Intervention Project «Hamburger Winter Dom»

urban territories 1 Intervention Project «Hamburger Winter Dom» tutors:

Dipl.-Ing. Katja Heinecke, Katrin Klitzke, M.A., Prof.

Bernd Kniess

author:

Aleksandrs Feļtins

Reflection paper on methods and procedures of analysation

Hamburg 2011

Research interest Hamburger Winter Dom is a fairground, which could be experienced for the eriod of several months.

It is a place of amusement and joy for a large number of visitors. At the same time, it is supported and sustained by a specific community of workers. Hence it is both fairground and temporary urban setting, where people live, work, perform daily life activities.

What community structure lies underneath fairground's shiny facade? How workers at the Dom appropriate Heiligengeistfeld? How this temporary quarter is structured? Which daily life activities take place in this temporary quarter? Does it have any common features or it has myriad ways of comprehending it?

Research question Temporary urban setting. Living and Working at the Dom. How the territory of Hamburger Winter Dom is structured and perceived?

Primary Data  Field notes (as a photographs)  Map of the Dom  Interview «family/working life in the Dom»  Express interviews «use of space in the Dom»  Mapping as a supplement for the interviews

Data and interpretation In order find the answers to the questions asked above, several data gathering techniques had been used. First of all, the visual observation of the field, trying to grasp the differences and uses. Second, the attempt to establish contact had been made. And third, some express–interviews had been taken from the specific group of respondents.

From the visual observation, the difference between seemingly public and private spaces in the Dom had been made. The former was a street or passage for visitors, with well defined entrances and borders, such as booths or amusement devices, fences or christmas trees. The later, from the point of view of the visitor, is the space behind, where trailers are parked. For us, the act of trespassing to this «other side» was experience like crossing over the fence of someone's house; the question is, whether it feels the same for the people who works here. During the first «get in contact» session, we were talking with a young woman, who worked at the Dom. Primary interest was about her private, family life in relation to the work at the Dom. Since her primary occupation is a seller at the several fairgrounds, she had extensive network of social contacts in the Dom as well, which inevitably persuaded her to explain her spatial behaviour in relation to the social contacts. Then, we understood, that the first impression of spatial division at the Dom is conditional. For the next step specific express–interview had been prepared. Respondents (workers at the Dom, who were working at the early opening hours during the last days of the opening days) had been asked three questions: 1. Could You please show on the map, where you usually go during your work period at the Dom? 2. Which places you usually visit?

3. Which places are the most important for you and why?

When possible, we respondents respondents about the reasons of preference of certain path through the Dom, the destinations, and as well their occupation and place of residence. The answers collected both as a transcripts from the answer and as the map of respective spatial behaviour.

Process of analysation

Open Coding session At first sight, the answers seemed very similar. The daily life of the worker at the Dom is the triangle of place to work, place of residence and the place to meet or socialize after work. In order to find out more precisely perceived qualities of the Dom's space, some techniques for conceptualisation from Grounded Theory had been used (see Process of Analysation). The transcripts together with their descriptions on the map were closely examined. During the Open Coding session (see Open Coding session), attention had been paid to the aspects of preference, attitude, meaning, described qualities of space and performed daily life activities. Concepts derived signify different spaces of the Dom, from the worker's point of view (see Vocabulary).

Vocabulary of Spatial Concepts At this points, they are just generalisation of repetitive expressions used to describe the Dom; but they alone do not unveil underpinning mechanisms of structuring of space through rules, perception, activities, rituals of daily life, predefined composition etc. Nevertheless, their unique combinations, although repetitive in some cases, might uncover some cohesiveness and contradictions in structure and use of the Dom. Closer look at some answers and diverse combinations of spatial concepts had been made.

Here, Lefebvre's triad of the production of space as a relationship of spatial practice, representations of space and representational spaces seems useful tool to make further conclusions. If we try summarize the concepts according to this triad, we can distinguish:  the routines associated with daily life activities make spatial practice or perceived space;  the organisational structure of fire-fighters' ways and streets for visitors as conceived space or representation of space;  associated opinions and meanings are lived, or spaces of representation.

Above mentioned types of production are in the dialectical relationship and thus it is necessary to “set them alongside”. If we put the spatial concepts according to the triad, we see relationships between three means of production — and these relationships are both excluding and complementary (see Triad of Production). For example, the «hide» and «promenade» are contrasting, but «street» and «hide» could be simultaneous. The couplings of «hide» and «forum», «passage», «street» and «meeting place» are also complementary.

Mapping and superimposition of Lefebvre's types of production helps to illustrate the spatial co– existence of rather contrasting perceptions of space of the Dom (see Mapping).

Vocabulary of Spatial Concepts

Triad of Production

Conclusion To conclude, we can observe, that seemingly chaotic space of the Dom develops through its life–cycle a multivalent order. The predefined paths of the visitors and fire–fighters set basic, «top–down» structure, which is acclaimed by everyone. Spatial practices of worker's daily lives both follows this structural setting and makes deviations. At the same time, both rules and practices, induce meanings of space, and vice versa, meanings and prejudices influence spatial behaviour and pursue to violate or follow the rules from above. This way of describing space does not tend to set fixed, objective structure, but rather its advantage is kind of ability to see manifold ways of appropriation. It is not about giving an operative strategy, but rather about learning from the space and its inhabitants.