ARCHITECTURE STUDENT PARTICIPANT 07 | CODER

5.7  ARCHITECTURE  STUDENT  PARTICIPANT  07| CODER    

Figure  46  –  Route  describing  the  architecture  student  participant  07’s  tour  of  the  city.  

Please  note  –  Coder  demonstrated  insufficient  amount  of  interaction  with  the  environment  

to  generate  a  word  cloud  to  describe  his  actions.      

Coder  is  a  third  year  architecture  student  at  Liverpool  John  Moores  University;  he  has  lived   in   the   city   for   over   two   years.   Coder’s   response   to   the   tour   takes   into   consideration   a   number  of  key  places  of  interaction  for  him  throughout  the  city,  thus  highlighting  a  network   of   points   of   social   activity.   Coder   highlights   throughout   his   journey   both   how   his   surroundings  reflect  the  intentions  of  architects  and  designers,  and  the  meaning  of  places   that   are   the   result   of   unplanned   occurrences.   When   reflecting   on   this   tour   there   was   an   insufficient   amount   of   interaction   with   the   environment   to   generate   a   word   cloud   to   describe  Coder’s  actions  using  the  same  methods  that  were  used  with  the  others,  this  as   also   the   case   with   two   of   the   other   architecture   student   participants.   This   highlights   the   limitations   of   the   tour   as   a   research   exercise.   Due   to   the   staged   nature   of   the   research   exercise,   its   success   can   be   understood   as   being   directly   determined   by   the   participants’  

related  to  the  Lynchian  elements,  the  lack  of  noticeable  forms  of  physical,  such  as  pointing   or   touching,   emphasised   the   difficulty   of   documenting   an   individuals   emplacement   and   sensory  reactions  in  relation  to  city  space.    

Coder  uses  the  Lynchian  term  landmark,  to  describe  St  Luke’s,  a  Neo–Gothic  church  

situated   on   Rodney   Street   in   the  city’s   Georgian   quarter.   He   describes   ‘to   me   one   of   the   most  important  landmarks  in  Liverpool  is  the  bombed–out  church.  I  remember  seeing  this   church  the  first  week  of  Uni.  I  went  in  there  with  some  of  my  friends  that  I  met,  and  we  had   an  outdoor  movie  ...  It’s  a  really  nice  space  to  be  in’.  Coder’s  reference  to  the  former  church   building  used  for  cinematic  performances  suggests  the  meaning  that  he  inscribes  to  it  from   being  in  it.  It  is  therefore  not  simply  considered  for  its  superficial  merits  but  a  place  that   derives  its  value  from  inhabitation.    

Figure  47  –  The  framed  view  of  St  Luke's  church  observed  from  Bold  Street  (17,I  on  map).  

Additionally,  Coder  stresses  how  the  church  is  perceived  from  a  distance,  examining  how  it   is  framed  on  Bold  Street,  a  key  pedestrian  route  that  connects  St  Luke’s  church  with  the  city   centre.  He  emphasises  how  the  image  of  the  building  is  best  viewed  from  the  ‘bottom  when   you’re   working   your   way   back   up   the   street’,   given   an   indication   of   how   a   dynamic   embodied  perspective  shapes  an  evocative  understanding  of  a  buildings  temporal  qualities.      

Coder   identifies   a   psychological   boundary   running   throughout   the   city,   as   he  

explains;  ‘to  me  this  is  the  borderline  of  the  new  city  of  Liverpool  One.  To  me  this  is  where   the  modern  architecture  starts.  So  I’m  on  the  boundary  of  entering  the  new  city  as  it  was.’  

Coder’s   recognition   of   the   transitional   point   at   which   he   enters   into   the   Liverpool   One   development   again   highlights   the   Lynchian   district   element.   Within   this   district  Coder   assesses  the  design  considerations  made  by  the  designers  of  the  space  and  describes  how,    

I  think  it’s  a  really  big  improvement  of  the  city,  especially  safety–wise.  The  Odeon   cinema  is  right  in  front  of  me,  and  I  finished  a  film  there,  twelve/one  o’clock  in  the   morning,  and  I’ve  walked  through  this  part  of  the  city  and  still  felt  completely  safe.   And  I  think  for  the  reputation  that  Liverpool  had  for  being  an  unsafe  city,  I  think  this   development  has  improved  it  and  really  made  people  feel  a  lot  safer  about  using   urban  spaces.  

Figure  48  –  The  Liverpool  One  shopping  district  that  is  described  as  creating  a  greater  sense  of   safety  in  the  city    (25,  J  on  map).  

Coder’s   reference   to   feelings   of   safety   highlights   the   importance   of   incorporating   an  

embodied  perspective  for  understanding  the  experiential  qualities  of  a  city.  From  a  design   perspective,  Coder’s  comments  also  highlight  the  ability  that  new  buildings  can  have  on  the   perception  of  negative  social  activities  that  are  displaced  from  an  area.  The  feeling  of  safety   is   undoubtedly   an   issue   of   complexity   that   is   derived   from   various   layers   of   spatial   and   social  characteristics.  The  subjectivity  of  the  participant  is  influenced  by  personal  memories   and  perceptions  of  self.  Thus,  I  would  argue  that  further  research  that  uses  the  filmic  tour   principles   demonstrated   within   this   study   could   be   implemented   to   specifically   map   individual  responses  to  the  notion  of  safety  within  urban  spaces.  The  reason  for  this  is  that  

that  determines  the  value  of  spaces,  and  as  such  the  ability  that  individuals  have  to  engage   with  them.  

 Coder’s   discussions   on   safety   appears   to   contrast   with   the   attitudes   of   traceurs  

who   appear   to   push   their   bodily   relationship   with   situations   that   are   deemed   as   being   unsafe  as  means  of  self–development.  The  documentation  of  the  spaces  in  which  traceurs   do   this   is   equally   important   for   identifying   how   the   urban   landscape   engenders   feelings.   The  feelings  created  through  the  physical  engagement  with  the  Liverpool  One  development   could   also   be   seen   as   being   interpreted   in   terms   of   an  urban   code,  and   the   restrictions   associated  with  the  space.  When  reading  the  spaces  of  Liverpool  One  as  a  safe  place,  it  is   important   to   consider   how   this   relates   to   the   developers   policies   towards   the   policing   of   the   site,   which   reflect   the   level   of   control   that   they   have   over   it.34  _{Consequently,   as   the}   privatisation  of  urban  space  is  such  a  contentious  issue,  it  is  important  that  in  order  to  fully   understand   the   impact   of   such   developments   on   a   wider   urban   context   the   embodied   sensation  of  safety  within  the  city  is  mapped  further.    

Path   Node   Edge   District     Landmark  

Hope  Street     Bold  Street     Hanover  Street     Bold  Street   Chavasse  Park     Albert  Dock     Waterfront       Liverpool  One   City  /  Business   Docks   Anglican  Cathedral   Catholic  Cathedral   St  Lukes  

Bling  Bling  Building     Mann  Island     Liverpool  Museum    

Table  11  –  Urban  elements  significant  to  Architecture  Student  Participant  7  

34  _{As   Minton   states   on   the   appropriateness   of   Liverpool   One   becoming   a   privatised   space;}  

‘organisations   ranging   from   human   rights   group   Liberty   to   the   Open   Spaces   Society   have   voiced   serious  concern  about  the  restrictions  on  public  access  and  behaviour.’  (Minton  2006,  p.  14)