we’re looking at research on whether or not CMC has a negative or positive effect on people. There is a popular narrative in our society that smartphones an

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284512353

Urban Studies Change in the Social Life of Urban Public Spaces

Data · November 2015

CITATIONS

0

READS

89

3 authors, including:

Keith Neil Hampton

Michigan State University

54 PUBLICATIONS   3,565 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Keith Neil Hampton on 24 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article

Urban Studies 2015, Vol. 52(8) 1489–1504 � Urban Studies Journal Limited 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0042098014534905 usj.sagepub.com

Change in the social life of urban public spaces: The rise of mobile phones and women, and the decline of aloneness over 30 years

Keith N Hampton Rutgers University, USA

Lauren Sessions Goulet Facebook, USA

Garrett Albanesius University of Pennsylvania, USA

Abstract This study illustrates that over the past 30 years, Americans have become less socially isolated while using public spaces. Based on content analysis of films from four public spaces over a 30-year period, the behaviour and characteristics of 143,593 people were coded. The most dramatic changes in the social life of urban public spaces have been an increase in the proportion of women and a corre- sponding increase in the tendency for men and women to spend time together in public. Despite the ubiquity of mobile phones, their rate of use in public is relatively small. Mobile phone users appear less often in spaces where there are more groups, and most often in spaces where people might oth- erwise be walking alone. This suggests that, when framed as a communication tool, mobile phone use is associated with reduced public isolation, although it is associated with an increased likelihood to linger and with time spent lingering in public. We argue that public spaces are an important com- ponent of the communication system that provides exposure to diverse messages, brings people into contact to discuss their needs and interests, and helps people recognise their commonalities and accept their differences. The increased tendency to spend time in groups while in public contrasts with evidence from other research that suggests a decline in American public life, and that mobile phones have increased social isolation in public spaces. The increase in group behaviour, women and lingering in public may have positive implications for engagement within the public sphere.

Keywords civic engagement, gender, mobile phones, public sphere, social isolation

Received October 2013; accepted April 2014 Corresponding author:

Keith Hampton, Rutgers University, Department of

Communication, 4 Huntington Street, New Brunswick,

New Jersey, 08901, USA.

Email: [email protected]

at RUTGERS UNIV on April 22, 2015usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Introduction

A number of studies in the USA have found that people are increasingly likely to live alone, to engage with smaller social circles, to disengage from civic institutions and to spend time in private spaces (Hampton et al., 2011c; Klinenberg, 2012; Lofland, 1998; Putnam, 2000). These shifts are often attrib- uted to large-scale social change, such as the movement of women into the paid labour force, and technological change, such as the rise of home computing, the internet and mobile phones. These studies have primarily examined shifts that have taken place within institutions and private spheres of interac- tion. However, it has generally been assumed that these shifts have consequences for con- tact in public spaces. One common scenario suggests that opportunities for private engagement lead to a withdrawal from pub- lic life (Sennett, 1977). Technologies such as the mobile phone may further undermine public life by increasing the opportunity for people to spend time in private while in pub- lic spaces (Turkle, 2011). A shift in the social life of urban public spaces, toward aloneness, might have very negative consequences for individuals and society: higher rates of lone- liness and depression (Matias et al., 2011) and a general decline in trust and exposure to social diversity (Sennett, 1977). However, to our knowledge, no study has attempted to measure change in social interaction in pub- lic places over time. Whether people are more alone in public, and amongst less diverse companions than in the past is an open question. We explore this question with a longitudinal study of public spaces and change in the composition of individuals and groups in these spaces over the past 30 years.

The public

A place where people come together, face-to- face. The [city] center is the place for news and gossip, for the creation of ideas, for marketing

them and swiping them, for hatching deals, for starting parades. This is the stuff of the public life of the city – by no means wholly admirable, often abrasive, noisy, contentious, without apparent purpose. But this human congress is the genius of the place, its reason for being, its great marginal edge. (Whyte, 2009 [1988]: 341)

Public spaces are a component of the public sphere (Habermas, 1989). The public sphere is where strangers meet; it stands in contrast to the private sphere, where close relation- ships, such as the family flourish (Sennett, 1977). Like other components of the public sphere; such as the mass media, civic institu- tions, and informal civil behaviours; we con- ceptualise public spaces as an opportunity for the exchange of messages with diverse others. Public spaces include a city’s streets, sidewalks, parks, and plazas to which all persons have legal access (Lofland, 1973). Thus, the distinguishing feature that sepa- rates public space from private space is that it minimises the segregation of people based on lifestyles, such as their opinions, income, gender and race (Strauss, 1961). One recent study found that three visits to public spaces per week was associated with having a net- work of contacts one half standard deviation higher in diversity when compared with the average; similar in magnitude to civil and civic behaviours, such as the difference between knowing most versus no neigh- bours, and the difference associated with belonging to two different voluntary organi- sations (Hampton et al., 2011b).

Opportunities for public engagement can vary by individual, place and time. A place that is public for one person, in that the pro- portion of copresent others clearly leans towards the unfamiliar, may simultaneously be a private place for another who is sur- rounded by an entourage of close friends. A truly public space brings people from diverse backgrounds and classes into contact (Low et al., 2005). Although this contact can be

1490 Urban Studies 52(8)

at RUTGERS UNIV on April 22, 2015usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

informal and fleeting, such interactions con- trast with the homogeneity of close friend- ship groups, which tend to minimise opportunity for encounters with diverse oth- ers (Lofland, 1998).

Serendipity, chance encounters and peo- ple watching are important subsets of the interactions that take place in public spaces. Indeed, much of the activity that takes place in public might be viewed as non-purposeful. That is, people chatting informally, or hang- ing around a place with little apparent pur- pose. While this might be negatively characterised as loitering, it is better described as lingering. The urbanist William H. Whyte (2001 [1980]) argued that public spaces should be designed to encourage peo- ple to linger, as it provides for conversation and chance encounters. In one study, one in six people interviewed across a variety of public places reported that, in their history of use of that place, they had met someone new and continued that relationship to form a long-term friendship (Hampton et al., 2010). Whyte’s contemporaries, such as Jane Jacobs (1961), similarly noted the role of people who linger for the opportunities in sidewalk life that they provide for interac- tion and surveillance.

Nevertheless, serendipitous encounters are the minority of all public interactions. Public spaces are primarily a forum for interacting with friends rather than strangers (Demerath and Levinger, 2003). Thus, pub- lic space can be ‘a discursive space where individuals and groups congregate to discuss matters of mutual interest’ (Hauser, 1998) as well as a social and spatial semiotic (Ravelli and Stenglin, 2008). That is, public spaces shape public opinion by affording delibera- tion, and through meaning-making that results from observing the context of the space, and the artefacts and people within. Although contact in public spaces is likely to be incomplete when compared with more formal forms of political deliberation

(Fishkin, 2000), influence need not involve persuasion, or manipulation, but can take the form of imitation or contagion (Hamilton, 1971). The meaning and mes- sages contained within a public space might act directly on an individual’s opinion, or, as with other modes of communication in the public sphere, fit into a multistep flow of opinion formation (Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955). Public spaces are an important com- ponent of the communication system that provides exposure to diverse messages, brings people into contact to discuss their needs and interests, and helps people recog- nise their commonalities and accept their differences.

Beyond democratising effects, the contact that takes place in public spaces has other, well-established benefits. Walking on public streets in the company of others, as opposed to walking alone, is associated with revitali- sation and reduced levels of anxiety and depression (Staats and Hartig, 2004). Time spent in public spaces has been found to increase attachment and sense of commu- nity, lead to higher levels of perceived health, and reduce feelings of loneliness (Cattell et al., 2008; Kweon et al., 1998). A shift toward higher levels of isolation while in public may be tied to other large-scale, social trends, such as increased treatment for depression and anxiety disorders (Comer et al., 2011; Marcus and Olfson, 2010) and declines in generalised trust, empathic concern and per- spective taking (Konrath et al., 2011; Wilkes, 2011).

The shift toward aloneness

Some studies indicate that people are more isolated and removed from public spaces than in the past. Interactions with social ties may be undertaken increasingly within the confines of private spaces (Lofland, 1998; Popenoe, 1985). This trend is not new; priva- tism has its roots in the rise of capitalism,

Hampton et al. 1491

at RUTGERS UNIV on April 22, 2015usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

industrialisation and urbanisation (Tönnies, 1887; Wirth, 1938). The responsibility for this shift is often charged to technological change. The infrastructure of the city; water, sewage and electric systems; highways; and the telephone all enable a separation of home and work that permits people to reduce the time they spend in public. For example, refrigerators and freezers reduce the need for daily visits to the market; air conditioners remove people from the stoop; and television reduces the need to visit the theatre (Lofland, 1998; Putnam, 2000). When it is necessary to travel through public space, the automobile makes it possible to enclose oneself in a bubble of private space (Lofland, 1973).

The rise of new, digital technologies, such as home computing and the internet, have similarly been tied to the ability of people to spend leisure and work time within the con- fines of the home (Graham and Marvin, 1996). It is easy to infer that when people have access to technologies that afford the opportunity to spend time in private, they will do so. However, it has not been demon- strated empirically that home centredness comes at the expense of time spent with acquaintances in public spaces. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that technologies that afford home centredness, such as the television, enhance, rather than displace time spent in public (Robinson, 2011). The inter- net may also offer a new type of online pub- lic space (Papacharissi, 2002). A number of scholars have pointed out that new mobile technologies, such as the mobile phone, extend this trend in a new way by allowing people to create a cocoon of private interac- tion in urban public spaces, which, like the automobile, shields them from those around them (Hampton and Gupta, 2008; Ito et al., 2008). The mobile phone can transform pub- lic companions, what Goffman (1971) called ‘Withs’, into a ‘Single’ (Humphreys, 2005). Some scholars have argued that new mobile

technologies have resulted in public spaces that are no longer communal spaces; fewer traditional in-person interactions in public; and people in public spaces engaged through technology with someone miles away rather than with someone in the same space (Turkle, 2011: 155). Not only may people be spending more time alone in public, but the availability of close social ties through mobile devices may lead to intense participa- tion in networks of close relationships at the expense of exposure to diverse others (Gergen, 2008).

A growing literature to suggest a rise in the related concept of individualism has accompanied evidence of a rise in privatism. Individualism, described by de Tocqueville in his reflections on American democracy, is the tendency for man to ‘isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of family and friends; with this little society formed to his taste, he gladly leaves the greater society to look after itself’ (Tocqueville, 2007 [1835]: 281). Moreover, de Tocqueville felt that individualism was of ‘democratic origin and threatens to grow as conditions get more equal’ (Tocqueville, 2007: 281).

Data from the US General Social Survey (GSS) suggest that individualism in America may be increasing. McPherson et al. (2006) found that the core networks of Americans – their closest circle of friends and family – have become smaller and more closed. This contraction has come at the expense of diversity – the maintenance of core ties out- side of the home. In 1985, approximately 64% of American adults reported discussing an important matter with someone outside of their family; by 2008, this number had dropped to 45% (Hampton et al., 2011c). Although some have disputed the validity of the 2004 GSS data (Fischer, 2009), three subsequent replications have found average network sizes and distributions that closely mimic the GSS (Brashears, 2011; Hampton

1492 Urban Studies 52(8)

at RUTGERS UNIV on April 22, 2015usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

et al., 2011a, 2011c). 1 New technologies were

also targeted as a possible cause for this trend, however, Hampton et al. (2011a, 2011c) largely excluded an association between the use of the internet, mobile phones and related technologies and smaller or less diverse core networks. (In fact, much the opposite seems to be true.) Whatever the cause, this trend may have negative conse- quences for individual social support as well as opportunities to engage with diverse oth- ers (Hampton and Ling, 2013).

More together

In this paper we question whether the grow- ing literature on aloneness can be extended from private and institutional settings to public life? In questioning whether public life is less diverse and more alone than in the past, we also ask if recent technological change is the most significant large-scale social change to have affected public life? The focus on technological change in the lit- erature on privatism and individualism has drawn attention away from other sources of large-scale change that may have had the same or a larger impact on interaction in public spaces. The list of social changes that may have affected public interactions over a time period that coincides with the rise of new digital technologies is long and includes trends that the urban literature has treated extensively. They include the privatisation and ‘Disneyfication’ of public spaces (Hannigan, 1998; Kohn, 2004; Zukin, 1995) and those that have received less attention, such as restrictions on tobacco use in the workplaces that have pushed smokers into public doorways and sidewalks (Kaufman et al., 2010). However, one major social change stands out as particularly important – increased gender equity.

We anticipate that a shift in the public and private lives of women has had major implications for the use of public spaces. It

is no secret that over the last three decades, women’s participation in the labour force has grown sharply, whereas men’s par- ticipation has fallen over the same period (Inglehart, 2003; US Congress Joint Economic Committee, 2010). In the USA, the number of women in the workforce has increased by 44.2% since 1984, with nearly all growth occurring by 2000 (US Congress Joint Economic Committee, 2010). Women are spending much more time out of the home than in the past (Jacobs and Gerson, 2001). This trend combines with related trends, such as women staying in school lon- ger (Peter and Horn, 2005), a decline in occupational segregation (Blau et al., 2013), an increase in the average age of marriage and child bearing (Goldin and Katz, 2002), and the movement away from the segrega- tion of women’s activities into private spaces and men’s activities into public spaces (Bott, 1955). There is little doubt that the move- ment of women’s activities outside of the home is one of the most significant social changes of recent decades.

Scholars have not consistently interpreted increased gender equity as positive for par- ticipation in the public sphere. McPherson et al. (2006) suggest that much of the recent shift in core network diversity can be attrib- uted to a tendency, as labour force equity increases, for men to shrink the number of non-kinship ties rather than for women to increase the number of ties outside of the home. Similarly, Putnam (2000) argues that women’s increased labour force participa- tion has reduced civic and civil behaviours and may share responsibility for the decline in social capital over the last half century. Although these and other scholars have focused on the implications of increased gen- der equity for participation in civic institu- tions and in private spaces, to our knowledge no one has considered how the recent shift in women’s activities outside the home has affected participation in public

Hampton et al. 1493

at RUTGERS UNIV on April 22, 2015usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

spaces. This deficit is likely based on the assumption that most women enter their cars at home, exit at their place of work, and do not have meaningful opportunities to engage with public spaces. However, this assumption ignores the role of the street and public spaces in general as places for walking, lin- gering, watching and socialising. Gender is one of many possible sources of diversity in these spaces. Participation in public spaces is as much a part of the public sphere as is the mass media, civic institutions and civil beha- viours. In contrast to speculation that the increased participation of women in the labour force has driven down participation in the public sphere (McPherson et al., 2006; Putnam, 2000), we anticipate that women have fundamentally reshaped interactions in public spaces over the past 30 years. Women of the late-20th and early-21st centuries have better access to public spaces, in America and in most Western countries, than women of the century before them (Bondi and Domosh, 1998).

Method

This paper provides the results from a longi- tudinal study of interaction patterns in pub- lic spaces that cover a 30-year period. It analyses the behaviour and characteristics of 143,593 people in four public spaces, based on the content of time-lapse films created in 1979 and 1980 and videos of the same spaces shot between 2008 and 2010.

The time-lapse films used in this analysis are from an archive held by the Project for Public Spaces (PPS). PPS is a non-profit organisation founded by Fred Kent, who worked as a research assistant to the urba- nist William H Whyte. Whyte and his assis- tants used Super 8 film to inform the Street Life Project (Whyte, 2001 [1980]), which was started in 1968 in response to new zoning regulations in New York City that gave incentives to builders to include plazas and

other public spaces as part of the construc- tion of large, commercial buildings. Whyte used a variety of methods, including time- lapse films, to assess variation in pedestrian behaviour and the use of public spaces in New York City and around the world. The result of this work was a comprehensive amendment to New York City zoning laws in 1975 and, in 1980, a summary of findings published as The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Whyte, 2001 [1980]). PPS works to apply and expand Whyte’s work.

PPS created and archived more than 3600 canisters of Super 8 film. Our team spent more than 3000 hours digitalising and cata- loguing these films to serve as a baseline for comparing public life 30 years ago with urban life today. The corpus of the film archive was narrowed for our study, based on the visibility of pedestrians, the duration of film available, the consistency of camera angles and similarity in time period. We recognised that local, historical factors, such as changes in neighbourhood characteristics (e.g. crime and physical design), were likely to influence activity in any public place. Although it would be impossible to control completely for these threats to historical validity, we attempted to minimise error as a result of external factors by sampling from a range of locations. Four locations, all filmed between 1979 and 1980, provided a relatively large number of films. They were taken from a stationary view point, using a camera angle that provided a view of pedestrians that would allow us to identify group activity and some individual characteristics. The four locations were Chestnut Street (between 10th and 11th Streets in Philadelphia, PA), Downtown Crossing (Boston, MA), Bryant Park (northwest corner sidewalk in New York City) and the steps of the Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York City) (see online supplement, Movie S1: Bryant Park 1980). These four small, urban public places have distinct characteristics:

1494 Urban Studies 52(8)

at RUTGERS UNIV on April 22, 2015usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Chestnut Street: Located in Center City Philadelphia, this area is within one block of a subway station and provides access to a number of low-rise office towers, a hospital and a small number of retail establishments. There are no benches or other seating, and there are no public parks or significant resi- dential areas within a four-block radius. This area might best be described as an ‘in- between’ space, serving as a pedestrian tran- sit point between destinations. Downtown Crossing: A shopping district located within Boston’s downtown, one block east of Boston Common, and a num- ber of blocks west of the main financial dis- trict. Adjacent to a subway station and closed to vehicular traffic, pedestrians can walk freely in the streets to access a major department store, restaurants and other retail establishments. Bryant Park: Located in Midtown Manhattan, outside of the northwest corner of the park at the corner of West 42nd and the Avenue of Americas. Bryant Park is a major destination. The northwest corner is located within a block of two subway sta- tions and provides easy access to a number of a large office towers and retail establish- ments. It is one block from Times Square. Metropolitan Museum of Art: Located on 5th Avenue on the eastern border of Central Park in New York’s Upper East Side. Granite steps lead to the entrance of the museum and are positioned between two fountains. The steps are a well-known public place and a destination for people to meet and eat. A ten-minute walk from the nearest subway station and a popular destination for people who live and work in nearby low-rise residential, office and retail establishments.

In 2008 and 2010, we returned to these four locations to re-film pedestrian life at compa- rable times of day, day of the week, and in weather conditions similar to the original time-lapse films (see online supplement, Movie S2: Metropolitan Museum of Art

2010). The original films were typically obtained from the vantage point of a win- dow or rooftop. We were not able to secure permission to access the same filming posi- tion, but were able to reproduce a similar vantage point through the use of a 16-foot cine stand (a long pole with support legs). Our video unit was stationed outside of pedestrian flow and camouflaged by posi- tioning the apparatus next to a building or light post. The video unit received little notice from pedestrians. Security guards located in Bryant Park and Downtown Crossing briefly interrupted our observa- tions to ask that we request permission from their private management companies to set up our video unit, which we did.

The original and new films totalled more than 38 hours of footage. Films were sampled at 15-second intervals for a total of 9173 observation periods. The original films were often made using time-lapse tech- niques. To standardise our film sample at 15 seconds of standard film speed, we took advantage of one of Whyte’s common tech- niques: he often recorded a stopwatch at the start of his films before adjusting the frame rate for time-lapse. A comparison of the film before and after the camera was adjusted for time-lapse allowed us to calculate the correct sampling interval.

The coding procedure involved taking a screen shot of the sampled video frame and dividing the frame into a number of prede- fined coding areas. Coding areas were stan- dardised so that the same geographic space was coded in both the new and original videos. The position of our video camera was at a slightly lower altitude than that of the camera in the older films. As a result, our videos typically captured a smaller geo- graphic space than what was captured in the original. So that the space represented by the older films matched the location and size of our current day videos, we cropped the Super 8 films to match our modern vantage

<p

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.