society of sin

If to consume is to destroy, then to say that every society in the world is in fact a consumer society actually means that they all are intern destructive societies. What is a paradox is that economic growth, the successful flourishing of a country, is dependant upon the consumers, or in other terms destructionists. We have turned into a corrupt society influenced in largely by aesthetics, not ethics. It is interesting that it takes a superficial- individualistic-dreamer to keep the monster of economics living and breathing. Does this mean our government relies on us, its people, to become in terms, a nation of self centered, destructive, superficial, and unethical people? Is this what we all need to become to keep out country running? Those who can not contribute to the negative to enhance the economy, the poor, are considered ‘blemishes’ and ‘inadequate’ to the consumer race. Why do we punish those who can not contribute to the ‘evil’ that is the consumer society? Does this then in some extreme way mean that building malls is a type of ‘sin’ as doing so purposely encourages the degeneration of society? There has to be a way to get back on the path of our predecessors and return to the producer society we once were instead of not changing the negative society that we have become.

faustian [short term gain for long term pain]

Special economc zones [SEZ], experiments in capitalism whose invests spill over into neighboring states as population densities shift due to market cycles is an interesting condition. [Shenzen and its spillage in Dongguan] Risky, privatized investment in building post-industrialized conditions is stunning. Investments in infrastructural building; the open, blank, empty spaces, that promote future occupation and reclamation is a stunning condition in urban development. It is built “emptiness”, constantly in a state of change. Possibly Miami’s vacant condo development reminds me of this investment craze. How does a designer design for a state of constant change?

I am a bit confused if the architectural production in this condition of expediency is “image” based; one of tabula rasa, with a singular iconic vision and collective function or infrastructural; a framework for future development.?

Also, I don’t fully comprehend the “village to a city” development model where decentralized individual town leaders harness foreign investments to generate competition resulting in individual power and profits. How do investors profit when there is no guarantee. I don’t understand the "socialist market economy" either; “that became national policy in October 1992 and has accounted for the tenfold increase in China's gross national product from 1978 to 1994.” Privatization of state/public owned enterprises?

I presume more questions than discussions from this weeks readings.

completely off topic

The application of science to shopping by Paco Underhill reiterates the specificity of our environments and the great possibilities empirical studies have in supporting the products of space making; i.e. architecture. This article supports the potentials of architecture as a discipline and its ability to establish systems of environments; whether subjectively good or bad. The obsessive quality of Paco’s work reminds me of intense research and development programs achieved in all industries including the military; DARPA, medical fields, automotive, aerospace, rapid manufacturing industries and entertainment. I would argue that the interiority of Paco’s studies is a model for the discipline of architecture. There is a dire need for architectural academics to pursue techniques of space generating and surface exploration utilizing our current digital tools and technologies. As a member of the service sector, architects provide clients with products that negotiate budget, context, form, etc… Martyr’s we are not.

science of shopping

In Malcolm Gladwell’s The Science of Shopping, he explores what most do not know about a shopper’s mentality. It is interesting to discover that the tailored layouts of the department store, airport, and commercial façade have been rigorously analyzed. Gladwell also exposed the reason behind men and women’s shopping trend differs. This fact is thus mimicked in the layout of the retail mall. It is obvious why men and women’s fashions are allocated to different sides of the retail floor. Yet, it is now apparent why men and women differ in all aspects of the commercial realm. The eerie yet, useful way in which shopping has been studied is apparent through Gladwell’s writing. Who would have thought that video surveillance is used as a means to tap into the minds of unknowing consumers? It is interesting to find that the science behind shopping is calculated through the shopper’s unknowing mind.

the science of shopping: an architectural triumph!

Paco investigates on the basis of rigorous empirical data how the spatiality of retail environments affects purchasing habits of consumers. Branding as a spatial sensorial concept versus purely signage is what separates highly successful retail companies from less successful ones. Polo Ralph Lauren is one of the successful retail companies mentioned not only in its ability brand itself but also in its ability to project a specific lifestyle onto the consumer. A lifestyle encourages the consumer not only to buy the dress pants, but the matching belt, socks, and earrings. In this case the store simulates a highly specific highly designed life. I found it interesting that behavorial analysis of consumer shopping patterns along with an architectural branding equally contribute to the construction of successful fashion houses. I wonder if Paco ever comes across new modes of display fostering unexpected ‘results’. Are there any retail design bloopers amidst that massive collection of shopping surveillance footage?

In response to Ians post….How is it productive to demonize market forces in a capitalist economy? As architects we are trained to design marketable products i.e. buildings/ chairs; our profession hinges on the consumer market.

Left....Right.....Straight.....who cares

“One of the fundamental anxieties of the American consumer, after all, has always been that beneath the pleasure and the frivolity of the shopping experience runs an undercurrent of manipulation, and that anxiety has rarely seemed more justified than today” (Gladwell, part 3, p. 6).

It is reasonable to assume that the American consumer is always being observed. Whether it is the security guards, employees or security cameras there is an always present element of surveillance. These methods of surveillance are usually associated with finding customers who need help, customers who are in distress or to stop customers from stealing. This article brings to light another use for this surveillance; analysis. The fact that stores hire companies to “examine” their customers and the efficiency of their stores seems a little ridiculous to me. Thinking that you can analyze a customer to learn from their experiences and how they literally move through the store seems pointless. I guess there is a certain value to watching the customer but nothing is literally forcing you through the store. Gladwell brings up many instances of observation which Paco turns into his own type of “laws,” such as the right turn theory, the four zones of the department store and the decompression zone. I find it funny that someone has made money to analyze the way we move through stores. The only undercurrent of manipulation that I can see is where physical things are placed. If there is a wall in front of you, you will walk around it. If you put the better goods in the back of the store, the customer will want to venture deeper into the space. Doesn’t this research and analysis seem repetitive? Most of the key points in the analysis seem obvious. The interpretation of architectural decisions within a space seems much more valid that the interpretation of one customers movements. Design your store based on architectural principles, do not rely on people coming in to your space, taking an average of 15 ft to slow down and then turning right. What if someone decides to go left, is their experience of your store ruined…… I sure hope not. The placement of goods should be determined by the architecture, not by someone who analyze hours of film to determine lefts, rights and straights.

The Value of this Research is Tremendous...when the product is good

For so long, the most intense marketing tactic I had known was that neon reds, greens, and yellows speed up your heart rate which then makes you want to move in and out of a place quicker. When viewing these colors you feel the need to be moving. This is apparently why nearly every fast food restaurant uses these colors as compared to every sit-down restaurant which typically use more subdued, pastel colors. After reading Gladwell’s descriptions of Paco Underhill’s creepily deep and accurate research, I could not help but think of the manipulation at hand. Yes, I agree with Greg, Gladwell did state that “people cannot be manipulated”. However, if this is truly the case, why does the retail business feel the need to hire individuals such as Underhill? Why do these retailers spend an absurd amount of money on obtaining this type of research? As much as I don’t want to admit it, and as much as I truly believe that I would never be manipulated by such nonsense as these marketing strategies, I am. We all are.

However, I think the important part of what we are discussing is ultimately that the final product is what wins the costumer. The key part of that coercion and manipulation however is simply. A former professor of mine, Carolyn Henry once stated in reference to employment, “Who you know gets you a job, what you know helps you keep the job.”

This same concept can be applied to this manipulation and coercion of people in the retail business. You can convince people to enter you store through clever marketing strategies, just as you may network your way into a job, but if you can’t ultimately back it up with actual products that live up to it, then all you clever marketing means nothing, just as if you have no skills in the work force, your employment at a great job will not last long.

Consumerist Pigs!!

Paco is kind of creepy. But he's not alone. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of corporations doing exactly what he is doing; analyzing peoples' commercial behaviors and selling the results to "interested parties." He might end up like Victor Gruen, realizing at the end of his life that his fascinations and life's work inadvertantly helped to create a scar on the face of American culture, or he might not only be aware of what he is doing, but approving and enthusiastic of the effects. The fact that "the Science of Shopping" exists is certainly a testiment to our species' brutal efficiency and productivity, that not only do we have the productive capacity to create copius amounts of products that do not directly contribute to our survival, but we have massive groups of people that spend their entire lives analyzing how we can get people to desire and obtain larger and larger amounts of these everyday unnecessaries.

I've alluded to this in previous posts, but there is no small amount of irony in the fact that these corporations and retailers are slaves to their own system. They spend ridiculous amounts of money figuring out what consumers want, just so they can make ridiculous amounts of money in return. And for what? So they can in turn become the consumer themselves, buying every shiny, expensive, ultimately worthless thing - and I use that word deliberately - further perpetuating the cycle, producer and consumer all in one. At least that's the ideal. In reality, the real producers - the factory workers, the truck drivers, the janitors at the Polo Mansion - get paid barely enough to eat and feed their families, subjugated by the consumerist notions that reinforce their position in the lower class, and made to take the blame by the American Dream ideal that anyone who works hard can get wherever they want. If Consumerism is Capitalism's nearest offspring, it's high time he were sent to reform school. (How about that zinger?!)

To Buy or Not To Buy..

Architecture has played an important role in the American shopping mall, through creating spaces to display its goods and services to the shopper. How do we interpret these spaces? How do we know which space to go in and buy from? I’ll tell you how; it’s all based on shopping trends which seem to be just as important as the malls architecture. Knowing how to attract the customer into your store is just as important as the architecture that surrounds it. After reading The Science of Shopping written by Malcolm Galdwell, we know that you need to have four zones in your store to assure that the customer will take the time to explore the store. These zones are the Decompression zone, the petting zone, the accessories zone, and the far wall/changing room zone. Each zone plays an important role in the transition from window shopper to shopper. The ideas of these zones are to shift the gears of the pedestrian. You want them to slow down so that they will be able to pick up the visual offerings that these stores display. When shoppers move to fast thru the mall they lose their focus and visual cues don’t work. When you create a Decompression zone you are allowing the customer to focus on what you are trying to sell. This gives the shopper the ability to change their mind set from just navigating through obstacles to looking for that special gift or new pair of jeans. Each of the other zones has a similar job which is to increase the time shoppers spend in the store, which may increase the chances of the shopper buying something. For example, in Carousel Mall a majority of the stores do not waste time with elaborate window displays of the items they sell. Instead they use other tactics like signage, advertising sales, clearances and buy one get one free offers. These advertisements are the new sales gimmicks that pull the shoppers in.

Walk right, not left

According to Pace Underhill in, “The Science of Shopping,” it may seem that the American consumer has very little choice it the products they view first and the order they venture through the store. The tendency of the consumer to venture towards the right instead of to their left appears to be a phenomenon that is it of the hands of the consumer, and a fact that store owners can use to their advantage.

One must wonder if the typical consumer knew that they had these particular tendencies, to always enter a store and go right or the amount of time they tend to spend in a store, whether this would actually change the way in which they shop. Would the consumer choose to enter a store and go left instead of the typical right if they knew that they always entered a store and went right? Even in the supermarkets the consumer is forced to travel around the entire store if they want to buy their essentials, forced to look at many more products even if they think it is their choice to travel from dairy to produce to meat.

LETS PLAY MONOPOLY

Sharon Zukin goes into discussion about Westchester County and its increase in size, jobs, and etc. due to corporations and malls expanding into Westchester’s post-industrial suburban landscape. He goes into detail about Westchester going into business by opening up more jobs and providing more opportunities to people who need jobs. However, the irony with this is that even though job opportunities are popping up here and there, the pay is still miniscule. People who live in Westchester and commute to NYC for work make a larger income than people who work in Westchester. So in a way, corporations in Westchester have successfully made it into a somewhat economic county, but on the flip side, the pay isn’t that great.
Westchester County exemplifies how corporations are a monopoly and don’t give little companies any room to breath and they barely get by. Companies such as Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are the leading corporations in the video gaming industry that such game consoles such as the Jaguar, Dreamcast, and 32X run out of business because larger corporations take up all the profits and run the other companies out of business. It seems as if the world is trying to go with this idea and basically run other companies out of business and make their own company the only one and the top one. To an extent, a little bit of competition is a good thing because it would force people to make better things, but at the same time, it could get out of hand and cause our whole economy to collapse back to the stone age. Who knows?

This is your mind telling you to buy that belt right NOW!!!

The subconscious. It’s been superficially discussed since the French arcades and consequently our readings, but really becomes center stage after World War II and this week’s readings. Paco Underhill’s observations to me seem to be comparative to those of the 5^th Avenue’s advertisement industry where colors, repetition and Tony Schwartz’s sounds became the scientists of selling (Tony Schwartz is the creator of the ‘Daisy’ campaign ad). The idea of unconsciously taking over control of consumer’s minds would make any businessman salivate. And while it would be hard to argue that this idea was not successful then and is still not successful today, to make it the foundation of any business model would be a major oversight. Everyone knows the Head On, Head On, Head On commercials, but do you know anyone who’s bought it?

It is important to remember that “people cannot be manipulated” (Gladwell). They will act on their own terms and proceed under their own will. While they can be ‘coerced’ to do something they were not expecting to do or ‘convinced’ they need something they don’t, it does not translate into a successful business model. That coercion might be successful at first but it needs to be backed up with substance. A business’s “point of view” and “public image” is the closest thing to me of being the combination of advertisement and substance.

In the end the sellers must “conform to the desires of shoppers” (Gladwell 7).

reciprocity

This week’s readings talk about power: who has power and how do they use it. Zukin describes Westchester County’s growth and development, which was planned and based on an upper middle class slant. Here, those in power have created developments that cater to higher socio-economic rungs, but are driven and operated by the working classes. There seems to be a general ‘look’ to the design of the infrastructure and business organizations that “hides the volatility of transnational corporate consolidation in a service economy (Zukin 177).” One social class is taking advantage of another, pushing them out to increase land values, while the business of Westchester County, because of the changing economy, is at odds. What will the new economic structure do to the design of this area? Apparently, the culture of the area has changed from a production-based economy to a consumption-based economy. The two groups that have a stake in this county will either become increasingly separate or will need to negotiate.

And in the end, the relationship between the two parties is reciprocal. Each influences the other. In the “Science of Shopping,” both parties are responsible for the physical designs of retail spaces. The shopper’s attributes affect the retail designer and the designer affects the shopper. Underhill’s studies don’t seem that scary to me. Sure we’re being watched and analyzed and stores are being designed to ‘capture’ us, but don’t we want to shop and don’t we want to find the items and goods that we like? And anyway, his analysis generalizes about groups of people and therefore, almost homogenizes the shopping experience. The look and feel of the store is based on market types (like with Calvin Klein, etc.), but the basic layout is similar. Sure, we have preferences and can be grouped into types; to sell as much as possible, companies market towards these types and design stores that take advantage of human nature. But we gladly fall into their retail wonderlands.

Corporate Leaders: Helping the World Stay Productive?

Zukin’s discussion of Westchester County and the power held by corporate leaders raises a discussion on the pros and cons of our country essentially being led by the people who convince us to buy things, instead of say, politicians. Well actually, I suppose one could argue that politicians also fall into that category, as where are they without campaign contributions (buying them…) and ultimately, corporations. Poor Dennis Kucinich. Anyway, a lot of writing gets focused on the problems of corporate leaders “playing a disproportionate role in planning the future of the country” (164), but how about the positive aspects of it? Especially in this day and age of a software and computers, isn’t it ultimately a good thing that there’s primarily two operating systems out there (Windows and Mac) and not forty? Imagine how expensive it would be for smaller software companies to get anywhere if they had to recode everything to match that many operating systems. Personally, I like how things work.

Take design: yes, you have Autodesk out there controlling a major portion, but smaller companies like Bentley and Graphisoft are still able to compete and survive purely because software has reached a point where it can be developed with a small enough staff to still give you something the competition doesn’t as long as there’s people to come up with the ideas. A few companies, and healthy competition reigns. Too many companies (aka no ‘corporations’) and it’s just a thousand voices screaming to make a point or tell you to buy their product. Survival of the fittest narrows such companies down to a select few in our economic system, and it seems to work well.

Thus, consumers like choice, to an extent. While a straight monopoly is rarely a good thing (Ticketmaster can charge whatever the heck they want), it seems that having a few companies ‘in charge’ can help standardize an industry and ultimately make the world a more productive place.

Pawns......

It is ironic that the general public of America believes that shopping is an experience that is catered to them. That they are in control. This is partially true as the rules and merchants bend to the consumer and organize themselves to benefit their sales, but it is interesting to learn the other side. The side of the complete manipulation and use of the customer as the merchant’s pawn in their game of sales. It is almost honestly creepy the intense studies of the consumer and how one can be typed down to the brand of razor used with the exact science behind it, which leads me to want to know my place among the sixty two shopping types and what products they would expect me to purchase and use. (It also leads me to wonder if I have been a study.) We obviously are not the ones in control anymore.

If merchants know how we function as consumers, why do some fail so miserably? Some retailers completely miss the mark and it is a wonder how they can with such readily available information. Do they not read the New Yorker?

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

In Malcolm Gladwell’s article, The Science of Shopping, we can begin to see the space of shopping in a new light. The organization and planning that is embedded into the layout of a single store can be derived from countless hours of market research and experimentation. By carefully observing Paco Underhill in his daily routine and learning about his history, Gladwell highlights the almost dictator like circumstance created by the pairing of retail moguls such as GAP and Bannana Republic with planners like Paco and NBBJ. In the world of the retail developer, the consumer becomes a testing supply or a lab rat in which they can reorganize a maze of jeans and relocate the cheese in order to squeeze every last cent out of “the wallet,” as Underhill calls the buying figure. The studies of such firms not only analyze what can be considered the basics retail consumerism, such as target population or percentage of visitors to buyers, but they go as far as to analyze the interactions between a father-son shopping pair to a family of five shopping team. They instruct retail developers in the placement of goods and they characterize the shopper in classes on intent and classes of intelligence. They distinguish certain zones of the shopping space and derive specific rules and regulations that must be followed with the singular intent of capitalizing on the naive public of working citizens. Prior to reading this article I was aware that such analysis was present in the retail industry. However, I was not prepared to learn of the details that encompass what is seemingly an inexact and ruthless science. I found it hard to believe that such rules were determined by mere assumption and loose observation and more surprising was the fact that companies are paying what seems to be very large amount for what seems to be common sense.

On the other hand, I believe that the Underhill’s use of the video recording and his analysis of public movement can be a beneficial tool in the world of architecture. Through the study of human circulation and gathering trends, architects can produce spaces that are directly in response to human function and flow.

Terragni to the GAP

The Danteum was designed by Giuseppe Terragni in 1938 as a series of rooms which together compose a ‘journey’ governed by both light and materiality. This journey draws to an end in a room representing fascist Italy containing monumental columns and seemingly no visible way of exiting the building. Like Terragni, large retail stores today aim to design stores to pull potential shoppers through towards the depth of the building, leading them to the most popular product and far away from the cash register. However, unlike Terragni, retailers across the country seem to cater to different sexes as a result of shopping patterns between men and women. While the Danteum represents an experience or journey, The Banana Republic in New York City aims to adapt parts of the store to the habits of male shoppers by placing shoes, socks, pants, and add-ons in close proximity to the cash register. Paco Underhill notes that today “people want to come in, be serviced, and go out” (12). It is quite possible that throughout the history of shopping, male shoppers have demonstrated this impatient behavior, but it is only recently that there has been a shift in the behavior of female shoppers. Today, Paco accounts that women seem to want their own answers, thus “women want to draw their own conclusions” (8). This observation is brought to fruition mainly by the study of make-up sales. In the past make-up was a product recommended or chosen for you. In present day, like most consumer products, make-ups are chosen by the buyer and then brought to the cash register and purchased. The “Science of Shopping” becomes interesting because its roots are seemingly grounded to historical architecture such as the Danteum, but also represent suburban movement across America as shopping centers “…are both public and privately owned, but for public use” (Zukin, 142), and account for much of the consummation of “culture” (Zukin,138) in the twentieth century.

Figures in the Field

Storefront design in the mall setting affords interesting possibilities for an “autonomously contextual” architecture. On the one hand, constraints imposed by the physical limits of rented space and the homogeneity of required storefront appearance, such as maintaining a specified datum line or a particular type of signage, render the homogenization of the mall’s public space an exercise in syntax. These regulating elements are an architectural extrapolation of the “grammar” discussed in The Science of Shopping. And then there’s the prose. Each store (when it can) starts to indicate - in a level far beyond the sign placed above it ever could - the meaning contained within it. This might take the form of shop windows filled with merchandise, or even something like the Hollister display at Carousel, where an elaborate arrangement of shutters and palm trees makes me feel like I’m at the beach long before I even get near the store.
In this setting of contrast between language and meaning, syntax and semantics, the homogenization of signage and the expression of prose, the meaning of that signage is abstracted to the point where it can be considered another agent of bay regulation. However, when combined with the storefront, the result is a hybrid – a “decorated duck,” as it were, which exteriorizes its contents within a regulated frame.