 2012 The Author Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie © 2012 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA DESIGNING PUBLIC SPACE FOR MOBILITY: SCHIPHOL AIRPORT 543 and non-travellers alike to visit spa centres, urban spaces and thus might represent the boutiques and restaurants or work at an office public spaces of the future: ‘The airport is with a view of the runways. Some airports, the primary testing ground, the vanguard of often together with adjacent areas, came to the organisation of the city as the space of be marketed as fully-fledged urban centres heavily surveilled, highly managed flows (. . .) It and to be labelled respectively: AirportCity models the city as a pure space of circulation (Amsterdam), Sky City (Hong Kong), Aviapolis and commerce’ (Sorkin 2004, pp. 261–262; see (Helsinki), Aerotropolis (Memphis) to name also Adey 2004; Harley & Fuller 2004). just a few.1 In this kind of discourse the example of The design strategies that are introduced in airport design has often been linked to reflec- the wake of these transformations are some- tions on the detrimental transformation of times akin to those already established at urban public space, airports being rendered as shopping malls, yet their manipulative power ‘consequences and causes of a shrunken public can even be reinforced at airports due to spe- space, a space that no longer adequately func- cific security requirements, lesser degree of tions as a genuine accumulator and circulator people’s freedom of movement or the possi- of persons and ideas but rather of consumers bility of using surveillance for commercial pur- and non-consumers, or threats to consump- poses (Lyon 2003; Adey 2008). However, in tion.’ (Rosler 1998, p. 77). A few voices, never- many cases the operational objectives, security theless, have praised the international terminal interests and profit-making incentives are for giving new space for urban culture to thrive hard to reconcile and some studies have and creating social space of unprecedented pointed to the difficulties that airport authori- diversity, thus, being ‘the closest many cities ties face on a daily basis (Adey 2007; Keller- come to a public realm, in some cases hardly man 2008; Salter 2008). For example, Klauser limited to travellers’ (Sudjic 1992, p. 145; see et al. (2008, p. 122) in their investigation of also Gottdiener 2001; Pearman 2004). More- surveillance procedures at Geneva Interna- over, other ‘mobility environments’ are gradu- tional Airport have argued that the airport ally recognised in transport and mobility should not be seen as ‘a homogeneous world research as spaces of social interaction and pos- of complete control’, having analysed how the sibly ‘anchors of urban life’ (Bertolini & Dijst CCTV practices are produced through com- 2003; Jensen 2010). promises and negotiations between different However, the urban design potential of the stakeholders on a daily basis. In particular, it airport that may be developed purposefully appears from their data that the airport’s or as a side-effect of commercialisation has ambition to serve as a multifunctional urban not been explored further. How is the airport space and a stage for commercial events becoming a city-like environment? According brings a number of challenges for security and to which visions and principles is this new mul- surveillance professionals who have to negoti- tifunctional urban space designed and how are ate their vision of the ‘trouble-free’ airport the tensions between different interests at with other parties. stake resolved? Does the ‘cityness’ play any role This paper continues this line of research in the envisioning of the terminal as a public that aims to unpack the complexity of airport facility, a space of travel and commerce? If design as it develops into an ‘entrepreneurial indeed the management of mobilities at air- urban activity centre’ (Stevens et al. 2010). ports and in other urban spaces could be com- However, it takes a slightly different perspective pared, how can the investigation of airport on the subject, inspired by a set of questions design enrich discussions on urban spaces developed within mobility studies, urban geog- related to mobility? raphy and urban design. It has been suggested The existing literature has not addressed that as airports are growing, commercialising these questions adequately. Scholars have pre- and look more and more like cities, cities in dominantly focused on the role of surveillance their turn develop features of airports (Urry and policing in airport design, with other 2009). Some put it another way: airports may dimensions receiving less attention. Excepting supply solutions for managing mobilities in a few examples (Cresswell 2006; Adey 2008),
© 2012 The Author Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie © 2012 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG 544 ANNA NIKOLAEVA the intent and visions behind specific designs After discussing approach and methodology have often been merely inferred rather than I introduce Schiphol, sketching the gradual thoroughly explored through engaging in dia- transformation of the airport into a more logue with airport authorities and designers. diversified and commercialised environment Moreover, although the multiplicity of stake- and some of the reasoning behind it. Next I holders in airport governance and design and discuss the tensions in airport design that this diversity of their interests have been recogn- transformation entails from the perspective of ised by some researchers (i.e. Adey 2007; different interests that are in play. I go on to Klauser et al. 2008), there has hardly been analyse the dynamic interrelationship and made an identification of the professional interdependence between these interests and worlds standing behind those interests, of their the corresponding visions of the airport as a values and visions. Thus, it is still common in space of mobility and temporary dwelling, sug- research to refer to ‘the airport’ that is gesting that the multiplicity of goals involved designed in particular way to manage flows of and the novelty of the concepts allow balanc- people, make them obey, make them consume ing different views by means of experimenting and so forth which creates a picture of some with design. Finally, I relate the analysis of the unitary approach the rationale behind which is struggles and compromises in airport design difficult to question. Yet, the airport design to current discussions on urban spaces of should rather be seen as a continuous series mobility. of negotiations, struggles and compromises between specific professional circles that have APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY some common agendas to address but pursue different objectives. The research brings together agendas from Taking the perspective of airport creators, human geography, in particular the ‘mobilities the paper thus presents the airport design as a paradigm’, and approaches from urban and struggle between contested visions of mobility architectural studies with their focus on the and of the airport as an urban space rather contexts of the production of built environ- than a mere enactment of some omnipotent ment. Such a combination of perspectives and interests. I argue that the airport may become methodological tools has been since long advo- not only a testing ground for surveillance cated by geographers (Goss 1988; Lees 2001; techniques, marketing technologies and McNeill 2005) and appears to be particularly mobility logistics but also, in a sense, an urban productive in the case of studying spaces of design laboratory in which understandings of mobilities – complex built environments ‘public domain’ and ‘cityness’ are rearticu- enabling the workings of multiple socio-spatial lated. The purpose is not to present an frameworks of different scale. exhaustive overview of the design process and I concur with Cuff’s (1992, p. 4) view on built describe all the entanglements of interests, environment as the result of ‘collective concep- but to highlight certain connections between tion’ and the understanding of architectural different visions at play which nevertheless practice as a complex process of interactions opens up a new perspective on designing between interested parties, that takes place space for mobilities. across physical and textual spaces, involving not The case chosen to explore these issues is only the architect, but a number of other indi- Amsterdam Airport Schiphol which holds a viduals – clients, consultants, engineers and so special position of one of the first European forth. I frame the analysis similarly to the way it airports promoted as a city-like environment. is built up in Sherman’s (2010) study of how Moreover, since the end of the 1990s its opera- urban property is developed through complex tor, Schiphol Group, has been selling the procedures of bargaining when the stakehold- concept AirportCity2 to other airports world- ers have different goals and visions but are all wide, having made Creating AirportCities its interested in maximising profit and efficiency in slogan which implies some purposeful analysis the context of scarcity of space. This is exactly of the development by the participating the situation at the airport with its limited floor parties. space and priority of efficiency and profit-
© 2012 The Author Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie © 2012 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG DESIGNING PUBLIC SPACE FOR MOBILITY: SCHIPHOL AIRPORT 545 making. Sherman sees the city as a principally ‘MORE THAN JUST AN AIRPORT’ ‘contentious environment’ where the conflict is actually constructive and increases the chances Amsterdam Airport Schiphol is one of the of the implementation of creative urban design busiest airports by international passenger solutions that can satisfy the majority of stake- traffic in Europe. Over 45 million passengers holders. Seeing negotiations as a means of passed through Schiphol in 2010, of which enriching urban form, he calls for rethinking around 19 million were transfer passengers the role of the architect as a ‘mediator’ or an (Schiphol Group 2010). Schiphol’s financial ‘interlocutor’ between different stakeholders dependency on international traffic, and in whose mission would be ‘attempting through particular, transfer passengers, together with his or her own design ingenuity to articulate, the limited capacity for expansion influenced negotiate, accommodate, and substantiate the exceptional attention which has been paid each party’s interest’ (Sherman 2010, p. 135). to the efficiency of passenger and cargo opera- Accordingly, in this paper I will outline the dif- tions. Thus, the constant ambition of Schiphol ference between the goals of different parties, has been to stay a ‘preferred’ airport of transfer their ways of reaching agreement and will look since passengers (and airlines) can always opt into the role of the architect in this context. for another hub. The airport has received more The paper is based on the results of than 160 awards as the best airport in Europe or documentary research, observations and 39 in the world since 1980 (Schiphol Group 2009). in-depth interviews with the agents involved For many, Schiphol is interesting for research in management and design process at Amster- because it has been a blueprint of airport man- dam Airport Schiphol. Interviewed persons agement and design even before the concept included current and previous architectural of AirportCity came into play and the airport supervisors, main architects working on authorities started exporting their expertise on Schiphol since late 1980s, designers of interiors a contract basis. First, Schiphol was praised for and signposting, managers from departments the efficiency of passenger processes, later it of Commercial Services and of Passenger became known for integrating non-aviation Services, managers from joint project teams related facilities into the terminal and main- reviewing and managing design projects and taining the quality of operations. I focus on the other professionals working at Schiphol cur- latter aspect and analyse how specific interests rently or previously. The purpose of the inter- and visions of the airport were framed during views was to identify key actors and parties in this process of upgrading the space of mobility the design process, their values and goals, to the environment promoted as a meeting exploring with them the process of designing place for people and businesses. and conceptualising particular spaces. The core of the current passenger terminal Sources for documentary research included was opened in 1967 and despite numerous both annual reports of Schiphol Group, fact- expansions and renovations, the old building is sheets and marketing brochures that are pub- still in use. Thus, the discussion of the ‘design licly available and some organisation charts and process’ at Schiphol refers to extensions, small- manuals used by different departments within scale interventions and renovations. By the the company. This research has supported and middle of the 1990s Schiphol was upgraded refined findings from the interviews with more with a railway station, a covered Schiphol Plaza precise historical data and helped to recon- with more food and beverage outlets and shops struct the organisation of design and decision- accessible for general public and World Trade making process over time. Center Schiphol Airport. Airside has also Finally, regular ethnographic observations at gradually been upgraded with more shopping the airport, made at different times of day and facilities and restaurants as well as with less week have served as a supplementary source of usual places to be found at airports – a casino information about how the airport can func- (1993), a branch of the national museum tion as a place and how different visions of (2002), a beauty and wellness centre (2008), it identified during interviews are working Airport Library (2010) and so forth.3 And together in practice. although there have been different facilities
© 2012 The Author Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie © 2012 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG 546 ANNA NIKOLAEVA not related to air travel at Schiphol since its functional movement and others for temporary early years, the scale of new developments since dwelling. In this sense, the notion of ‘more the middle of the 1990s was different. The first than just an airport’ already had in its core a annual report that mentions AirportCity dated complex entanglement of incentives, or, put it 1998 and around the same time the ambitions in another way, it developed gradually through arose to export the ‘formula’ to other operators pushing forward different objectives by differ- around the world. Celebrating this concept, a ent agents and groups. recent brochure issued by Schiphol Group In the next sections I briefly present different claims that Schiphol is ‘more than just an professional worlds and their interests and airport’: it is ‘a modern transport hub integrat- analyse how they work together balancing ing people and businesses, logistics and shops, mobilities and immobilities. I divide this analy- information and entertainment’ (Schiphol sis in two parts, first, outlining the divergent Group 2009). visions existing within the airport operator The shift in the airport management company, Schiphol Group, and, second, I approach from perceiving the airport as a discuss the ideas of the architects and their ways public facility enabling efficient passenger and of translating their client’s ambitions and cargo operations to a more business-like strat- requirements into an architectural form that egy entailed the rearrangment of design priori- may be conceived of in terms of urban design. ties and, as a consequence, some challenges The architects’ visions are discussed separately for participating parties and struggles over in view of the difference between the roles of Schiphol airport as a place, its layout and its the client and the architect in the production identity. Talking to my interviewees about the and conceptualisation of built environment development of the AirportCity concept and the that concerns this paper. The architects are the commercialisation of the airport, I tried to party which not only takes primary responsibil- trace the logic behind these developments, in ity in conceptualising the place in terms of particular, to find out what kind of interest was urban design and its value as ‘public domain’, driving the process. they are also the ones who actually make and In the case of Schiphol, developing realise the design, orchestrating the differences more shopping and entertainment facilities, between various interests in a specific way. especially on the airside, was in many ways pre- Furthermore, whereas Schiphol managers may determined by its dependence on transfer pas- well contribute to urban design in the case of sengers who should want to choose Schiphol the airport, their power does not extend again as a transfer point. They represent a beyond the airport – as much as it does in the captive market and the airport can profit on case of architects and designers who work on their ‘dwell time’ enormously but they would train stations, museums, shopping malls and so hardly come back to the airport if they are forth, enabling the actual exchange of forms, stressed finding their way, if they have to walk a ideas and solutions between the city and the mile to the nearest toilet but just 50 metres to airport. just another Starbucks or a perfume shop. At the same time they might not like an airport ‘WE CAN TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF THAT with just Starbucks and perfume shops. If they SPACE’: STRUGGLES AND COMPROMISES have 10 hours between flights, they need more BETWEEN ‘OPERATIONALS’ AND and expect more, having seen all sorts of facili- ‘COMMERCIALS’ ties from showers and spaces for rest to cinemas and gardens at other airports. Thus, the ratio- A good starting point for understanding the nale between upgrading the airport with shop- design process is how the tensions are seen by ping and entertainment facilities includes the principal airline operator at Schiphol, KLM more than a mere profit-making incentive. It is (Royal Dutch Airlines). Their vision of the com- also about creating certain experience for pas- peting ideas of the airport frames the situation sengers, keeping up with standards set by major quite precisely. The interviewed KLM represen- competitors and even supporting the smooth tative says the airport is a ‘bus stop’ and not a airport operations by assigning certain areas for ‘shopping centre’.4 For KLM, it is their flights
© 2012 The Author Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie © 2012 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG DESIGNING PUBLIC SPACE FOR MOBILITY: SCHIPHOL AIRPORT 547 which should not be delayed and their passen- At first glance, ‘operationals’ and ‘commer- gers who should be pleased by an easy and fast cials’ thus seem to have incompatible visions transfer. But for Schiphol it is their customers of the airport, and when Schiphol came to too. KLM admits that airport’s incentives are be more commercialised these differences understood, and that an airport with no shops became the reason for continuous ‘struggles’ – would not be interesting for their passengers the word used by the great majority of inter- either. The goal, he says, is to keep the balance. viewees. However, the analysis of the design The main parties within Schiphol Group in process shows that the incompatibility is not charge of making this balance work are the irreconcilable and is often a productive one. Department of Passenger Services and the The difference between the visions and Department of Commercial Services and Media priorities of each party is being dealt with respectively. through a number of procedures, including The Department of Passenger Services – the formal and informal negotiations, compro- ‘operationals’, in professional jargon – is the mises and trade-offs, developing guidelines, one that is responsible for the efficiency of involvement of mediators and creation of extra operations. It partly sympathises with KLM. The boards. In other words, through constant dia- ‘operationals’ strive to secure transparency, logue and exchange of knowledge. ‘Struggle’ clarity and simplicity of space organisation, or ‘fight’ is how many managers describe straight ways, a lot of space for free (non- working on specific design projects: struggle commercial) seating and a sufficient amount of for square metres, sometimes, for centimetres, toilets. There should be no obstacles in the flow for signs and seats, shades and colours. Thus, a area like stalls or advertising and the view senior commercial developer at Schiphol com- should not obstructed by flashing banners and ments that in discussions with ‘operationals’ hanging billboards. The Department of Com- the flow area is one of the biggest points: Is mercial Services and Media (‘commercials’), it 7 metres? – No, 8 m? or 7.8 m . . . That’s how on the other hand, needs the precious space it is!’. often claimed by ‘operationals’ for new shops, But the terms such as ‘fight’ or ‘struggle’ are cafés and restaurants or more space for display used as often as are ‘balance’ and ‘compro- of the existing ones. In some cases they also mise’, making the whole process a never ending might prefer having rather intricate round- experiment in which both parties learn some- abouts, shops and stalls in the ‘flow area’, bill- thing from each other. ‘Commercials’ may boards announcing ‘special offers’ or using study flow plans – the working tools of ‘opera- other instruments of increasing profits which is tionals’ – and, for instance, find evidence that a the primary goal of their unit. The ‘operation- flow area can be one metre more narrow with als’ aim to develop simple, ‘logical’ routes that no harm for operational purposes and they take little time whereas the ‘commercials’ insist ‘can take a little bit of that space’. When the on creating routes which provide maximal vis- common framework for discussion is estab- ibility of shopping and entertainment possibili- lished via these sorts of tools, further dialogue ties. From the operational point of view, it is evolves easier and, for instance, ‘operationals’, crucial for the efficiency of the airport and in their turn, may admit, that although shop people’s comfort to facilitate ‘natural way- signs should not stand out, ‘that particular sign finding’ – the way people orientate themselves in that particular corner’ will not obstruct the unconsciously, before they even notice the view and can be left.5 signage. In this sense, natural light, windows Another example of a tool that facilitates and transparent walls are very important in dialogue is a handbook with guidelines on the certain locations. Yet, from the commercial installation of spatial media (banners, different point of view, the empty space in front of a sorts of stalls, projections etc) in the renovated transparent wall or a window can be used for Lounge 3. The guidelines were prepared by commercial purposes and, therefore, there bureau Mijksenaar, known all over the world are never-ending debates between the parties for their expertise in way-finding, together with over the necessity to keep this transparency in architects, Passenger Services Department and certain areas. Commercial Services and Media Department.
© 2012 The Author Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie © 2012 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG 548 ANNA NIKOLAEVA
The handbook was supposed to bring together between airports and to maintain the identity different kinds of expertise and secure on of Schiphol as an AirportCity as both a well- paper a number of compromises that were functioning transfer machine and a diversified acceptable and understood as necessary by all environment or an airport as a destination. This the parties. As the analysis of most recent inter- also serves as a common vision which is not views suggests, each party treats this document always visible when the parties disagree on in a different way. ‘Operationals’ tend to see it some details on daily basis but which comes to more as a binding document whereas ‘commer- the fore on certain occasions when key deci- cials’ see it as guidelines subject to a rather sions have to be made. Again, the parties share flexible interpretation depending on the cir- the commitment to create an environment that cumstances. Thus, the debates continue but stands out and this commitment makes it easier nevertheless, the handbook did facilitate the to accept compromises. discussions and aided further exchange of Regarding security questions, it is interest- knowledge between the parties. ing to note that according to the schemes of Furthermore, this handbook and other tools the design process at Schiphol, the security of reconciling the visions – such as setting up professionals are not very involved in the joint teams, temporary boards and so forth – design process unless security check or pass- illustrate that despite differences, the actors port control areas are redesigned. Rather, also have some common commitments and they are consulted on an ad hoc basis and goals which is of crucial importance for intervene if they see that there is a threat of keeping the whole machinery of negotiations compromising security rules by certain design. going. According to the majority of the inter- Thus, while not underrating the role of the viewees, the bottom line of these compromises security interests in the design of the airport, is financial and functional interdependency. they can be seen as a set of conditions, as if in First, the money earned on commercial services the lab, that set the stage on which the inter- and media may be used for upgrading facilities actions I focus on take place. However, when that serve operational purposes. Second, a lost the security processes professionals intervene passenger does not shop and a stressed pas- and have to negotiate their priorities, it works senger does not go to a fancy restaurant. For similarly: there are areas of priority, for successful integration of non-aviation related instance, security control spaces where certain facilities one first needs to create a good quality requirements overweigh the others, but at the airport environment which is easy to orientate same time, there is a common interest in oneself in, which offers reasonable amount of having as few stressed passengers as possible. free seating and is meant to soothe the stress by And just as well trade-offs are inevitable: for the use of certain colours, sufficient amount of example, reducing commercial space to give daylight and so forth. This is the idea shared by more square metres to security services for all the parties although they might prioritise additional lanes is not a bad solution for certain aspects of this vision in their daily work. ‘commercials’ as it may seem to be, since Such an understanding of airport design as having extra lanes means less waiting time related to people’s experience of being at the and, hence, more shopping time. airport has been shaped during years of col- Now, how are these struggles, compromises laboration and attempts of each party to accom- and exchanges of knowledge translated into modate its ideas within this common vision. architecture and how does the urban design The quality of operations and the profitability dimension come into play? This is where archi- of the airport as a commercialised environment tects come into the picture. They are heavily depend on each other, which means that in the involved in these negotiations and struggles end, ‘winning’ a square metre may turn into a and while trying to win or to regulate them, loss for the very same party that ‘won’ if the they conceptualise the whole process in terms overall quality and balance of functions are that move the discussion beyond the specific damaged. practical challenges that airport authorities Furthermore, it is crucial for the company face. Their role and their vision have changed as a whole to stand out in the competition throughout the last couple of decades as the
© 2012 The Author Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie © 2012 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG DESIGNING PUBLIC SPACE FOR MOBILITY: SCHIPHOL AIRPORT 549 airport was gradually changing its face and its be no longer seen as the sole masters of flow, strategy. Tracing that development can demon- because the flow was no longer the sole priority. strate how transformations of other ‘mobility Again, the parties had to work together and environments’ in cities can be interpreted and had to experiment since there had been no influenced. precedent for turning Schiphol into what it was heading towards. And in these dynamic THE AIRPORT AS AN URBAN processes of negotiations and creating an DESIGN EXPERIMENT AirportCity as some new form of combining a space of transit and a destination, there Architects at Schiphol hold a special position. emerged some space for experimentation with Limited capacity for growth together with the the idea of the city and urban form. growing number of passengers led to the estab- Being presented by Schiphol Group as an lishment of a position of architectural supervi- exportable commercial formula, implying a sor already in the 1970s – a unique position for strategy of organising retail, and sometimes Dutch spatial planning practice. The architec- real estate, for maximal profits, for architects tural supervisor is employed by Schiphol as an AirportCity means also something different. A advisor on overall spatial development of the good example is Schiphol Plaza – a covered airport area as well as on the design and archi- multifunctional shopping area accessible for tecture of the terminal. The function of the everyone. The development of a shopping supervisor is to keep the integrity of Schiphol’s centre supplemented by quite some space spatial development and architecture and the which allowed for spending time not doing quality of its built environment both in func- shopping and not flying anywhere but just tional and aesthetic terms, preventing the hanging around, according to Benthem, brings authorities from ad hoc decisions driven by the along the idea of Schiphol as a ‘public domain’ concerns of today. where people can come when they want and At the end of the 1980s, on the recommen- enjoy the spectacle of urban life. Thus, for dation of the architectural supervisor, the Benthem, the idea of AirportCity is a concept Dutch architectural office Benthem Crouwel that captures the experimental development of was appointed as an overseeing architectural the airport into a unique semi-public space bureau. Ever since they have been working open 24/7 that does not substitute a city centre both as chief architects for a considerable but creates a new image of cityness born out of number of specific designs and as an advisory juxtaposition of functions and very peculiar party, working closely with other designers and diversity of users. architects. Jan Benthem, the co-founder of the Furthermore, this vision of the airport and bureau, started working with the idea of the the comparison to a city have been used by airport as a strictly functional space, a ‘machine Benthem and Hubert-Jan Henket to justify for flying’ as he calls it, but had to change his their opposition to the ways the commercial approach as the airport was becoming more function at the airport is reflected through the and more like a ‘destination’. Thus, Benthem arrangement of space and, hence, through par- Crouwel and the architectural supervisor ticular ways of managing people’s mobility: ‘In Hubert-Jan Henket, working for Schiphol from a city do you build shops on the streets, do you 1996 to 2008, became involved in the process send people through the shop? No, you send of conceptualising the phenomenon of the people through the streets’, says Benthem. He airport as a multifunctional built environment. thus frames the idea of cityness as a certain Interestingly, both parties remained loyal to the kind of freedom of movement and challenges priority of flow efficiency and, thus, held on to certain elements of the AirportCity vision put the ideals of transparency, simplicity, straight forward by the ‘commercials’. Here we see an paths, clear view and so forth but at the same interesting way of enriching the idea of the time, as the transformation of the airport into airport as an urban space and at the same time AirportCity was gathering steam had to face the of rearticulating the idea of an urban street ever growing desire of managers to have more through seeing it as a place of unrestrained impact on architecture. The architects came to movement.
© 2012 The Author Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie © 2012 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG 550 ANNA NIKOLAEVA
Another example of an interesting align- which should be more loose and have less ment between thinking in terms of urban signage than the rest of the airport, thus pro- design and planning an optimally functioning tecting ‘the idea of the square ...–that every- space of transit is Benthem’s idea that planning body finds his own way’. This contradicts the an airport terminal as a small city helps people idea of the maximal operational efficiency to find their way. The terminal space becomes of the space and sometimes receives criticism. more legible when broken down into streets Yet it may well contribute to the commercial and plazas and other elements that correspond success of this shopping centre through creat- to people’s everyday experience of mobility in ing a peculiar city-like atmosphere, some the city. Again, the urban and the mobile are ‘messiness’ that the rest of the airport does not thus mutually constitutive as the urban design have. The multi-layeredness of Schiphol as elements are used as a means of communicat- ‘more than just an airport’ and its value as a ing how to move around in a place. small urban subcentre outside of the city is When interviewed, Jan Benthem, Hubert-Jan thus developed through balancing priorities Henket and a number of other designers stress and taking opportunities to experiment when the very special kind of freedom they can exer- the space is scarce, the stakes are high and the cise at the airport, despite all the constraints in intense discussions push the creativity of all terms of square metres, strict security require- parties. ments, commercial objectives and so forth. In fact, it is a fragment of urbanscape under one DESIGNING SPACES FOR MOBILITIES: roof, but where does one find such a varied DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS urbanscape that can be designed by a single architectural bureau? Or a café, a seating area On one of the hot afternoons in April 2011 I and a bar next to each other designed by the had to walk a few times to and fro between two same interior designer? Architecture and Starbucks at Schiphol Plaza shopping centre, design professionals get very unique commis- being not sure where exactly the interviewee sions to design spaces that outside of the airport was waiting for me. Despite getting a little would be considered streets. Yet, they are not nervous, I was enjoying the artificial coolness of streets, but something else. The permanence of the terminal and sunlight softened by certain people’s flow and the incredible diversity of design arrangements. On my way to Arrivals 4 I users make architects and designers reconsider noticed a middle-aged man in a suit with a small the way space may work and look, limiting them suitcase strolling in the opposite direction. He by rules and numbers related to flow but liber- had probably just arrived and was not in a ating them from typologies relevant when hurry. He did not look lost, confused, tired, catering to city residents. anxious or purposeful as most of new arrivals Architects see themselves as agents often per- usually look. He looked enchanted, walking forming the role of mediators between differ- slowly with a dreamy look so rare among con- ent interests within the company, mainly the temporary travellers these days, be it Amster- operational and the commercial ones. While dam, Venice or Paris. I did not expect to see the ‘operationals’ are busy with ‘pushing him again on my way back from the Arrivals 4, people from A to B’ and the ‘commercials’ try but I did. He did not leave the airport but kept to make ‘the most commercial environment’ strolling, now in the other direction, still that’s possible to create in such context, archi- smiling while gazing at the glitter of shop tects use their ideas of what a city is, what a windows, pieces of public art and people min- public domain is to balance the interests gling in the sunlight. He could be seen as a prey according to their own vision. They try to regu- of the commercialisation of the airport, as a late the commercialisation of the airport by not passenger safely ‘processed’ from the gate to reaching the point ‘where an airport changes Arrivals or as a flâneur, enjoying the scenes of from a pleasant airport to an airport where urban life that combined the excitement of an you’re obliged to buy’, yet they also not always airport and the less extraordinary images of prioritise operational interests. For instance, shoppers, cappuccino-drinkers and teenagers they see Schiphol Plaza as a public domain hanging around.
© 2012 The Author Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie © 2012 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG DESIGNING PUBLIC SPACE FOR MOBILITY: SCHIPHOL AIRPORT 551
Another observation made during one my analysis of public space transformation and travels in 2010. I was strolling along Holland everyday experience of being in the city and Boulevard, a hallway with facilities located in moving through it. The analysis of the design the non-Schengen part of the airside, and process at Schiphol demonstrates that reflec- heard someone playing piano. I could not see tions upon these issues have become part the instrument first but very soon found out of the airport design process. The analysis of that there was a sort of a living room easily tensions and compromises demonstrates that accessible from the main flow area but set those ‘near-opposites’ can be reconciled or apart, probably to create an atmosphere of an orchestrated through a number of procedures enclosed, private space. There stood a piano upon the condition that the stakeholders surrounded by couches and armchairs and an make a conscious effort to create space for old man improvised beautifully whereas the discussion and to learn from each other. I very diverse public resting around reacted argue that from the complexity of their inter- very differently: some were observing him in actions in the context of integrating non- silence, others were chatting and just nodding aviation related facilities into the airport there slightly to the music, two children were arise a few interesting possibilities important dancing. A suitcase stood next the man’s seat for other urban spaces of mobility. which looked quite odd in front of an elegant First, all the actors develop a very peculiar piano. Then some few minutes’ walk took me type of expertise in the dynamics of struggle to the newly opened Airport Library with and compromise, in particular, the expertise novels and poetry by Dutch authors translated of envisioning and designing the space that into different languages as well as books on can allow for different sorts of mobility and Dutch society, art, history and so forth. These (im)mobility, that meshes different types of two experimental spaces show the possibili- spaces into a new type and answers require- ties of creating little ‘enclaves’ amid flows of ments that are sometimes hard to reconcile. people – spaces of peculiar sociality and cul- Airports are not the only spaces of travel that tural exchange. Both are integrated into the acquire more and more functions. So do space of the terminal so that the ‘flow area’ is other public transport stations. Dutch Railways left unobstructed and can be seen as elements are currently transforming big stations into working on the boundaries of diverse visions of more diversified spaces with more facilities the airport. They definitely contribute to the and the idea is inspired by the example of vision of the AirportCity as a possibility of giving Schiphol (Veen & Lohuis 2009). What is people some options of how to spend their further interesting is that Benthem Crouwel time, as if it were an urban centre, but they is involved into this project as is Studio may also perform a function related to passen- Linse, the bureau closely working with ger operations by directing people who are not Schiphol on interior design for more than 10 in a hurry to places where they do not compete years. Part of the discourse on ‘non-places’ for space in the ‘flow area’ with those who are. is the lament that these spaces of commerce Of course, the commercial purpose of such and circulation spread (Augé 1995; Martinotti experiments is also important for the airport: 1999). But as this example shows, so does both spaces are discussed across globe trotters’ the expertise, developing and growing on blogs. the way. There are many more examples of According to the French urbanist François mobility of expertise between different pro- Ascher (2003, p. 7), the agenda for policy- jects across municipal and national borders. makers and architects who want to create high This paper has given some insights on how quality public spaces of mobility includes the this expertise is formed and enriched through challenge ‘to reconcile those near-opposites interaction with other experts, using a variety that constitute the richness of cities: hurry and of tools. This analytical framework can be dawdling, efficiency and unhurriedness, func- applied to explore how different professional tionality and superfluity, the planned and the worlds shape spaces of mobilities elsewhere unexpected’. Thus, the design of spaces of creating a multi-layered urbanscape that mobility should go hand in hand with the allows people to move freely and at the same
© 2012 The Author Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie © 2012 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG 552 ANNA NIKOLAEVA time invites them to slow down. Studying their Notes work could uncover the struggles and negotia- 1. Schiphol Group calls AirportCity their ‘trademark’ tions which shape experience of mobility of and keeps the joined-up writing. In some cases thousands of people every day and, possibly, airport cities are developed as urban areas around motivate the involved actors to purposefully the airport with business parks, logistics parks, develop tools for enhanced co-operation shopping and entertainment centres. Kasarda (working out guidelines or setting up a group (2010) argues that such an area should be called of mediators). not an ‘airport city’ – which is just the core of this Second, my analysis highlights an interest- urban area – but aerotropolis. For more details on ing dimension of designing spaces under con- aerotropolis and airport city concepts see for straint. It is precisely certain constraints and example, Güller & Güller (2003), Kasarda (2010), the complexity of tasks that require the distri- Schaafsma et al. (2008). bution of powers and procedures that may 2. Despite some definitions offered in Schiphol allow for balanced and innovative solutions. Group annual reports and fact sheets, under- Examining struggles that take place at design standings of the concept differ greatly. For boards at airports can thus deepen our under- analytical purposes I distinguish between the standing of cityness under pressure of securi- understanding of AirportCity as the idea of orga- tisation and commercialisation and help to nizing the terminal like a city space – with a plaza reconsider our vision of balance of powers and diverse facilities creating the urban feel – and behind the scenes. In this sense, if the airport the real estate concept which refers to developing learns from the city and if the city learns from real estate on the territory adjacent to the airport the airport that does not necessarily mean terminal. My investigation is limited to the space the disappearance of urban spontaneity and of the terminal. commerce-free space. But it may entail the 3. In this paper I repeatedly refer to the distinction development of a new range of options of of the terminal into ‘landside’ and ‘airside’ which what to do between A and B and may require in this context should be roughly understood as new forms of expertise, on behalf of both the area accessible to non-travellers (‘landside’) urban designers and users. and the area after check-in desks and security In this paper I have argued that the airport control that is accessible to travellers only (see design is not ruled by any specific interest Edwards, 2005, pp. 272–273). exclusively. Rather, it is constantly created in 4. Hereinafter I use quotations from the interviews struggles and negotiations, through trade-offs with managers and designers that were conducted and compromises, written and unwritten rules during the periods April–July 2010 and April– as well as unexpected solutions that circumvent June 2011. the rules. Furthermore, it is this complexity and 5. Thus, as a result of discussions, in the renovated diversity of visions of the professionals involved Lounge 3 only a small Starbucks sign was allow to in the process which paradoxically creates stand out from the wall. space for urbanistic innovation in a built envi- ronment where every square metre works, every square metre earns and every square metre REFERENCES is surveilled. Reconstructing biographies of lounges, covered plazas and piers we can see Adey, P. (2004), Surveillance at the Airport: Surveil- how new design solutions and urbanistic visions ling Mobility/Mobilising Surveillance. Environment are born out of coincidences or calculations, and Planning 36, pp. 1365–1380. struggles or agreements, allowing for nearly Adey, P. (2007), ‘May I Have your Attention’: Airport idealistic visions of an urban public domain Geographies of Spectatorship, Position and co-exist with dystopian controlling systems. I (Im)mobility. Environment and Planning D: Society suggest that this argument is valid for other and Space 25, pp. 515–536. urban spaces where mobilities can create chal- Adey, P. (2008), Airports, mobility and the calcula- lenging but equally productive conditions for tive architecture of affective control. Geoforum 39, rearticulating what ‘cityness’ is when everyone pp. 438–451. is on the move. Adey, P. (2010), Mobility. London: Routledge.
© 2012 The Author Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie © 2012 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG DESIGNING PUBLIC SPACE FOR MOBILITY: SCHIPHOL AIRPORT 553
Adey, P., L. Budd &P.Hubbard (2007), Flying Lyon, D. (2003), Airports as Data Filters: Converging Lessons: Exploring the Social and Cultural Geog- Surveillance Systems after September 11th. Journal raphies of Global Air Travel. Progress in Human of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 1, Geography 31, pp. 773–791. pp. 13–20. Ascher, F. (2003), Le Movement au Cœur de la Martinotti, G. (1999), A City for Whom? Tran- Modernité. In: Institut pour la Ville en sients and Public Life in the Second-generation Mouvement, Bouge L’Architecture : Villes Et Mobilites, Metropolis. In: R. Beauregard,&S.Body- pp. 4–11. Barcelona: Actar. Gendrot, eds., The Urban Moment: Cosmopolitan Augé, M. (1995), Non-places: Introduction to an Anthro- Essays on the Late-20th-century City, pp. 155–184. pology of Supermodernity. London: Verso. London: Sage. Bertolini,L.&M.Dijst (2003), Mobility Environ- McNeill, D. (2005), Skyscraper Geography. Progress ments and Network Cities. Journal of Urban Design 8, in Human Geography 29, pp. 41–55. pp. 27–43. Merriman, P. (2004), Driving Places: Marc Auge, Castells, M. (2000), The Information Age: Economy, Non-places, and the Geographies of England’s Society and Culture. Vol. 1, The Rise of the Network M1 Motorway. Theory, Culture and Society 21, Society. Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp. 145–167. Cresswell, T. (2006), On the Move: Mobility in the Pearman, H. (2004), Airports: A Century of Architecture. Modern Western World. London: Routledge. London: Laurence King. Cresswell, T. (2011), Mobilities I – Catching Up. Rosler, M. (1998), In The Place of the Public. Progress in Human Geography 35, pp. 550–558. Ostfildern-Ruit: Cantz. Cuff, D. (1992), Architecture: The Story of Practice. Salter, M.B. (2007), Governmentalities of an Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Airport: Heterotopia and Confession. International Edwards, B. (2005), The Modern Airport Terminal: Political Sociology 1, pp. 49–66. New Approaches to Airport Architecture (2nd ed.). Salter, M.B. (2008), The Global Airport: Manag- London: Spon Press. ing Space, Speed and Security. In: M.B. Salter, Goss, J. (1988), The Built Environment and Social ed., Politics at the Airport (pp. ix–xix). Minne- Theory: Towards an Architectural Geography. apolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. The Professional Geographer 40, pp. 392–403. Schaafsma,M.,J.Amkreutz,M.Güller &C.de Gottdiener, M. (2001), Life in the Air: Surviving the Back (2008), Airport and City: Airport corridors: New Culture of Air Travel. Lanham, MD: Rowman & drivers of economic development. Amsterdam: Littlefield. Schiphol Real Estate. Güller,M.&M.Güller (2003), From Airport to Schiphol Group (2009), Welcome to the AirportCity. Airport City. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gil. Available at:
© 2012 The Author Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie © 2012 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG 554 ANNA NIKOLAEVA
Conceptual Model of Interfaces in the Australian Aeromobilities: Theory and Method, pp. 25–38. Context. Journal of Transport Geography 18, pp. London: Routledge. 276–284. Veen,M.&C.Lohuis (2009), Treinstations Nieuwe Sudjic, D. (1992), The 100 Mile City. London: Andre Stijl: Retail Staat Volop in Bloei. RetailTrends 10, Deutsch. pp. 42–47. Urry, J. (2007), Mobilities. London: Sage. Urry, J. (2009), Aeromobilities and the Global. In: C. Werner,S.Kesselring &J.Urry, eds.,
© 2012 The Author Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie © 2012 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG