The Citylights Laneways Project began as a concept in 1995 and was implemented in September 1996, located off Centre Place in the heart of the CBD (Corner, 2002). Following this, a second site was opened in 1998, in Hosier Lane (Corner, 2002). Both sites share the common link of Flinders Lane, as shown in figure 2 below:

Figure 1: The location of the Citylights Laneways (McDonald, 2002)

The two sites, previous to the inception of the Citylights project, could be seen as rather overlooked spaces, used only as utilities to surrounding shops and businesses. Centre Place was operated as a garbage collection point, with the backs of stores opening onto it – a dead-end alley seen to serve no great function, even though many pedestrians passed it by everyday. Hosier Lane functions as a traffic conduit between Flinders Lane and Flinders Street. Located only a matter of metres from Federation Square, it was used a little more than Centre Place as a few small businesses and clubs open onto it, although use was mostly at night.

Comprising of a number of lightboxes, the Citylights Project, funded by the Melbourne City Council (MCC), displays artworks free to the public, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There are four lightboxes situated in Centre Place, and eight in Hosier Lane, with the displays being changed regularly. Opening night events are held in the laneways for each new exhibition (Adams, 2002). The lightboxes utilise “advertising technology to present diverse visual practices that transform passing pedestrians into contemporary art audiences” (Cass, 2002, p.5). It is estimated that up to 40,000 visitors a day pass these sites, allowing the spaces to take on a new form of use (McDonald, 2002). However, the laneways are not prominent, relying on chance viewing by shoppers and workers passing by during their normal day-to-day activity (Bragge, 1998; Walker, 1998).

Figure 2: The lightboxes situated at Centre Place and Hosier Lane

Realising that the area was about to become gentrified, as in the arts precincts of New York, the manager of the Citylights project, Andrew McDonald, acknowledged the need to maintain a space for artists (Zukin, 1982; Adams, 2002; Corner, 2002; Andrew McDonald, pers. comm. 17^th July 2003). To do this, the Citylights project therefore aims:

Figure 3: The aims of the Citylights Laneways project (McDonald, 2002)

These objectives are particularly important as in general, they focus upon the need to address urban audiences within these spaces, whilst aiming to maximise accessibility through the common element of the street and a pedestrian scale (Heagney, 2003). As Parivudhiphong (2000, p. n/a) mentions:

“Citylights provides an ideal context…it pops up from nowhere and brings unexpected moments to passers-by. Just like those moments when our consciousness finds beauty in the ordinary within our everyday life”.

However these two spaces are not limited only to the use of the lightboxes. As well, the public are able to add to the space in different ways, such as through the ambiguous, subversive and illicit practices of graffiti and graphic art; the importance of this ability to participate will be discussed further in the following section of this report. The Citylights Laneways project appears to meet the notions of providing enhanced experiences within the urban environment for those interacting within the city, and therefore will be explored in detail in the following chapter.

…

4.2 Citylights Laneways

The Citylights Laneways in quasi-public space

It is of particular importance for social planners to understand the significance of public space and its ability to create places for social interaction (Iveson, 1998; Nast and Pile, 1998; Valentine, 2001; Lefebvre, 2002). Typically, spaces within city centres can be viewed as pseudo- or quasi-public (refer glossary). They are spaces in which some rules of entry are applied, or certain uses and behaviour excluded (Goss, 1993; Zukin, 1995; White, 1996). However, it is questionable whether any space is truly ‘public’ – or that a form of truly public space has ever existed (see for example Deutsche’s discussion of this, 1996, p.285; Iveson, 1998; Valentine, 2001). The Citylights Laneways may be seen as openly public as there are no conditions of entry. However it is important to set these laneways in their surrounding context; as Lefebvre (2002, p.134) observes, “space becomes an empty abstraction if considered in isolation, and thus it must be viewed as a social product” (see also Zukin, 1992).

The laneway at Centre Place, although open all hours to anyone who is interested in viewing the displays, is situated next to the Centre Place arcade, which like most indoor shopping spaces, is open to the public but privately owned (Goss, 1993; White, 1996; Valentine, 2001). Furthermore the laneway runs off another laneway, which is lined with boutique shops and cafés (refer figure 4). The walls that the displays are mounted upon are owned and rented out by the National Australia Bank (Strickland, 1999). Hosier Lane, which as mentioned earlier is used as a traffic conduit as well as a pedestrian access to some bars and residential tenancies, can be seen in much the same way as Centre Place, with the light boards here mounted against the wall of the Forum Theatre (refer figure 2B & 5). However, from observation Hosier Lane was less often visited.

Figure 4: The Centre Place shopping mall and cafés

What can be drawn from the Citylights Laneways displays is that although open to the public, they are surrounded by, and affiliated with, quasi-public and private spaces. Therefore Citylights become spaces that add to the everyday urban experience for those passing them by. They are free, open 24 hours, and allow people to spend as much or as little time in them as they want, constructing their own opinions on the space and the displays. As will be discussed in more detail later, they become an alternative use – a free outdoor art gallery – and are quite unexpected in such settings. This should be seen as important to urban and social planners, because as mentioned previously, such public spaces in urban milieus create the ability for social interaction, amongst other uses, as will be discussed throughout this section.

Citylights and Situationist notions of space

The Citylights Laneways were chosen for an empirical case study, as it appeared that they might have met some of the ideals of S.I. notions of interactive everyday space. Through the use of passive observation, first-hand street-scaled experience of the space, and interviews, it has been found that many aspects of Citylights comply with notions of psychogeography, unitary urbanism and derive (or pedestrian practice). This section therefore intends to demonstrate how Situationist ideals on space can be applied in contemporary cities to better understand the functioning of public spaces and their importance. This will lead to a discussion of the role these spaces can play in enhancing everyday interactions within spaces of cities, such as in Melbourne’s CBD.

The literature review of S.I. material in Chapter Two of this report found that the S.I. favoured the use and practice of subversion to help citizens better understand how spaces they used were socially constructed; as Lefebvre (2002, p.136) asserts, “(Social) space is a (social) product”. The Citylights Laneways meet with this ideal of subversion, particularly in relation to their location within the CBD of Melbourne. The appropriation of the laneways for the use of an outdoor, public, free art gallery (a subversion in itself of the typical art gallery) – with their close proximity to Federation Square, home to one of Melbourne’s newest art galleries, at Hosier Lane, and to a distinguished shopping plaza at Centre Place – help to demonstrate this act of subversion (Andrew McDonald, pers. comm. 17^th July 2003; refer figure 2, 5, 6 & 7).  

 
Figure 5: Opposing art galleries: Federation Square in relation to Hosier Lane

Notions of ‘highest and best use’ of land in inner city spaces have in turn been replaced with a free outdoor art gallery, intended to heighten people’s everyday experience of the city (Deutsche, 1996). As stated by the Citylights curator, the idea of using lightboxes to display independent art in a public context was inspired by the application of advertising to walls throughout the city. Citylights is therefore a subversion of advertising practices, with the knowledge that contemporary citizens are very adept at interpreting subtle advertising messages during their travels and interactions within cities (Andrew McDonald, pers. comm. 17^th July 2003; Bragge, 1998; Cass, 2002; Corner, 2002). Instead of applying advertising however, the use of artworks, which often comprise of everyday issues such as recycling, graffiti and handwriting, allows passing viewers to determine their own views rather than being ‘sold’ something. As Grosz (1998, p.47) contends, the city is:

“… the site for the body’s cultural saturation, its takeover and transformation by images, representational systems, mass media, and the arts”.

Due to the setting of the art displays in an open and public space, people are met with chance confrontations and diverse publics, a form of interaction that the Situationists suggested led to an enhanced everyday experience, created through unmediated spaces (Bonnett, 1989; Plant, 1992; Debord, 1996b; Sadler, 1998). Although chance confrontation may occur in any public space throughout the city, these largely unregulated spaces, combined with the closed off, often poorly lit, and rubbish strewn laneways can lead to a rather cautious and heightened sense of awareness for those viewing the displays. As noted by the Citylights curator however, this at times can lead to problems with certain groups and individuals using the space in a manner which can make others feel unsafe (Andrew McDonald, pers. comm. 17^th July 2003). Through passive observation this was witnessed at Centre Place, where for example, certain individuals were found ‘chroming’ (refer glossary). Yet the heterogeneity of these spaces certainly adds to people’s experiences of the everyday in the city through unmediated interaction with others (see also Dovey, 2000, p.11, on a discussion of the importance of confrontation with difference and the ‘other’ when creating diversity in the urban environment). It was noted however, that the passive surveillance of pedestrians from the nearby shopping mall resulted in a relatively safe experience for those viewing the artwork in the laneways at Centre Place. Therefore places such as these, although leading to feelings of vulnerability often for those viewing the space, actually create safety, as this previously unused laneway is now populated with people at all hours of the day.

The Citylights Laneways can be understood as an example of the psychogeographical ideals of space put forward by the S.I. Much like Debord’s ‘Naked City’ map (refer figure 8), the laneways link across space using the common narratives of the art displays and graffiti found in them. This linking across space allows the laneways to relate across a geographical distance through shared emotions and uses of space. The laneways can therefore be mapped out (albeit on a much smaller scale compared to Debord’s work) in a psychogeographical manner, demonstrating how these two laneways operate within the context of the city and come to form new experiences within individuals’ everyday interactions. It was noted by the Citylights curator that there are plans (although tentative) to duplicate these laneways in other sites in Melbourne (such as the Docklands), in Sydney, and in Melbourne’s sister cities (such as Boston, Osaka, St. Petersburg, Thessalonica and Tianjin; these sites would be linked electronically and operated from Melbourne) (Andrew McDonald, pers. comm. 17^th July 2003). The development of additional laneways would most certainly see their influence upon the city increased.

The Situationist’s notions of unitary urbanism can also be applied to some extent in understanding the importance and function of the laneways in the city’s centre. Centre Place, perhaps to a greater degree and more effectively than Hosier Lane, operates as a space that is able to integrate different uses within the urban environment and that is also open to the public. Further, both laneways use pre-existing elements of the city and reinstate a use value to them, much like the S.I. had proposed in its visions for unitary urbanism (Bonnett, 1989; Plant, 1992; I.S., 1996a; Bruno, 1997). Therefore, they become an active example of the potential to create interesting everyday experiences of the city through the subversion of spaces from their typical or given uses. These are spaces in which one can experience different emotions and relations to space suddenly and by chance, upon exiting from a busy and largely private shopping mall, for example, into the unmediated space of the laneways. Although only relatively small spaces within the context of the CBD of Melbourne, they are effective in creating different experiences and emotions, and suggest the possibility for other subversive uses to be integrated within the CBD to amplify people’s everyday interactions.

Use of a pedestrian scale and strong relation to the street is of central importance to the effectiveness of the Citylights Laneways. As discussed in section 2.3 of this report, the S.I. saw the pedestrian scale of city streets as being essential to improving everyday life. This was also the point of de Certeau’s (1984) comments on the importance of the pedestrian. Although the two laneways are not joined spatially, the common element of Flinders Lane as a link is particularly useful in creating a pedestrian scale, allowing people to travel between the two sites relatively unhindered by traffic or other obstructions (refer figure 1; this map is also shown at both laneways to direct visitors). However, Hosier Lane does not function as effectively as Centre Place, particularly at a pedestrian scale. This is because it is an open-ended traffic conduit, a transient space to be passed through, whilst its entry from the Flinders Street end is generally used less by pedestrians, making it more unlikely to be discovered. Centre Place, however, is much more effective at a pedestrian scale. It is set near a shopping plaza, and off a popular laneway lined with cafés and other small boutique stores intended to attract pedestrian traffic. Centre Place is a dead-end laneway, and therefore the lightboxes and graffiti have been able to completely cover all walls of the laneway, allowing those viewing it to be immersed in the space to a greater extent. Finally, from passive observation conducted, it was found that a larger number of people were aware of the space, and stayed and viewed the art at Centre Place for much longer than at Hosier Lane, due to the highly detailed array of graffiti and street art that can be found there.

Participatory space – graffiti and the haptic

As discovered in Chapter Two of this report, the Situationists believed post World War II urban planning did not allow for citizens to be actively involved in the development of the city, and therefore called for a more participatory form of planning (Thomas, 1975; Bonnett, 1989; Kotanyi and Vaneigem, 1996; Sadler, 1998). It is debatable whether urban planning within Western countries and cities has since become more accessible, or whether it allows for greater levels of participation in the contemporary city, with the privatisation of many planning practices and the stringent regulation of spaces within cities (Davis, 1990; Sandercock, 1998).

Although the Citylights Laneways were not planned spaces, and did not involve the public specifically in their inception, they function as participatory spaces where individuals are able to contribute to the evolution of the space – certainly not a common opportunity within the central areas of cities. Since the inception of the lightboxes, graffitists and street artists have come into the laneways and added their work to the walls there, particularly at Centre Place, although it was a number of years before the graffiti occurred (Andrew McDonald, pers. comm. 17^th July 2003; refer figure 6). Instead of seeing the graffiti as unnecessary vandalism, and as damaging the aesthetic of the space, the graffiti and other forms of street art, such as stencil drawings and the gluing on of various objects to the walls, have led to an increased identity with the space for those whose attention is caught by the street art, and by those who take part in street art (refer figure 7). Andrew McDonald, curator of the Citylights laneways, has noted that the appearance of the graffiti has resulted in a greater involvement with the spaces by street artists, but has also added to the interest in them by other citizens viewing the laneways (Andrew McDonald, pers. comm. 17^th July 2003). Although the walls are re-painted by the council from time to time, in general the MCC has turned a blind eye to the practice of this form of street art, perhaps understanding that instead of being an eyesore, the graffiti adds to the space in a positive manner. However, as confirmed by Andrew McDonald, the MCC in no way openly supports the practice (Andrew McDonald, pers. comm. 17^th July 2003; Bridie, 2003). This is particularly so in Hosier Lane, perhaps due to its proximity to Federation Square, the new landmark of Melbourne’s central business district. The ability for people to participate and add to this space is important, as it creates a place of interest that adds to the everyday experience for those viewing and passing through the space (much like the Situationists had proposed over 50 years ago, but that is still rarely seen). Urban and social planners when considering how to make the urban environment more vibrant and interesting should therefore see spaces such as these laneways as integral components of the city.

Figure 6: Graffiti, stencil art and street art at the Citylights Laneways

In Guiliana Bruno’s (1997) article, she draws the link between Situationist notions of city layout and haptic relations to space, suggesting that Situationist maps (most notably Debord’s Naked City), and the pedestrian practice of the derive, demonstrate an improved relationship for pedestrians with spaces of the city. Haptic relations to space are described as “a holistic way of understanding three-dimensional space…[and] involves the integration of many senses, such as touch, positional awareness, balance, sound, movement, and the memory of previous experiences” (O’Neill, 2001, p.4; see also Nast and Pile, 1998; refer glossary). To date this link between the S.I. and haptic considerations has not been elaborated on specifically, however it is clear that the S.I. advocated this form of relation to socially created space. As Bruno (1997, p.21) states:

“Urban culture – an atlas of the flesh – thrives on the transitorial space of intersubjectivity. In the city…one does not end where the body or walls end”.

This haptic relation to space can be experienced within the Centre Place laneway, where street artists have added numerous objects to the walls, along with the four light boxes placed high upon the back wall, enticing visitors to reach out and touch, feel, and sense the space (refer figures 3 and 7). The laneways become a space “where a tactile eye and a visual touch develop…[as] this way of looking is inscribed in the movement of psychogeography” (Bruno, 2002, p.253). This results in an immersion of the body in space, where the individual can chose to either view the artworks and graffiti, or instead add to the existing works on the walls and buildings (Grosz, 1998; Nast and Pile, 1998). Maire O’Neill’s (2001) study signals the importance of understanding haptic relations to space for urban planners and designers: she contends that a broader understanding of how people come to relate to, comprehend and understand space can improve the layout of urban environments significantly. An example of this can be seen at the recently completed Federation Square, where certain forms of paving have been used in the forecourt that allow the possibility of playing games, entice people to touch them, and create visual stimulus. O’Neill’s (2001) work therefore demonstrates the need for a greater comprehension of what the S.I. proposed in its theses on city design and its arguments against mainstream planning practice.

The Citylights Laneways, although not specifically influenced by the Situationists, are a clear example of spaces located within centres of cities that offer a place where heterogeneous publics can form a sense of relationship. This is achieved not only through visual, or economic and land-use relationships, but through the use of many senses and the ability to participate and contribute, therefore creating intensified everyday experiences.

Bringing attention to the everyday and the city

The Citylights Laneways provide unique spaces that can be viewed as physical examples of the S.I.’s ideals on urban design. They attempt to add to and enhance the everyday experience for the general public travelling through the urban milieu on foot. Although the laneways were not a specific urban planning issue, and are only a small example of such a space, they have particular relevance for urban planning. It is appropriate to refer here to a statement made by de Certeau and recorded by Pinder, about the importance of such spaces and uses in cities for urban and social planning:

“In part, this is an argument about the limitations of trying to understand the city through the forms of surveying and mapping. These perspectives, de Certeau claims, are condemned to remain ignorant of the everyday practices of ordinary practitioners and walkers, who live ‘below the thresholds at which visibility begins’, who make uses of ‘spaces that cannot be seen’ and whose paths ‘elude legibility’” (de Certeau in Pinder, 1994, p.409).

Pinder and de Certeau, therefore, suggest that contemporary forms of urban planning do not consider adequately – or are unable to consider – the micro-scale uses of cities that are inextricably involved in the everyday. The Citylights laneways are an effective example of space, and uses of space, that are not considered by the land-use plan, that are below its scale, and that generally can only be understood through an immersion in such spaces (as was commonly conducted by the Situationists). Yet spaces such as these are important to urban and social planning as they add to the city and the everyday interactions within it, creating an increased sense of cultural capital for those viewing the laneways. Many other spaces throughout cities (which could not be discussed due to the size of this report) also enhance the everyday experience of cities, and hence need to be focused upon more strongly in urban planning. Spaces like Citylights can help planning to reconsider the city itself, rather than simply focusing on the planning process, withdrawn from the actual practices and uses of the city.

Unfortunately public spaces such as Citylights often go unnoticed or unaccounted for by the planning process. Andrew McDonald, Citylights curator, expressed his dismay at this situation. He suggested that urban planners and other managers of the city, although appearing to promote such diverse and public spaces, did not often adequately account for them, particularly during the recent trend to gentrification in Melbourne (Andrew McDonald, pers. comm. 17^th July 2003; DOI, 1998). Much like the notions put forward by Jane Jacobs in the 1960s, there is a need to protect inner city areas from complete gentrification, and for planners to ensure diverse spaces, uses, and buildings are able to remain amidst new developments (Jacobs, 1961; refer Zukin, 1982 also).

The Centre Place arcade and laneway, lined with cafés and boutique stores, has recently featured in promotional advertisements for the City of Melbourne, emphasising the return to a ‘laneway culture’ – an attempt to entice more people into the city centre. Yet as was noted by Andrew McDonald, the MCC has increasingly withdrawn its support of Citylights, even though many shops and cafés nearby have suggested that the art displays and graffiti have added to their business by attracting more passing pedestrians (Andrew McDonald, pers. comm. 17^th July 2003; Bridie, 2003). With the MCC’s focus upon a ‘laneway culture’, and with new developments incorporating laneways into their design, such as on the corner of Swanston and Lonsdale streets in the CBD, it is surprising to see their lack of interest in supporting the Citylights project.

In closing, this case study does not suggest that the Citylights Laneways are the only example of spaces in the CBD of Melbourne that are able to add to the everyday experience for individuals. Nor is it suggested that all citizens see them as valuable. What is implied and was found, however, is that spaces and uses such as these that are not considered by the land-use plan, or seen as a planning issue, should be reconsidered as part of the planning task, as they add to the experience of the city for many. Through a better understanding of the city, urban and social planning will come to see the importance of such spaces to the everyday.