TABLE TENNIS TABLE IN THE PUBLIC SPACE OF BARCELONA - UVA ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Table tennis table in the public space of Barcelona
(The social production of public spaces with table tennis tables by the lens of Lefebvre’s
theory)
Athenea Olivera Belart
11127279
(email: neusol@hotmail.com)
Master in Sociology: urban sociology (track)
Prof. Dr. Danielle A.M. Chevalier
Prof. Dr. Jan Rath
July 2017
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract: This paper explores and presents the social production of public space with table
tennis tables in Barcelona by the lens of Lefebvre’s theory ‘The production of space’ and his
conceptual triad. Debating its role in the public space and more specific in the public play
spaces. As well as the contribution of these spaces for the production of third space and
emotional ownership of space.
Key words: table tennis tables, public space, Lefebvre, production of space, play space,
third space, emotional ownership of space.
1
Table of Contents
Acknowledgment 3
Introduction 4
Theoretical Framework 10
Methodology 18
Findings 25
Conclusion & Discussion 49
Bibliography 52
Appendix 55
2
Acknowledgment
This is the moment where I express my gratitude to the people who have been directly or
indirectly, helping me on this paper and path. Path, and not only a paper, where I have been
walking for many years and is now coming to an end. Where to start from? I would have
never imagined the opportunity to live this year at Surinameplein (4º floor). Thank you, for
your feedback, critics and academy corrections throughout the year. Also, I would have never
imagined to (re) meet you, Ben. I not only feel loved but also intellectually stimulated and
inspired by you. Thank you for helping me in this paper. Melisa, you are the one who got me
into this master, and also thank your for your comments and suggestions on this study.
Rebecca, thank you for your advice from across the Atlantic. Fernando, my favourite tennis
table player, you inspired me to write about this topic. This paper and the sociological
adventure couldn’t have been accomplished without you Ana Belén, everything started with
you in that concrete urban space. And of course to my family, with a special mention to my
sisters Nazareth and Ishtar, who have been always there. For believing in me.
31. Introduction
From 1979 to 1992 Barcelona introduced the so-called Modelo Barcelona (Barcelona
Model). A new form of urban management based on a holistic perspective of the city. The
focus was to improve the city not only based on the recovering, the rebuilding of the
architecture and industrial spaces and new urban infrastructure but also and especially,
through the investment in its public spaces, such as squares. By means of more and better
accessible open public spaces, new uses of urban space, new equipment, new design and
street furniture. Barcelona city planning thought that by making this type of investment, they
would improve the immediate surroundings. Thus, people (children, teens, elderly ...) began
to use these spaces much more. Consequently, new businesses were generated, as well as a
greater influx of people and residential mobilization (i.e. people moving to different
neighbourhoods and new residents to the city). The Barcelona model understood that new
public spaces were not only based on architecture, but also on society and its users.
Therefore, the model supposed an improvement of the urban landscape, the social aspects and
the economy of the city and its neighbourhood (Porcel, 2016; Limón, 2015). Its highest
momentum took place during the mandate of Pasqual Maragall (1982-1997), and especially
from 1986 when Barcelona was nominated and selected for the Olympic Games of 1992,
which transformed much more the city.
It is in this context, where new street furniture and urban equipment, as table tennis tables,
were introduced in the public space for the first time. Therefore, at the beginning of 1992, the
mayor Pasqual Maragall inaugurated the first table tennis tables in Barcelona public space
thereby unifying the Barcelona model actions, the atmosphere of the Olympic Games and the
participation of the citizen in the urban public space. Since that first establishment, the
increase of areas with table tennis tables in the public space have multiplied. Currently,
Barcelona holds more than 120 public spaces with table tennis tables (Barcelona municipality
web page).
This paper explores the social production of public spaces with table tennis tables through the
lens of Lefebvre’s theory ‘The Production of Space’ and its conceptual triad (explained
further on this section and in the theory framework chapter).
4Map 1. Shows Barcelona’s public spaces with table tennis tables (source: Barcelona municipality web page)
Public spaces and their urban tangible elements are crucial for society and its population
(Jacobs, 1961; Castells, 2002; Schmidt & Németh, 2010: Galdini, 2016; Lefebvre (1978
[1967]; Brunnberg & Frigo, 2012). For instance, Knox (2005: 1) has pointed out that public
settings with tangible elements have an important role to facilitate the use of public space. As
well as Lavrinec (2011: 71), who has observed that new organisation of spatial structures and
establishment of new objects in the public space can attract passers-by and provoke its uses
and interpretation. Furthermore, public spaces with such elements can also facilitate
encounters with the other triggering the social interaction among strangers. Thus, tangible
urban elements such as table tennis tables (TTT) can: facilitate the use of a public space, can
provoke its uses and different interpretation, and has as well, the capacity to trigger social
interaction with other users of that public space and its urban facilities.
How these urban settings with table tennis tables are socially produced and what they mean
for their users, is the core of this paper. Lefebvre’s theory ‘The production of space’ (1991
[1974]), and its conceptual triad: spatial practice, representations of space and
representational spaces (Lefebvre, 1991: 39-38) explains that a social space is produced
through the interrelation of these three elements. Three elements, and not two, as he said,
give the answer to the complexity of the production and reproduction of social space. These
elements represent the perceived space, the conceived space and the lived space. ‘The
5production of space theory’ tries to overcome the fragmented knowledge of space debated in
general (i.e. geometrical space, physical space, etc.), and the urban space in concrete and in
this way proposes a unitarian theory of the urban matter and its social production-
reproduction.
Furthermore, since the TTT are located in the public space, as described before, they can
facilitate people to use those areas, and to meet and interact with other users, producing an
urban human shared experience. Moreover, since it is a space for playing, it can be
considered as a play space, triggering what Oldenburg (1892; 1989) has called: third place. A
public space outside the workplace and home, that can benefit individuals and society at
large. And where people from different backgrounds meet, just for the pure fondness of the
others, the activity and the place. The frequency and continuous use of such spaces can
develop attachment and feelings towards that place, and even a sense of duty, responsibility
and ownership (Chevalier, 2015).
Thus, this paper seeks to explore the social production of spaces with tables tennis tables in
the public space of Barcelona, to contribute to the debate of public spaces and more
specifically, public play spaces and its urban tangible elements, because through the lens of
play we can also “explore how public space is practised” Jones (2013: 1146). Furthermore, it
aims to understand the meaning of those public spaces for the people, through the concept of
third place, and the ways people appropriate such settings, for instance through the
sociological term ‘emotional ownership of space.’ (This will be expanded and explained in
the framework chapter.)
1.1. Research question and subquestions
As mentioned before, this study aims to explore the production of space with table tennis
tables (TTT) in the public space in the city of Barcelona, taking into consideration the play-
element as well as the meaning and emotional attachment for its ‘users’ and ‘inhabitants’,
through the term third place and emotional ownership of space. Research of this phenomenon
examined three case studies, which are explained in detail in the findings chapter . Therefore,
the main research question is as follows:
6How are public play spaces with table tennis tables socially produced?
Since the production of space of Lefebvre is built on three inseparable elements, to answer
this question I looked at three dimensions:
- The spatial practice of space (the perceived space): how people perceive and act in the
urban public setting with TTT.
- The representation of space (the conceived space): how and why those urban settings
were conceived by the municipality.
- The representational space (the lived space): 1) who the ‘inhabitants’ and ‘users’ are
of these spaces 2) How it is being used 3) How people experience and live the act of
playing tables tennis in the public play space, 4) How users change the manifest
functionality of the TTT, 5) How these play spaces trigger imagination?
Subquestion:
How the production of these spaces can contribute to the production of third place and
emotional ownership space?
All question and subquestions are intertwined. Contributing to the social production-
reproduction of space, through the uses, practices, visibility, playfulness, attachment, use
value and emotion.
1.2. Relevance of research
As Spaaij (2012) and Woodward (2012) have expressed, play is a key element in sports
because it produces pleasure, excitement, enjoyment and freedom of movement. And these
playful forms can be found in the act of playing table tennis.
The majority of academic articles that have explored play spaces in the public space are
dedicated to children (for instance the works of Verstrate & Karsten, 2011; Woolley & Lowe,
2013; and Lloyd & Auld, 2003), and little focus has been dedicated to grown-ups or teens,
who also play and use public spaces for play. For this reason, I took the perspective of the
playfulness on the public space through the lens of playing table tennis, rather than the sports
perspective, which has been more debated.
7Moreover, so far no literature on these specific urban settings, table tennis tables in the public
space, was found.
Another intriguing matter is inspired in the following quote by Lefebvre:
“Which ones are, which ones will be the places with social success; How to detect them, with
what criteria, what times, what rhythms of daily life are inscribed, are prescribed in these
spaces with 'success', in other words, that ones that are propitious to happiness? This is what
matters” ( Self-translation. Lefebvre, 1978 [1967]: 129)
Therefore, this paper hopes to contribute to the academic knowledge of the production of
social spaces, that ones that can be propitious to happiness, taking the case of table tennis
tables in the public space.
Lastly, the second agenda of the study aims to present a future project to the Barcelona
municipality: a project that seeks to give answers to some of the gaps that can be found in the
research, providing new forms to dynamize the use of the table tennis tables in the public
space. Activities such as educational training workshops of the rules and game of table tennis,
improve the physicality (representation of space) of such areas or making play days to
promote this game to the residents. Therefore, it was necessary to make this previous study to
diagnose the social reality of such spaces.
1.3. Structure of the paper
Firstly, the theoretical framework starts with the ‘umbrella’ of this research: Lefebvre’s triad
conceptualization of the social production of space. Moreover, the debate of public space and
play spaces literature is also presented as well as the concepts of third space by Oldenburg
and emotional ownership of the space by Chevalier which give answers to the key question
and subquestions of the social production of public space with TTT. Secondly, I present the
methodology chapter, where I explain the research strategy of the study including the
development of the empirical fieldwork, process of analysis, as well as its validity. The third
chapter is dedicated to the findings of the study, and how they address the theory and the
questions formulated. In this chapter I have integrated the presentation of the three case
studies with an overview of the urban settings for table tennis tables. And finally, the
conclusion and discussion-reflection chapter, which debates the main findings, limitations of
8the research, future lines of research, and brief policy recommendations towards the
improvement of such spaces.
92. Theoretical framework
This chapter presents the theoretical framework of the master’s thesis. I start with the
umbrella theory of this study: Lefebvre’s theory ‘The production of space’ (1991 [1974]).
The second aspect is the discussion of the public space. Later on, I briefly introduce the play
element concept through a discussion of the play space and the use value of play space.
Afterwards, the framework links to the concept of place and more concrete to the third place.
Next is a discussion of the concept of emotionally owned space. Finally, I present a
conclusion that returns to Lefebvre's theory.
2.1. The production of space
The first table tennis tables in the public space of Barcelona were built using the so-called
Barcelona Model (1979-1992), a new form or urban planning that changed the urban
landscape of the city by focusing not only in the renewal of the buildings but by creating
more and better public spaces. This model understood that by improving public spaces the
city would improve, satisfying not only social needs but also improving the economy. One of
the strategies was to introduce new urban facilities accessible to citizens, like table tennis
tables. This is the social context where table tennis tables in the public space were produced.
Lefebvre’s (1991) ‘The Production of Space’, gave a new way of approaching the production
of social space by the interrelation of his conceptual triad: spatial practice, representations of
space and representational spaces (Lefebvre, 1991: 39-38). And even though they can be
studied separately, they are inseparable and necessary for the social production of space. In
this manner, the social production of space with table tennis tables is going to be studied with
this theory and triad.
Spatial practice is a perceived space and belongs to the mental realm. This space can be
understood as the space of how people experience and act in it, which at the same time
“embraces production and reproduction, and the particular locations and spatial sets
characteristic of each social formation’ (Lefebvre, 1991: 33). People learn to navigate
through public spaces through their own perception of their everyday reality (use of time) and
the urban reality (like for instance, routines) (p.38). A certain level of competence and
10performance, which “can only be evaluated empirically” (p.38), is necessary to ensure the
reproduction and continuity of the space. Lefebvre uses the metaphor of the body to explain
better this component of the triad. Spatial practice is the use of the body through the
perception sphere, therefore, how people perceive and act in the world corresponds to their
psychological sense (p.40), thence, the mental realm. For instance, taking one route instead of
another, or passing through the park instead of the street to return home are examples of
choices that users make according to their perceptions in public spaces.
In the case of representations of space, it is the conceptualised or the conceived space by the
‘experts’. This space is the dominant one, where ideology configures the physicality of urban
space, like the design of streets or the shape of a square. The space is conceived by the
planners, urbanists, engineers, technocrats, etc. (p.39) who generate a certain image and
model of the urban space. It is a space of the codes and laws, restriction and fragmentation. In
other words, the code and the regulation of a specific space takes place, when a space for
instance the park, has been banned for barbeques. People have to behave according to the
rules otherwise they will be fined. Fragmentation occurs when the space has been divided or
restricted according to activity.
Lastly, representational spaces represent the lived experience of the space by the users of that
space: ‘as directly lived through its associated images and symbols, and hence the space of
‘inhabitants’ and ‘users’” (Lefebvre, 1991: 39). They are also, the spaces where the
‘inhabitants’ and ‘users’ seek to change, appropriate and create new spatial realities through
their imagination (ibid) over the representations of space. For instance, to use the space in a
different way than it was designed, or to introduce new elements in the urban landscape like
street art.
2.2. Public space
Public space, a core area of study for urban sociologist (Castells, 2002: 15) and a well-
debated topic in other disciplines seems to never end. Historically, public space has been
thought of and named differently. For the Greeks public space was called the Agora, and the
Romans called it the Roman Forum. In our current times, there seems to be a consensus with
the term public space. However, the way it is approached depends on the area of study.
11According to Goodsell (2003), there are three main perspectives for the study of public space.
One is from the philosopher's perspective and it attends to the public action and its role in
democracy. For him, the most representative of this realm are the works of Habermas and
Arendt. The second perspective comes from urban planners, who study the socio-physical
space- its function, uses and social interactions. Space where “social spontaneity urban life”
(p.365) takes place. The third perspective is the political analysis of architecture, which
examines the buildings, semiotics and the power relationship with the public. The core focus
is the social meaning of the public space. However, Goodsell forgets the legal-economic
perspective (Neal, 2010) which regulates the legal status of the space, making it private,
public or hybrid. It organises the rules within it, what is possible to do, or not. Neal (2010: 1)
defines public space as “all areas that are open and accessible to all members of the public in
a society, in principle though not necessarily in practice”. Other authors as Lynch, have
argued that a public space should not only be defined by its openness and accessibility, but
also by its flexibility regarding its uses and actions. He concludes that space “is open if it
allows people to act freely” (Lynch, 1996, referenced in Jones, 2011: 1146).
From the well-known book of Jane Jacobs (1961) The death and life of great American cities,
we have learned that public spaces, as street, sidewalks, squares and parks, are crucial urban
elements for bringing life to the city. For Castells (2002: 12) they are a “critical expression of
local life, measuring the vitality of a given city”. They also “serve social ends” (Schmidt &
Németh, 2010: 453), and their existence can contribute to the improvement of urban safety,
urban environment, and economic, public health, and physical activities (Schmidt & Németh,
2010: 454; Galdini, 2016). And for Lefebvre (1978 [1967]), public space is the urban space
where simultaneity and encounters occur, where there is a convergence and exchange of
information and knowledge, but also is the space of confrontations and conflicts. And also, he
continues, the space where passion, the unforeseeable and the ludic moment can appear.
Lefebvre, Castells (2002: 15) also understand that public spaces are the areas for social
communication, boosting urban sociability because people gather together, interact, meet and
develop relationships. Or they can also be a setting to publicly observe others (Brunnberg &
Frigo, 2012: 113).
Another sociological characteristic of public space is that public space is “the locus world of
strangers” (Lofland, 1973: 20). Public spaces are the areas of the city where the encounter
with the unknown persons becomes part of the everyday routine. In contrast with the village
where everybody seems to know each other to some degree, the city becomes the place of the
12anonymity. People learn to navigate among each other, and use and share the spaces
according to unwritten rules. In that way, public spaces become the areas of the unexpected,
precisely because of the world of strangers. This is especially possible when the urban setting
can also be the area for the “quite pleasant adventures of simply encountering and conversing
with people one has never met before; that is, with strangers” (Lofland, 1973: 168). In
addition to this, in a public space people can develop a sense of community and, therefore, of
social belonging promoting inclusiveness and contributing to the quality of life. Nevertheless,
it is not only the presence and existence of public spaces, but also the physical form and the
settings within it, that can contribute to the production of good public spaces since tangible
urban elements can foster encounters and socialisation among the people and, thus, the
presence and uses of that space (Brunnberg and Frigo, 2012: p.113).
However, some critics of public space have expressed the idea that the fixed nature of the
physical layout informed by the representations of space, might constrain the way people use
public space or in words of Lefebvre the lived space. For instance as Castells ( 2002: 10-11)
has framed it: “Space was to be considered as a process of production (e.g. capitalist
production), whose outcome would ultimately frame people’s lives in spatially constrained
patterns”. Nevertheless, other authors as Delgado (2002) have pointed out that public spaces
have a double reading. One is the political and ideological urban design (representations of
space) which orients our perceptions and influence the use of the space, and the second
reading is made by the user-producer of the urban realm, who at the end have the last word
for the meaning of the space, and how and in which way the conceived space is going to be
navigated and used. Therefore, it is through the social action and interaction (lived space) that
the space acquires its attributes and qualities (ibid). As for Harvey (2003) “we individually
and collectively make the city through our daily actions and our political, intellectual and
economic engagements” (p.939). And for Galdini (2016: 2) the success of public spaces is
not solely in the design, but especially in the use and management of the space by the people.
“People make places, more than places make people.”. Thus, the production of space can not
be conceived as a closed or fixed system, but dynamic and open to change. Through the
presence, uses, practice, interactions and meaning that people give to space and to the
tangible elements present in those spaces. It is through this flexibility and forms of
imagination, even utopia, where Lefebvre (1978 [1967]) sees the possibility of transformation
and appropriation of the urban, and therefore, the right to the city. In other words, where the
13urban space is not only a transit zone and users are passive subjects in it, but where users are
also active co-producers of the urban spatiality.
2.3. Play-element and public play spaces
Johan Huizinga (1970) in Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture, (referenced
in Jones, 2013) delves into the importance of the play element, concluding that it is intrinsic,
and necessary to cultures. The key characteristic is fun, but also other five features are
essential: 1) play is freedom, 2) it is not real or ordinary, 3) it creates order, as for instance
through rules in the play, 4) it is different from ordinary life in locality and time, and 5) it has
a non-materialistic quality (imagination). Jones (2013) takes Huizinga’s works to explore the
playfulness of the social practices in play spaces and other non-play settings of the everyday
life in the public space. The ways people use the public play spaces, and non-play spaces, and
their tangible urban elements provide the reading of their interpretation and their own
imagination of the space (Jones, 2013: 1148), a key element to appropriate the space, and a
key quality to experience the urban space as theirs (Jones, 2013: 1162). Play space is co-
produced through the uses and practices of the public. Thus, the role of individuals is crucial
in making space playful and this is possible through its visibility, practices and uses.
Furthermore, the existence of such spaces is not only for the per se action of play but also,
because leisure oriented spaces influence the quality of life of urban residents. Play spaces in
the public space, provide the grounds for social interactions, developing abilities and
capacities of the individuals in their emotional (such as empathy, emotional intelligence),
social (i.e. work in groups, co-operation), physical (for instance, strength, coordination) and
intellectual level (resolve problems and conflicts) (Woolley & Lowe, 2013: 60). Thus, a play
use value of space is that one, in which someone, while playing, fosters and improves these
abilities and capacities. (Woolley & Lowe, 2013; Verstrate & Karsten, 2011; Lloyd & Auld,
2003). In addition, it serves social needs, and gives meaning and shape through the way it is
being used, which is in opposition to the exchange value of space that supposes the profit of
the space and its commodification (Logan & Molotch, 1987).
As Jones, other scholars (Verstrate & Karsten, 2011; Woolley & Lowe, 2013; Lloyd & Auld,
2003) have explored the importance of play spaces in the public space for society. Verstrate
14& Karsten (2011) have tracked the production of play spaces, specifically playgrounds for
children in Amsterdam and the different agents implied in that historical-political battle.
Play spaces, as playgrounds or other tangible elements in the public space, are established to
satisfy the demands and necessities of the population. This has been possible thanks to the
performance of multiple agents: planners, parents, pedagogues, entrepreneurs, architects,
politicians, etc, who have demanded and proposed such spaces. Therefore, the grass-root
input is crucial for the existence of play spaces (Verstrate & Karsten, 2011; Lloyd & Auld,
2003). In the case of Amsterdam, the city tried to present a role model of the ideal urban
society where different spaces for different activities were proposed: home space, work space
and recreational space, this last space can also be linked to Oldenburg concept of third space
that will be explained later on in this chapter. According to Verstrate & Karsten (2011: 95)
the “ideal type of play space, is freely accessible to every child, open and safety”.
Furthermore, the high quality of urban tangible settings, like playgrounds, and the cheap cost
for the municipality is also important for their existence in the public space.
The act of playing in the public space becomes visible mainly by observing children. Even
though the play-element is also seen in different ages, adults are confined to public play
spaces or other spaces, one example being for the purpose of sports. Thus, the right to the city
is not only at stake, but also “the right to the enjoyment of public space” (Verstrate &
Karsten, 2011: 95).
2.3. Third place
As explained before, ideal urban society differentiates three spaces: home space, work space
and recreational space. The last one can be considered in what Oldenburg has coined as
“Third place”. These places, aim to provide an explanation of those public social spaces
different from home (first space) and work (second space). In the words of Oldenburg &
Brissett (1982: 270):
“Third space is a public setting accessible to its inhabitants and appropriated by them as their
own. The dominant activity is not "special" in the eyes of its inhabitants, it is a taken-for-
granted part of their social existence. It is not a place outsiders find necessarily interesting or
notable. It is a forum of association which is beneficial only to the degree that it is well-
15integrated into daily life. Not even to its inhabitants is the third place a particularly intriguing
or exciting locale. It is simply there, providing opportunities for experiences and relationships
that are otherwise unavailable.”
Any space can be a third place if it holds the eight main characteristics (1989: 20-42; ): 1)
neutral ground (the neutrality of the place makes more informal and intimate); 2) leveler (by
nature is inclusive, social status is not important, personal problems and moodiness should be
aside; 3) conversation is the main activity; 4) accessibility and accommodation (time - the
idea that one can go there at any time, and location - in terms of proximity to the dwellings);
5) the regulars (the regular visitors of a place, making it alive), 6) low profile (where the
physical setting is plain and unimpressive for the majority) ; 7) playful mood (is the key spirit
of third places, joy and acceptance rule the space and some sort of magic involves the
participants in those places); and 8) home away from home (the capacity of the third place to
provide the sensation of being at home, even sometimes competing with the first space).
Thus, third places are possible through the common interest of people of gathering together
just for the fun of enjoyment of each other. This free association, according to Oldenburg &
Brissett (1982: 268-269) provides the opportunities for creating healthier individuals and a
sane society.
These places invite user to participate with other individuals. This participation provides
people a socially shared experience, where the magic of the unexpected is present. This
feeling of uncertainty is a vital element of experiencing third places (1982: 274).
Furthermore, a third place is a meeting on neutral ground for people with different
backgrounds, providing diversity to the place and an inclusive atmosphere, where “the full
spectrum of local humanity is represented” (1989: 14). Another element of third places is the
vivid, loud and boisterous atmosphere, making the experience extraordinary emotional
expressive (1982: 278). They provoke the user to meet, talk and socialise. They are the best
spaces to develop pure sociability, a term proposed by Simmel where people seek to
associate themselves for the intrinsic propose of fondness, delight, playfulness and enjoyment
(1982: 270).
All in all, third places provide to individuals a continuous experience with social reality
outside their first and second spaces. They are important spaces for society at large, in the
way that they promote democracy, civil engagement, grassroots associations, and social
relationships (Galdini, 2016). They are crucial for the development of human shared
experience, providing a sense of belonging to the place, and therefore, emotional attachment
to it.
162.4. Emotionally Owned Space
When a public space, as a play space and a third place, becomes part of the everyday lives of
people through their routines, uses, practices and part of their biography, it is possible to
develop feelings and emotions towards that place. Furthermore, if that space means
something important for an individual, it can also lead to what Chevalier (2015) have
conceptualised as emotional ownership. This term refers to the sense of ownership of a place
founded in emotional attachment to space and not through a legal process (p. 209). Three
main characteristics (p. 120) define the status of this term: 1) the existence of social
interactions in a space; 2) the meaning that space has for the users of the space; 3) there is a
certain control over the space by its users. Moreover, a key element in this process is the
responsibility (p. 120) that people develop towards ‘their’ places. This responsibility wants to
improve the space itself, not only for his/her satisfaction but for other users (present users and
futures). As Chevalier (2015: 121) has stated, this term provokes a certain type of rights over
the space, but also duties of care and responsibility for that space. This right and duty is
developed not only through the interest in the improvement of the place, but also in the social
encounter and interactions with others, where a person that feels emotional ownership in
space also claims more ownership because she/he has been there for a longer period than the
others (p. 209). These facts do not mean that space stops being public and accessible to
everybody. The emotionally owned space can be measured “on a continuum, from space over
which no one feels emotional ownership to space over which one specific person holds
exclusive emotional ownership” (p. 122). This sense of emotional ownership also participates
in the production of space (p. 122).
2.5. Conclusion
Lefebvre’s triad conceptualization of the social production of space and his triad is the
theoretical umbrella of how a public space with a table tennis table (TTT) is produced. But
also the relationship of these settings within the public play space and the right of enjoyment
of the citizens. As well as, the meaning of play space and its use value as a third place for the
people. And finally, the development of emotional ownership of the space by its users.
173. Methodology
This chapter explains the strategies used to acquire the data for the research study, which is
based on three case studies to understand and grasp the social production of the space, tables
tennis tables in the public space and the quotidian life around such settings. First, I explain
the type of methodology used and why. Secondly, I describe the three sites under study.
Later, I expand the type of methods used, why I used these methods and how they developed
during the fieldwork. I continue with the exposition of how I analysed the data, and finally,
the validity of the research.
3.1. Research strategy
As stated by Hennink et al. (2011), a qualitative research study starts with a qualitative
research question. The research question of this study aims to give an understanding of the
social production of public space with table tennis tables and its meaning. In this way, I
understood that the best strategy for this purpose was the qualitative approach. Qualitative
research aims to understand the behaviour, the perceptions, opinions, feelings and beliefs
(Hennink et al. 2011), in this case, of the users of the table tennis tables. Nevertheless, the
question was not static but dynamic and in constant change, therefore, open and flexible for
new inquiries. In this way, the research also incorporated inductive reasoning. Furthermore,
in order to diagnose the social reality in those areas and to collect the data for a solid
understanding, I took a descriptive and interpretative position.
In addition, the research can be considered a case study, in concrete, the analysis of three case
studies, which I will explain in the findings section. Case studies, according to Weiss (2004)
“make the reader aware of the respondent’s experience within the context of their lives: this
is what it is like to be this person in this situation”. In addition, the research incorporates an
issue-focused interest because it seeks “to describe what has been learned from all
respondents about people in their situation” (Weiss, 2004). This was possible through the
fieldwork, which was an ethnographic approach. The research methods were developed
through triangulation, through three qualitative methods: observation, interviews, and written
material (policy analysis). I also added two aid methods, visual and sound aids, with the
purpose of the apprehension and representation of the diverse and symbolic universe of our
object of study. The methods are explained further in this chapter.
183.2. Case studies
Several criteria were taken into consideration for the selection of three spaces.
At first glance, one can observe that the city of Barcelona has numerous spots with table
tennis tables in the public space. However, is difficult to state exactly how many, since there
is no updated database from the municipality. Although the map shows several places with
TTT, in some occasions when visiting those place no TTT was found. Another constraint was
the lack of time. Since the thesis fieldwork and the thesis itself had a limitation time, I
considered that the number three was appropriate to give a wider perspective and
understanding of the social production of those spaces in the city.
Furthermore, I decided that these three cases should cover different districts. The city of
Barcelona is formed by ten districts. The three districts chosen were Gràcia, Sants-Montjuïc
and Ciutat Vella. The reason of this was because each district has their own nuances in
demographics and lifestyles. This information was first provided by my key informant and
later on confirmed through observation and database documents from the Barcelona Statistics
Department (see appendix). I present and delve into the characteristics of the three cases in
the findings chapter.
After deciding the number and the district, the criteria selection of the exact place was chosen
firstly, because my key informant (who is considered to have a wide knowledge of table
tennis tables in the public space of the city) suggested those spaces (Hennink et al. 2011: 191)
primarily because they have more than one table tennis table. Secondly, because of the type
of space; each TTT is located in a different type of public space: a square, a complex terrace,
and a park therefore covering a variety of the physical ‘textures’ posible in the public space.
In another chapter of the thesis, I describe these in depth.
3.3. Data collection
The fieldwork was carried on from the 5th of April till the 8th of May 2017, in the city of
Barcelona, Spain. During this period Spain celebrated Easter week from the 10th to the 17th
of July, with school holidays during that week and national holidays from the 13th to the
17th. This matter affected the observation method to some extent since people were on
19holidays and the landscape of the settings under research were quieter than the rest of the
period of fieldwork.
Observation
Following Hennink et al. (2011) observation methods allow you to “obtain a detailed
description of social setting or events in order to situate people’s behaviour within their own
soci-cultural context” (2011: 170). Thus, in a period of three weeks within the time of
fieldwork, I placed myself in the three settings. Each week was dedicated to one setting. I
decided to observe from Wednesday to Sundays. From Wednesday to Friday, the
observations were from four in the afternoon to eight in the evening approximately. On
weekends, I was observing from eleven am to eight pm, with a break of two-three hours for
lunch and rest. Therefore, for each setting I expended around thirty hours. On one occasion,
in the park setting, I stayed until ten in the evening. I took a notebook to write down the
observations, which were mainly non-participant. Only during one afternoon-evening, I did
participant-observation. The reason to choose non-participant observation was that I tried to
place myself in a position where I could obtain an in-depth description (Geertz, 1973) of the
social setting and people’s behaviour. Moreover, with this method I wanted to have an etic
perspective of each place and to be what Hennink et al. (2011: 185) called a “fly on the wall”.
However, even though I did not want to influence the settings, as the authors also pointed out,
sometimes this was not possible. On three occasions in the three differents settings, people
asked me what I was doing. Other people got annoyed because I was looking at them, and on
a third occasion I changed people’s behaviour because while playing ping pong they tried to
impress me.
Equally important, is that the observation targets were not only the users of each setting and
the users of the table tennis tables, but also the physical layout of the space under
observation. For this matter I developed a standard template (see appendix) in order to
systematize the information collected.
I typed all my observations during the following weeks on my computer, so I could have
them ready for the analysis.
Semi-structured interviews
20With the qualitative interviews, I tried to have the emic insights of the people under research.
I opted for the semi-structured interviews because they are open, flexible, and more dynamic.
However, there was a script (see appendix) that to a certain extent was followed. The
interviews allowed me to understand “how the interviewee frames and understands issues and
events” (Bryman, 2012), in this case, the social space, meaning and its dynamics of
interviewees’ perspective of the table tennis tables settings. This method was recorded with
an ultra-compact stereo Zoom H1 Handy Recorder and was divided in two ways.
- Street interviews. In total I carried out 16 street interviews of people that were
playing. Because they were streets-interviews and therefore spontaneous each setting
has different number, even unequal, of interviews. These are as follows: the square
two street-interviews, the park four. In the area known as the complex, I could carried
out the most, ten interviews (this was mainly because I could interview people coming
in a group of three to play). My method was to approach the people that were resting
after a game, or when another friend would take over the table, or people who were
observing the game and seemed to be users of the table tennis tables. In general,
people were collaborative and interested in the topic of the research. Only on four
occasions did individuals refuse questioning. On another occasion, individuals told
me to come back the next day for the interview, which I did. I would take with me the
script (see appendix) of the semi-structured interview, and try to follow that script.
Sometimes more questions were added because of the circumstance but questions
always related to the social production of those spaces and how people perceived,
understood, and lived them. I transcribed all the interviews online using Google drive
and Otranscribe. The interviewees were mainly males in their twenties or thirties.
Only once, did I interview a female.
- Arranged interviews. I had two arranged interviews; one with my key informant
who was also a user of the table tennis tables. The other was with a profesional from
the municipality. As Chevalier (2015: 55) has stated: “professionals are persons with
a professional relationship with space, and who talked to me in their professional
capacity”. These interviews were with Jordi Raboso Alonso (Managerial of Licenses
of Public space of the District of Gràcia) and Alberto Lacasta (Counselor of the
Gràcia District). Since the three settings are located in three different districts, I tried
to contact the three managers of licenses of public space of the districts. However, I
21only succeeded once, thanks to the caretaker of the Gràcia district who managed to
pass along my contact, so I could arrange an interview.
Written material
- Policy analysis. The third method used in the data collection was based mainly on the
document: Pla strategic de l 'sport de Barcelona 2012-2022 (Strategic sports plan of
Barcelona 2012-2022). This document was used in order to better understand the
sports policy that Barcelona municipality is trying to implement. The document aims
to develop and achieve six main points. To some extent the goals are connected to the
sports table tennis. However, during the fieldwork, I realized that the table tennis
tables are considered to be street furniture rather than sports facilities, as I will explain
in the following chapters of the thesis. This change, made me think of the validity of
the policy analysis used for this research. Nevertheless, I introduce it here because
there are some connections with the goals of the document and the other data
collection.
- Online database from Barcelona municipality. The other written material was
information from the online database of Barcelona municipality, specifically the three
districts where the three case studies where placed.
Aids
In order to reinforce the research and to give a better understanding of the cases, I took visual
and sound aids of each setting or case study.
- Visual aids help to capture the instants of that moment, and to present images of the
observations. I took pictures rather than video because I think that is less intrusive. I
did not ask permission for this, but the pictures represent moments of the everyday
life in the public space. I am conscious that the pictures I took and present in this
research come from my own perspective, therefore, my own subjectivity and
interpretation (Hennink, Hutter and, Bailey, 2011: 189).
- Sounds aids. In The Acoustic City (Gandy and Nilsen, 2014) a series of essays on
sounds of the urban life are presented. I found the study of the urban matter intriguing
from this perspective, therefore, I thought that it would be interesting to incorporate
soundscapes into this work, the soundscapes of the three settings, to give the reader
22(or listener) a wider understanding of the atmosphere, and the type of social
relationships of each place. This soundscapes and the link is presented in chapter
three.
3.4. Data analysis
The strategy for the data analysis was based first on a re-reading of all the data collected.
Using Google drive, I started to add comments, as a sort of memos, in the paragraphs as first
insights of the type of material I have. This allowed me to introduce the Grounded Theory
(Carmaz, 2001), developed by Strauss and Glaser, by a back and forth of the fieldwork data
and theory. I continued with gathering the material related to the different concepts under
research. Afterwards, I proceeded with sorting that material. In the words of Weiss
(2004:168): “material that deals with the same issue must be brought together no matter
where the material originally appeared in the interview transcripts. (...). Integrating is likely
to be done in two stages: a first stage of bringing together material into coherent scenes and a
second stage of inclusive integration, in which scenes are linked into coherent story”. I did
not use any programme, I did it through gathering the information in different documents.
3.5. Research validity
As stated at the beginning of this chapter, the nature of this research is qualitative. Golafshani
(2003) explains the debate around the validity of the qualitative approach, concluding that the
validity of such research should be explained through its “credibility, transferability, and
trustworthiness” (2003: 600). In this way, she supports the idea that it’s in the ability, effort
and ethical position of the research(er), where validity is reliable. As well as the different
strategies used for generating the understanding of the phenomenon under study.
Taking this into consideration, the validity of this research is built on two main lines. One is
my own ethical, engagement and effort to complete this research.
Secondly, the validity of this research relies as well on the strategy I developed to gather the
data, which is triangulation methodology. As some authors have stated: “triangulation is
defined to be a validity procedure where researchers search for convergence among multiple
and different sources of information to form themes or categories in a study” (Creswell &
23Miller, 2000, p. 126, quoted by Golafshani, 2003: 604). In this aspect, the quality of the
research lays upon the variety of the data collection in order to have a wider understanding of
the processes of the production of the social settings, helping me to eliminate the bias when
using only one method. Therefore, “engaging multiple methods, such as observation,
interviews and recordings will lead to more valid, reliable and diverse construction of
realities.” (Golafshani, 2003: 604)
These realities are never one but multiple, which creates the richness of the social production
of space.
Nevertheless, there are always weaknesses in a research study and especially in qualitative
research, because the subjectivity of the own researcher always comes into play. Being
conscious of this, I think that a qualitative researcher has a stronger possibility of showing,
and interpreting the richness and complexity of the everyday life, despite the bias of the
researcher. That is the reason of importance for this chapter to show the methodology
process. Furthermore, one can argue about the generalization of the nature of the case study
approach. However, I am not trying to develop a generalization through the three case
studies. Rather, my aim is to contribute to the debate of the production of social spaces in the
urban realm, through the concrete cases of the life with and around the table tennis tables.
To sum up, a qualitative research study compared with a quantitative study is more
vulnerable to questions about its validity, since it relies on the ethical background of the
researcher, and the methodology strategy. As stated before, different authors agree that
triangulation can provide a better validity because it collects data through a combination of
methods. This research then, stands on these two issues.
244. Findings
This chapter presents the findings and analysis according to theory, questions and data from
the fieldwork. The findings integrated the social production of space with table tennis tables
(TTT) and their contribution to the production of third space and emotional ownership of
space. Therefore, to answer the main question: How are public play spaces with table tennis
tables socially produced? I look into the three interrelated directions of Lefebvre’s conceptual
triad and, therefore, the three subparts:
- The spatial practice of space (the perceived space): how people perceive and act in the
urban public setting with TTT.
- The representation of space (the conceived space): how and why those urban settings
were conceived by the municipality.
- The representational space (the lived space): 1) who the ‘inhabitants’ and ‘users’ are
of these spaces 2) How it is being used 3) How people experience and live the act of
playing tables tennis in the public play space, 4) How users change the manifest
functionality of the TTT, 5) How these play spaces triggers imagination.?
First, I answer the question of the representation of space (the conceived space): how and
why those urban settings were conceived by the municipality. Given an overview of
Barcelona municipality reasons and process for established those facilities in the public
space. Afterwards, I present and describe the three spaces, which are the three case studies, in
order to expose the features (physical and social) in depth of each space and their relationship
with the table tennis tables. In this way, I not only present the conceived space from my own
observations and perceptions but also the perceived space and lived space by the ‘users’ and
‘inhabitants’ of each space. Since is three space, I first introduce the square: Plaça de Gal La
Placídia. I continue with the second space, a complex terrace: Jardins de les Tres Xemeneies.
The third space presented is the park: Parc de la Ciutadella. Afterwards, I conclude the three
case studies with an analysis of the differences and analogies of the three urban spaces.
Within the three case studies are also the findings on the sub-questions: how the production
of these spaces can contribute to the production of third place and emotional ownership
space?
25As mentioned before, the main questions and sub-questions are intertwined, contributing to
the social production of space, through the uses, practices, visibility, the play-element, third
space and emotional ownership of space.
4.1. The social production of public play spaces with table tennis tables
How are public play spaces with table tennis tables socially produced?
For the representation of Space (the conceived space): how and why those urban settings
were conceived by the municipality? I looked first, to the policy Pla strategic de l 'sport de
Barcelona 2012-2022 (Strategic sports plan of Barcelona 2012-2022). Linking it with the
findings from the interview to the professional of public spaces.
The policy aims to achieve, during the period of 2012-2022, six goals to promote sports in the
city of Barcelona. The six points are: 1) educational sport (educate and guarantee
accessibility to sports for all children); 2) Sports and clubs (promote and support different
clubs and sport entities); 3) Sports, city and well-being (to link health and the practice of
sports as well as leisure and recreational sport. Plus introduce sport facilities in the public
space accessible for everyone, as ) ; 4) Social cohesion and sports (use sports as a tool to
create social inclusion. With a special focus in marginal social groups); 5) Sports, economic
engine of the city (commercialization of sports in order to create new economy through job
creation, new technologies and new sport-industry sector in the city); 6) International
projection of Barcelona (international and attractive city for sports, as well as a sporty tourist
destination.)
To some extent these six aims can be applied to the table tennis tables in the public space
because there has been an increased establishment of these facilities in the public space,
promoting in this way its uses and accessibility to a wider audience since they are a collective
good. It is a public service, the facilities are open and free to people of all ages, and promote
cohesion in the neighbourhood because people gather to use that tables. In reference to point
five, economy, there is no profit in it besides the act of buying the TTT to a company.
Finally, Barcelona from the international perspective is well known for its sports brand but
mainly because of the football team. However, in the street-interviews, some foreigners
26brought out to light that having these table tennis tables in the public space made a very good
impression of the city. For instance, a twenty-four years old Canadian said:
“So I think it is pretty cool that this city is trying to comfort by providing different resources
or structures, so something as silly as a table is making, ahh, how you will say it available?,
ah, or accessible? Yeah, so where I am, you might have some in your school, but you can not
play for hours unless you have one at your house. So you can’t really play. So, I’m really
impressed with Barcelona making the...eh.… I really like how the space is produced, you can
really tell they have had good designers that came to the city and ah, I think is really cool
how they…” (street-interview #2)
This quote gives insight into how some visitors to Barcelona might perceive the city with
such settings; the tourist thinks it is gives a good impression of the city, provoking life in the
public space through the use of table tennis tables. The idea that is free and accessible to
everyone also gives a positive conception of the city.
However, there is a flaw in relation to this policy and the table tennis tables in the public
space; table tennis tables are not considered sports facilities, but street furniture. This changes
the relationship and the production of representation of space (the conceived space) to the
municipality and to the policy.
Furthermore, according to the respondent from Barcelona municipality, there is no policy
linked directly to table tennis tables in the public space. Rather the establishment of this street
furniture belongs to a bigger process called the Participatory design process or Framework of
the participatory process1. With this modus operandi, according to the manager of public
spaces, the process provides two main things: 1) it gives answers to social necessities and
1
Phases:
1. Definition of the idea: the representation of space. A proposal of the construction (or renewal) and
distribution of the space and its elements.
2. Presentation of the proposal to civil society through different session. The number of participants in
these session are according to the type of space and the dimensions of the public space. In these phases,
work groups are generated with a certain number of citizens (eg neighborhood representatives). First
the project is presented, they are asked for their opinion, requests, complaints, suggestions, or different
proposals. All this are collected and proceeds to the approval or rejection
3. Second return session, where the technicians explains the reasons of approval or rejection of the
groups.
4. Application to the public space
27You can also read
