Federation Square and the Public Realm Is this the new heart of Melbourne? Federation Square presented the city with the opportunity to achieve the civic space for which Melbourne had been longing for the last 150 years. Without doubt, Federation Square, as a whole has become a landmark for the city. However, if this urban space was developed to satisfy a public interest, has it achieved this aim? In my many visits to understand this place and its day-to-day activities, I noticed something curious, except for those who work there, very few people are going about in their daily business. I am interested in the role of Federation Square in regards to the claim that it has become Melbourne's new civic heart1, a “community space”, the link between the city and the river and with the issue of who has, as expressed by Henri Lefebvre, “the right to the city” 2. The new Federation Square, the size of a city block, occupies a pivotal part of the City of Melbourne. It houses the indigenous galleries at the Ian Potter Centre of the National Gallery of Victoria (NGV), the Australian Centre for the Moving Image (ACMI), the Melbourne Visitors Centre, SBS Television Studios and the BMW Edge amphitheatre. Claims Opinions on the success or otherwise of Federation Square vary widely; while Professor Miles Lewis describes it as a “great missed opportunity” and “something of an embarrassment”, Peter Seamer (CEO Federation Square) has compared it to the “St Mark's Square or Piccadilly Circus” stating that, “it is the centre of Melbourne”.3 According to Peter McMahon, the Chairman of the Board of Federation Square Management, this development has achieved the Melbournian’s dream of linking the centre of the city with the river. For him, Federation Square is the unmistakably centre of Melbourne4. Surveys indicate that interstate and international tourist make up a significant number of the visitors. Federation Square is promoted as a destination, a safe and welcoming place with security operating 24 hours a day. The Victoria Premier Steve Bracks affirmed during the opening of the National Gallery of Victoria and the Centre for the Moving Image that, "This space will change the shape of Melbourne forever, making us truly a riverside city”. “This is the heart of community space for many years to come." 5 The descriptions of Federation Square as accessible to the river, a civic centre and a public square resonate with the idea of the enhancement of the public realm. The choice of Federation Square’s tenants such as SBS (the multi-lingual and multicultural television network) and the indigenous galleries of the National Gallery of Victoria, have strong connotations concerning diversity, multiculturalism and tolerance6. However, a short stroll around Federation Square proves that this space does not shelter the activities or the people that these buildings symbolise. In fact, aborigines gather in Swanston Street, a block away from Federation Square. People from different ethnic groups, including Anglo Australians, visit the site as spectators rather than to participate in the activities that makes them identifiable as a cultural group. Challenges to the smooth operation of Federation Square find their opportunity at night. This situation contradicts the day image of this urban space. Security guards describe the place at night as a haven for thieves, graffiti, drug use and homeless (Fears a daytime gem developing a dark side at night. The Age 07/06/03). According to Peter Seamer, the majority of the incidents relate to skateboarders7. This situation reveals at least two aspects of Federation Square that make it quite different from other public spaces around the city. Firstly, there is management control and an issue of security in the form of physical surveillance of the space. Secondly, safety problems may be exacerbated by the design of the complex. If we accept that there is a degree of crime accentuated by what we could call design issues, it becomes more important to explore these aspects. In relation to its location, its functions, and the relationship with the rest of the city, the situation of Federation Square is unique. Southgate, also placed along the riverbank, provides a robust interface with the river; Federation Square on the other hand turns its back.

People Roland Barthes (1988)8 asserts that “every city possesses a centre”, a necessary empty heart that organises the city and represents “the community image of the centre”. In the centre, we encounter the “social truth, to participate in the proud plentitude of reality”9. He gives the city the quality of “eroticism or sociality”. At its centre, the gathering point of any city is located, with all its eroticism, social activities and, what he calls, the “subversive forces”. All these qualities, summed up by the concept of “play”, make the city centre different from the suburbs.

Federation Square since October 2002 has seen the opening celebration of many of the buildings that form the complex. The lavish celebrations, involving “1200 black-tie guests”, and oyster bar at gala parties,10 had not included the largest proportion of the Melbournians organising their own events. The use of the Federation Square’s open space as part of the anti-war rally route, prompted many to declare that Federation Square had been legitimised by the city and their citizens, therefore making it an integral part in the urban city fabric, social and otherwise. However, the general patterns of Melbourne political demonstrations commenced at the State Library, followed by marches ending at Parliament House or the Treasury Gardens. Only once in seven events was Federation Square part of the official itinerary as a destination. According to Barthes’ principles, this experience would not rate Federation Square as the centre of the city in the sense of a “subversive space”, the gathering point of the city or its “eroticism”. David Spratt, organiser for the Victoria Peace Network, commented on the use of Federation Square for the peace rally on February 14, 2003.11 Before the rally, a permit had to be obtained from Federation Square’s management; this includes the use of the stage, public liability and a payment for the use of the sound and screen systems. David Spratt also regarded the rally as an opportunity for the “christening” of the Federation Square. From his perspective, christening aimed to claim the space for the people. Simultaneously, in his view, this activity provided the Federation Square management with the opportunity to promote the space as a people’s square. The State Library is the de facto city civic centre for political demonstrations. It is central, a landmark and a public node, connected and integrated to the city fabric; it is a social and urban space, in spite of having none of the attractions, glitter and spectacle offered by Federation Square. Its central building, the library, is perhaps one of the most tangible symbols of participation and shared knowledge.

Figure 2: State Library during an anti-war rally. Source: Takver’s soapbox, http://www.takver.com

Figure 1: Federation Square

There are no screens directing the view of the visitor as in the case of Federation Square. Visual interest determined by the façade of the library acts as the backdrop for the city movement, allowing enough space and mental freedom for the day to day participation in the extended “family of eyes”12. Perhaps, by default, the empty core allows enough space for being as opposed to just seeing. As it is so integral to the city fabric, there is a natural quality to the space making it more than a destination - it is a humble part of most city day-to-day routes. This is a place so well used by the citizens that, it does not need to target “visitors”. Federation Square on the other hand screams for attention and its architecture cannot be ignored - as I took photos, I photographed other “visitors” taking photos. There is a level of comfort and ownership of the space by the employees occupying the buildings, many visibly wearing their security access cards. So cosy is this place to this group that a work related interview was taking place in the open of the BMW Edge – no shabby aborigines or testing teenagers in sight. Jason Fenton and TA (stands for “terrible aborigine” or “true Australian”) - two aborigines living in the city and with his group occupying the seats outside St. Paul’s Cathedral - referred to Federation Square as a place for rich people, a place from which they are chased out by the police and security guards. They know that this project involved an international competition and that it houses an aboriginal museum and a television channel. They have never visited the museum and they showed no interest to do so. Jason offered to show me the city, to tell me everything about it, all except for Federation Square. When asked where they lived, the answer was clear “here, we live here, all over the city” and about why they are not allowed in Federation Square? “Because we are dirty people, and we drink - where does it say that you cannot drink in here?” said TA. TA added, “we are creative people, we like painting and singing, we would like to have a place for us, art rooms and studios and a bit of luxury too”. Form Activities, vistas and style are the focus of this complex. The fragmented volumes and forms set the visitor in an equally fragmented wondering. Professor Kim Dovey illustrates this fragmentation by saying, "I don't think you'll be able to say, I'll meet you at Federation Square. You'd have to say which part"13. Not much can be said in relation to the claim that it opened the city to the river, as the river is not treated as focal to this development. In places such as BMW Edge, many layers of glass and steel separate the interior from the water. Open space connections are achieved in an architectural dramatic meandering through different sizes of what could be better described as stone crevices. These connections can be either exciting or disorientating for the visitor. As I looked up to Federation Square from its western side, its terraces and steps, I wonder whether the name “Federation Hill” would not be more appropriate. The architecturally innovative indigenous gallery, which opens an opportunity for historical knowledge and acknowledgment of the past, felt rather dull after my conversation with the current aborigines and their present lives – they probably don’t need to experience the architectural drama. During the anti-war rally, Federation Square presented many issues; it is not designed to hold more than 10,000 people. With a crowd of 250,000, the communication systems (sound and screens) proved insufficient to cover the whole complex and the bordering streets. Different floor levels, a textured floor and corners presented considerable safety issues. The broken open spaces inside the complex presented functional problems that complicated the assembly task. The crowd, instead of evenly spilling into the city, were fragmented in pockets, some virtually disappearing down to the riverbank. The location of the stage and some of the screens are not visible from the streets. This made the location and focus of the gathering unsuitably inconspicuous. However, on the positive side, the imagery and spectacle typically produced by Federation Square to promote the space, was in this case, smartly used to support the “subversive forces”. Newspapers and television found the combination of this slick new urban space with the anti-war rallies irresistible. Perhaps for the sheer number of the crowd but also for the chosen location of the rally, this event was extensively covered and the report was continuously repeated on television.

The lack of clear backdrops compensated by the provision of digital screens adds to the imagery of the place. For those to which these images are directed, the spectacle can be formidable. However, this experience may not be repeated until another programmed activity draws them back. The production of signs that brings about ideas of multiculturalism, alternative media, knowledge and entertainment are mediated by a strong structure of power that bears no relationship with the civic realm but more so with the ideals of a generic city, expressed by inhibiting spontaneous use. In a subtle way, it also brings about the idea of globalisation that embraces technology, global capital and manufactured culture. “The spectacle grasped in its totality is both the result and the project of the existing mode of production. It is not a supplement to the real world, an additional decoration. It is the heart of the unrealism of the real society.” G. Debord (1967) The fragmentation of the spaces and volumes at Federation Square, considered by many cutting edge – may be the expression of this modern hunger for discontinuity. Discontinuity can be part of the spectacle and a degree of controlled discontinuity does not threaten the smoothness of the place. Besides, it can be positive in manufacturing the eroticism natural to other urban areas. As if the spectacular ACMI had permeated the entire site, well-behaved visitors move around the open space contemplating and adding to the spectacle. The experience of the Victorian peace Network in using the media and available technology to achieve their publicity needs, demonstrates that the lost public realm can be reclaimed, by adopting the mechanisms of the system that inhibits civic participation. However, by doing this, we have already been coopted by the new environment and perhaps, in a subtle manner, surrendered the notion of the public interest. Squares Traditionally, removing the objects, generally a city block, creates the city square.14 This exposes more façades to the void created, increasing the spatial possibilities and the legibility of the city - objects, which are not blocks, formed Federation Square. The arrangement of these objects emphasise their presence rather than the quality of the empty space. Gerard Vaughan, director of the NGV, has more accurately described Federation Square as “a great building”. Whilst, it may be considered a great building, according to Melbourne University’s Professor Kim Dovey15, architecture by it self has not the pulling power required to attract people to repeatedly visit a place. The difference between buildings shaping the empty heart as opposed to blocks is fundamental. City blocks, while interacting with the city differently on all their sides, have no backs. These sides contain entry points that largely maintain a degree of interaction between the volume and the streets surrounding it. Buildings on the other hand generally have fronts and backs. Connection and integration are an inherent part of an intelligible urban system. An intelligible urban space benefits from the location of large spaces in its centre rather than its periphery16. Federation Square started with a difficult location, one that for many years neither had been integrated into the city nor was central in the existing urban fabric. Given the geographical location of this site and the aspirations of the project, the design of this site, more than any other, could have considered connection and integration. The ambition to

Figure 3: The riverfront from BMW Edge

Figure 4: Federation Square viewed from Swanston St.

relocate the centre of the city was attempted in a curious manner, as the design set out to challenge the existing city by changing the 150 years old Hoddle Street grid17. The result has been called “one of the greatest achievements of Federation Square”. It is not clear exactly why this decision was taken. However, what it lost was the potential integration to the existing city fabric, making it hard to see how changing the grid has benefited this space. Accepting that the term “square” does not necessarily have to be interpreted in its traditional form could provide a different understanding of this place. This hijacking of language occurs in other developments around the city. Places like shopping malls – with open space in the form of parking lots – and residential complexes are called squares or plazas. If this were the case, Federation Square, with the rejection of the city grid and its location away from the existing centre would be congruous to a new use of the concept. However, this arrangement would not entitle it to the claim of a civic space and the city’s heart. Federation Square does not challenge the visitor with the need to negotiate the complexities of cultural differences18, nor does it provide that ambiguity of experiences associated with authenticity19. By “evacuating the public realm”20 Federation Square could look more like the generic cities described by Koolhaas - safe, un-sexy and smooth. However, as Federation Square has to be “sexy”, organised activities are arranged to secure the arrival of the spectators; these performances are therefore the backbone of this place. Conclusion Mendes stated that specialisation to define oneself limits the possibility of being something else21. Similarly, the specialisation of an urban space, in this case Federation Square limits the possibilities of multiplicity that would allow it to be many more things. Tolerance expressed in a public space involves much more than accepting people of different colour all performing in the same manner. Different cultures (races, age and abilities) do not only look different, they behave differently. Public urban spaces should admit and support the congregation and acceptance of difference, this could in turn enlighten the city and open a window to conversation. The use of management to control what has been presented as a public place, the need for security guards and the intolerance of teen’s activities and socially disadvantaged aborigines contradicts assertions of public realm and the heart of community space. Spaces used by people in their day-to-day activities are perceived as safe, as diverse people tend to congregate encouraging interaction between different ages, cultures, and social behaviour. By offering the opportunity to participate, they can genuinely be attractive, challenging and stimulating22. Defensive systems on the other hand, engender exclusion and intolerance. In times of corporate dominance, people still feel more relaxed around places created around public buildings, such as the council, the library and post offices. Federation Square’s buildings, while magnificent, are the domain of the security access cards and professional hand shakers – the rest are only visitors. Unless Melbourne CBD expands in a manner that makes Federation Square an integral part of day-today city, Federation Square will continue to be a planned destination. The city connection to the river through Federation Square is tenuous and plainly unsuccessful when compared to developments such as Southgate. Programmed activities, benefiting from its closeness to Flinders Street Station and the arts precinct, have not proven enough of an anchor to substantiate claims of “community space and heart of the city”. Civic squares do not need to constantly manufacture activities - their natural leisure comes from a generous space that allow us to be. The conversation with Jason and TA made me think that if Federation Square were really the “heart of the city”, the conclusion would be that we have a pretentious, mean and selective heart that avoids the truth of our social make up. However, I reject this notion, as I consider Federation Square the appendix of the city, not its heart. According to RMIT architecture professor Leon van Schaik, “Melbourne wanted to be a great city, competing with and not aping the great cities of civilisation” 23. I consider this a call for Federation Square to

praise its real achievements, describing it in new terms that reflect its difference, rather than clinging to misappropriated spatial concepts. It is also a call to find and invest in the real heart of the city. Endnotes: 1 Birnbauer, W. interviewing: Peter Seamer, Kim Dovey and Leon van Schaik between others. The New

Heart of Melbourne. The Age, October 25 2002. Online available: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/23/1034561537857.html. Last accessed May 10th. 2003

2 Ross, Kristin (1988). The Emergence of Social Space: Rimbaud and the Paris Commune, (Theory and History of Literature Series). University of Minnesota Press, Macmillan Press, UK

3 Interview by Heather Ewart. Budget blow-out on Melbourne's Federation Square. ABC 7:30 Report Transcript 30/7/2002. Online available: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/s635781.htm

4 Chairman's Welcome. Federation Square Website. Online available: http://www.fedsq.com 5 Schwartz, L. City takes a look at its hip new square. The Age, October 27 2002 6 Vale, Lawrence J. (1992). Architecture, Power, and National Identity. Yale University Press 7 Minchin, Liz. Fears a daytime gem developing a dark side at night. The Age 07/06/2003 8 Barthes, Roland (1988). The Semiotic Challenge: Semiology and Urbanism. Collins Publishers,

Toronto 9 Barthes, Roland (1970). Empires of Signs: “Center-City, Empty Center” and “No Address”. Hill and

Wang, New York. p. 195 10 McCulloch-Uehlin, Susan. Oz art finds a fitting space. November 29, 2002. The Australian. 11 Telephone interview with David Spratt - Victoria Peace Network representative, by B. Maturana. June

2003 12 Berman, Marshall (1982). All that is Solid Melts into Air – Modernism in the Streets. Simon and

Schuster, New York 13 Birnbauer, W – Kim Dovey. The Age, October 25 2002 14 Hillier, Bill (1996). Space is the machine: a configuration theory of architecture. Cambridge University

Press. pp 349-51 and 124-32 15 Birnbauer, W – Kim Dovey. The Age, October 25 2002. 16 Hillier, B. (1996). pp 345-54 17 Birnbauer, W – Peter Seamer. The Age, October 25 2002. 18 Keith, Michael (2000), Back L. and Solomons J. (eds). Theory of Race and Racism, A Reader, Identity

and the Spaces of Authenticity. Routledge, London and New York 19 Dovey, Kim (2002). De-placing Difference, Dialectics of Place: Authenticity, Identity, Difference. Centre

for Asian and Middle Eastern Architecture, The University of Adelaide 20 Koolhaas, R. and Mau, B. (1995). Small Medium, Large, Extra Large. Monacelli Press, New York 21 Ross, K. (1988). p13 22 Gehl, Jan (1987). Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New

York 23 Birnbauer, W – Leon van Schaik. The Age, October 25 2002. Beatriz C. Maturana is a practicing architect and urban designer, currently undertaking a Master of Urban Design at the University of Melbourne. She has taught architecture overseas, worked in Melbourne for the private and government sectors and is the founder of Architects for Peace.