1

4/14/2011

Rhythms of the Night

Irina van Aalst, Utrecht University

4/14/2011

Urban Nightlife – Competing Discourses

Nighttime as ‘Space-time’ of …..

adventure, pleasure, excitement

A desirable place as part of nighttime economy

Nighttime as ‘Space-time’ of …..

anti-social behaviour, public drunkenness, consumption of

drugs, alcohol-related violence

A place to be regulated

2

4/14/2011

Safe Nightlife Policies

Channeling; certain social groups are attracted to

particular places because of increased security

Exclusion; the presence of particular social groups in

a space is controlled more tightly or even restricted

4/14/2011

Research questions

(1) Which visitors are present in public spaces in Dutch nightlife-

districts focusing on differences along lines of ethnicity and

gender ?

(2) What are the relations between ‘visitors’ and ‘surveillance’ in

the same area ?

How? A dynamic and rhythmic approach

Repeated on-site observations on

Different times on going-out evenings (10 pm–5.30am)

Different nighttime-locations within 3 cities

3

4/14/2011

Regression analysis- Independent variables

‘make-up’ of the nightscape:

(1) Night-life facilities;

(2) Static surveillance (like CCTV);

(3) Disorder (public drunkenness, public urination etc.);

(4) Weather condition

dynamic surveillance:

(1) Public surveillance (police);

(2) Private surveillance (bouncers);

(3) Means of transport (car, horse, bike or walking);

(4) Appearance (outfit / equipment)

4/14/2011

LowLowHigh# Private security

MediumLowHigh# Police in vans

High-Low# Mounted police

1587350# CCTV (city)

No limitationsNo limitationsStrict regulationsClosing-times

ConcentratedConcentratedSpread outNightlife facilities

20 %31 %46 %% ethnics

190.000310.000600.000Population size

GroningenUtrechtRotterdam

4

4/14/2011

Amount of visitors ‘grows’ from Thursday to Friday to Saturday, pattern is independent of day/week

Spatial differences between the nightlife-districts within the cities

Correlations between # visitors – surveillance network relatively limited

Temporal pattern night-time visitors per city

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

10:00 PM 11.30 PM 01.00 AM 02.30 AM 04.00 AM

round/ time

tota

l am

ou

nt

(me

an

)

GRONINGEN UTRECHT ROTTERDAM

4/14/2011

Ethnic diversity Index: comparing nightlife districts in 3 cities

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

Utrecht

Groningen

Rotterdam

Negative correlation between:

ethnic diversity - # bouncers

ethnic diversity - # discos

Impact of door policies?

5

4/14/2011

Women (on their own)

� A third of the visitors in the 3 cities are women

� Large spatial variation within the specific districts

� Temporal variations:

The share of ‘women on their own’ is higher at the beginning of the night-

out and at the end (departure time)

� Spatial variations:

Great differences between the cities Utrecht and Rotterdam

� Relations with the presence of others in nightscape

4/14/2011

Correlations between visitor presence - nighttime facilities - dynamic surveillance

Facilities: Disco’s

Facilities: Pubs

Appearance of surveillance:

weapons

Appearance of surveillance:

outfit

Public Security: driving

Public Security: walking

Private Security

% Women on ‘their own’

% Women

Degree of ‘ethnic diversity’

# Night-time visitors

#

Red: negative; green: positive; white: no correlation

6

4/14/2011

Concluding remarks

Spatial variations are much stronger than the temporal variations

Relations between visitors & surveillance networks are mixed

Effects are relatively limited

Differences between groups of visitors

Differences between public and private security

4/14/2011

Surveillance in nightlife districts is a complex matter !

The more the better (that is the question)?

Pay attention to the heterogeneity of visitors: ethnic groups and

men/ women

Focus on relationships between surveillance and visitor profiles of

nightlife districts

Make use of more qualitative approaches (causal relations)

7

Questions ?