1. LONDON’S
COVENT GARDEN:
THE EXPERIENCE OF
PRIVATISED PUBLIC SPACE
MA CITIES AND SOCIETY | 33187688

2. Acknowledgements
List of Figures
Introduction
Literature Review
Setting the Scene
Methodology
Methodological Approach
Sampling
Interviewing
Data Analysis: Transcription & Thematic Coding
Ethics
Presentation of Research
Discussion of Findings
Class Identity
Surveillance & Safety
Exclusion
Encounters With Difference
Tensions and Contradictions: A Summary of Findings
Final Considerations
References
Appendices
Sample Consent Form
Letter to Seven Dials Housing Co-op
Letter to Robert Thorne
Sample Transcript 1
Sample Transcript 2
CONTENTS
vi...............
viii..............................
1..........................................
2-7...................................................
8-12.........................................................
13-20............................................................
13-14...............................................
14-16......................................
16-18.............................
18-19....................
19...................
20............
21-35.......................
22-25..........
26-28.................
28-31......................
31-33...............................
34-35.....................................
36.................................................................
38-42...................................................................
43-50.............................................................
43............................................
44.....................................
45.............................
46-47.............
48-50.......

3. I am extremely grateful to my tutor Dr Alex Rhys-Taylor for his continuous guidance during the
course that helped shape the arguments presented here.
I especially want to thank the numerous groups that made themselves available for interview, with-
out their cooperation this research would not have been possible.
Andrew Hicks of Capital and Counties
Liz Potts of Covent Garden Area Trust
Lydia Firminger of KPF Architects
Pete Howarth, Street Performer
Robert Thorne, former member of the Greater London Council Historic Buildings Division
The Market Traders of Jubilee Market Hall
The Peabody Estate Residents
Visitors to Covent Garden
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
vi

4. LIST OF FIGURES
Taken by researcher, [film photograph] Covent Garden, July 2016
Figure 1. London’s Covent Garden
Figure 2. Covent Garden’s first street performance
Figure 3. The Peabody Estate, Wild Street
Figure 4. Jubilee Market Building
Figure 5. Crowds at James Street
Figure 6. Burberry Brit, King Street
Figure 7. CAPCO Security Staff, James Street
Figure 8. Crowds watch Punch & Judy
Figure 9. Crowds watch street performance in the Piazza.
vii

5. 1
The main aim of this thesis is to develop a rethinking of publicness based on the
experience of the multiple users of Covent Garden. It is in part a critique of the alternative
existing definitions of public space made by ungrounded urban theorists, who neglect the
medium of experience that can be decoded through close observation and interview methods.
The research explores the extent to which privatised urban spaces, such as shopping centres,
contradict traditional binary conceptions of public and private space. Enthusiasts of a public
space renaissance celebrate the proliferation of new ‘quasi-public’ arenas that are conceived
or maintained within spaces of consumption and the resulting publicness that occurs. The
public-private distinction is blurred through civic and social interaction and the refusal of solely
commercial engagement within such spaces. This thesis engages with key sociological debates
that arise from the rethinking of urban public space.
Supported by methodologies of close observation, theorists are effectively proposing a
more fluid conception of these spaces. I critique existing research that follows the epistemological
approach, specified by standpoint feminist theory, demonstrates the extent to which subjective
experiences recorded through urban ethnography can authenticate claims made by the researcher.
The thesis explores the history of Covent Garden and contextualises it within the socio-legal
definition of public and private space. However, through an awareness of the implications of
specific methodologies it goes beyond this detached interpretation to present a theory justified
by subjective experience. In order “to encapsulate the rhythm of daily life in urban public spaces”
(Amin, 2008:9), it investigates which definitions of public are constituted through experience and
by analysis of interviews with different groups including local residents, street performers, tourists
and area stakeholders. By exploring themes of class identity, surveillance, exclusion and the
complexities of publicness, this study uncovers the ways that Covent Garden constitutes public
space in contemporary urban life.
INTRODUCTION

6. 2
Publicness is a contested issue, largely descending from the traditional dichotomous
distinction between the public and private that grounds idealised versions of public space. Jurgen
Habermas, who gives the classic formulation of the public sphere, explains that this refers to the
‘social space’ generated through collective communicative expression, defined by its distinction
from state authority. The emergence of politicised public sphere is recognised within the context
of a bourgeois revolution that presented the public sphere as a deliberative arena in which “private
persons” discussed “public matters” (1962) to reach a rational consensus that may be critical
of the state. This normative formation of the bourgeois public sphere is often proposed as the
ideal type through which ownership, public discourse, and community are opposed to exclusion,
privatisation and individualistic consumer culture. In The Fall of Public Man (1977) Richard Sennett
expresses this attribution of public space as being essential to democratic citizenship. Sennett
demonstrates this using the example of the ancient Greek agora that is long attributed as the
origin of a public arena to facilitate democratic movement. Sennett argues that the public-private
conflict demonstrates the end of public space within contemporary urbanism. For this reason the
need for public space to be visibly identifiable from the opposing privatised space is a significant
focus of many discussions within this topic. Many theorists express their concern of compromised
democracy that results from the imbrication of the opposing spaces (Davis, 1990; Sorkin, 1992;
Kohn, 2004).
However, the nostalgia expressed through the notion of ‘decline of the public’ is arguably
heavily flawed. Both Habermas’ abstracted notion of the public sphere and the materially grounded
concept of public space as expressed by Sennett, overlook the inadequacies of the idealised
publicity that they uphold. As expressed by Bruce Robbins, the “public is phantom…For whom was
the city once more public than now?” (Robbins, 1993: viii). Mitchell demonstrates that the notion of
democratised public space refuses access to groups, such as the homeless, who therefore “remain
invisible to society, they fail to be counted as legitimate members of the polity” (2003: 115). Similarly,
the archetypal ‘public man’ – or flâneur – that Sennett mourns the loss of, literally excludes
women from the public (Miller et al, 1998:76). Evidently, ‘public space’ can also be used as a site for
exercising oppressive power relations. This is further signified in Kirby’s account of racist lynching’s
that took place in America as ‘highly visible’ public spaces offer “systematic use for undemocratic
and non-progressive purposes” (2007:78). Despite the idealised democracy presented in the
aforementioned conceptions, traditional public space was not freely accessible to marginalised
groups of society.
LITERATURE REVIEW

7. 3
There are also several critiques of the traditional conception of the singular public sphere,
including many feminist theorists who reveal the ways that socio-economic privilege is overlooked
in the proposition of ‘public’ space. Feminist critique of traditional public sphere theory signifies the
problematic gendered distinction between women’s private social role, and men’s association with
the public, the political and the cultural. Fraser argues that within the traditional conception of the
public sphere, privileged groups can monopolize public discourse. She states that, “not everyone
stands in the same relation to privacy and publicity; some have more power than others to draw
and defend the line” (1992:612). The increased resources more readily available to privileged
social actors, predominantly white middle-class men, mean that fair or democratic accessibility is
contested. Feminist theory signifies the influence of power towards the dichotomous public-private
sphere, exploring the extent to which these boundaries become unstable through renegotiations
of power relations. Fraser explains that ‘subaltern counterpublics’ are created in response to this
to provide, “parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social groups invent and
circulate counter discourses, which in turn permit them to formulate oppositional interpretations of
their identities, interests, and needs” (1997:81). This conceptualisation of the abstract public sphere
is also applicable to the theorisation of physical public space. Rosalyn Deutsche upholds this
plurality and maintains that public space remains a site of conflict structured by multiple identities
(1998). For Deutsche, it is this tension of experience and identity that maintains public space as a
democratic sphere. She writes “eliminating conflict obscures the basis of democracy, making public
space artificial” (Gamble in reference to Deutsche, 2003:453).
As well as presenting a ‘rethinking’ of public space, these theorists also provide an effective
overview of the feminist critique that demonstrates its application beyond the study of gendered
space, to the politics of epistemology. In ‘Boys Town’ (1998) Deutsche voices the shortcomings
of macro human-geographic conceptions of space that are presented by David Harvey (1989).
She explains the ways that Harvey’s spatial theory epitomises overtly masculine and abstracted
conceptualisations of space that overlook the intricate materialities that are occurring. These
errors occur due to “voyeuristic models of knowledge” (Deutsche, 1998:12) that transpire from the
shortcomings of distant observation. She writes, “the objective theorist is a masculine being who
makes himself complete by acclaiming to perceive the ground of an impartial totality but who
actually occupies a position of threatened wholeness in relation of difference” (1998: 215). This
totalising epistemology is present in the work of many male urban meta-theorists and geographers
that include Mike Davis, Fredric Jameson and Edward Soja (Vetters, 1999: 356). Critique also notes
the parallels between the male gaze and this method of observation. In the book Feminism and
Geography (1993), Gillian Rose addresses this common power relation and binary-ism that limits
geographic research and contests the meta-claims made through this discourse. This critique
is also present in postcolonial feminist discourses that “advocate for and foreground the many
and different ways in which subjectivity are constructed in any given historical moment” (Kim,
2007:115). The grounded epistemology draws attention to significant power relations, so that
standpoint research benefits from the valuable insights of women and other marginalized groups.
This approach is deployed in the following investigation to facilitate a rich discussion regarding
experiential public space. The previous domination of urban studies by white men from a particular
academic background makes it distinctly more difficult to incite interdisciplinary investigation.
However the vitality of feminist standpoint theory makes a case for interdisciplinary research and

8. 4
in doing so opens up new lines of empirical enquiry. It should be noted that female theorists, such
as Anna Minton, also express this objective meta-urbanism, indicating additional processes of
privilege that stem from this epistemological position. In Ground Control (2009), Minton observes
the underlying structures occurring in spaces such as London’s Olympic Park through light
observation and with little engagement with users at ground level. By de-centring the authority of
expertise presented, such studies can be problematized due to the reductionist approach used and
lack of valid user experience and engagement. The application of specific methodologies privileges
a certain type of knowledge that is un-attuned to the significance of experiential public space.
This is explained by Alcoff and Dalmiya who state, “the emphasis on objectivity and intersubjective
accessibility has blocked our ability to acknowledge certain inherently ‘subjective’ features of
reality” (1993: 241). Feminist critique problematizes this false exhibition of objectivity by the macro
spatial theorists, and instead upholds standpoint philosophy that grounds the researcher in
subjectivity.
Through a turn to the “phenomenology of everyday experience” (2012:3) Ash Amin
effectively provides such a discussion regarding urban public space that addresses the implications
of urban infrastructure on sociality, collective culture and civic affirmation. Amin’s work is
particularly influential for the following investigation, as it demonstrates productive dialogue
within regards to urban sociology. He discusses the problematic reminiscence expressed towards
classical public spaces, “for the minorities that counted as citizens” (Amin, 2008:5) and questions
the overemployment of public space as a site of political action. This reinforces the rationalized
role of contemporary quasi-public spaces that may not explicitly demonstrate equal political
significance as the ‘lost’ public agoras. However, Amin explains that the privatisation of public
spaces does not necessarily compromise democracy, demonstrating that the shaping of political
and civic formation is not reduced to particular places of urban society. He explains that civility is
not explicitly an urban phenomenon and neither is sociability a public condition (Sarraf, 2015:59).
Rather than providing a primary site for explicitly observable political debate, Amin argues that
urban public spaces can improve democracy through increased vibrancy and inclusivity (2012:
70). Amin also focuses on the significance of interactions with strangers that is present in many
theorisations of public space (Goffman, 1963; Sennett, 1992:17; Lofland, 1998). The significance
of encountering difference in public space highlighted by Amin is illustrative of the arguments
presented by feminist theorists who promote the multiplicity of identities within public spaces. His
theorisation of public space demonstrates the complex processes that arise from the unanticipated
and the unknown. Critically, it is this tension that establishes ‘the public’ as such. He explains the
ways in which the “spatial embodiment of surplus; and the mingling of bodies” (Amin, 2008: 11) are
subject to regulation, order and control. Amin recognises the influence of such “rules and routines
of ordering, which are usually treated as the nemesis of public culture” (14). However, rather than
focusing on the contestation of public space that results from this control, he addresses the ways
that such domestication impacts on the experience of these spaces. He proclaims that “even the
most creatively managed civic spaces” allow for the “acknowledgement or avoidance between
strangers” (9).
The proposition outlined by Amin that quasi-public spaces such as shopping districts
goes “through and beyond the consumption and leisure practices” (Amin, 2008:7) is also
explored in Miller et al.’s Shopping, Place and Identity (1998). They demonstrate the ways that

9. 5
shopping centres in London function as “unequivocally major structures of public space” (181) by
satisfying the need for social engagement. Their analysis is built from a multiplicity of qualitative
and quantitative methods that signify the complex processes of consumption and identity that
influence engagement with public shopping centres. They provide a concise history of research
into consumption and identity that both grounded and guided their study. They explain that
although the study of consumption was initially centred around the “implicit opposition to
production” (3), this was later replaced by its investigation as an independent dynamic due
to the influence of the “patron saints of consumption” (ibid), Bourdieu (1984) and de Certeau
(1984). Following this theorised independence from production, consumption was identified as
a key representation of modernity (cited in text: Bowlby, 1993; Pred, 1995). However, despite a
proliferation of interest into the intricacies of consumption within modernity, Miller et al. draw
attention to the lack of academic commentary into shopping. They indicate that of the literature
that does address shopping, the majority present it as an apocalyptic, capitalist ‘form of seduction’
(Goss, 1993; Bauman 1993, 1996). Advancing from these negative accounts of shopping, Miller et al.
set out ‘triangulate’ the practices of shopping as a public activity. Their investigation evidences the
underlying, although largely overlooked, social processes that occur through shopping practices.
They expand on this to explain that the account of shopping as a social process is also constituted
by identity. Their research follows the theorisation of identity “as multiple and contested,
discursively constituted through narratives of the self, constructed in relation to socially significant
others and articulated through relations with particular people, places and material goods” (Miller
et al. 1998:24). The relationship between consumption and identity presented in this collective
study offers a way of “seeing consumption as a choice not just between different kinds of goods
but between different kinds of relationship” (emphasis in text: ibid: 23). This demonstrates the role
of shopping districts in illuminating differences of identity, as the experience of shopping varies
depending on factors such as gender, age, ethnicity and class (11). My own investigation adheres
to this rationale, by untangling the multiple identities presented by different groups present within
a singular space. It also reveals the “continued importance of class differences in shopping” (57)
as shown by Miller in his solo publication, A Theory of Shopping (1998). Whilst Miller et al.’s study
outlines effective research methods to investigate publicity in shopping districts there are elements
of the research that can be criticised. The authors state, “On the basis of our survey results, there
is no evidence to support a thesis that shopping centres tend to create social exclusion” (88).
However, I would argue that this statement is flawed due to restricted access to individuals that are
clearly excluded from the research sites, such as the homeless, and therefore cannot participate in
the survey. They draw attention to issues of exclusion later in the text, but fail to provide sufficient
follow-up commentary in their presentation of survey results.
Similar investigations based in non-western countries indicate additional functions of
indoor shopping malls that provide “a comfortably habitable public realm” (Jewell, 2016: 50) by
offering relief from the external heat and pollution and substituting for the lack of public gardens
(Erkip, 2003). Many studies of these shopping malls also signify the particular role of this for
women and support the revision or ‘feminization’ of the flâneur in privatised sites of consumption
(Featherstone, 1998). The proposition that shopping centres provide an effective public space for
women has received significant attention in urban social theory (Bolwby, 1988; Zukin, 1998; Day,

10. 6
1999). Whilst the notion of a gendered public space is particularly significant for these spaces, this
is not the main topic of investigation. However this discussion remains relevant for this research
through the subsequent awareness of complex and sometimes contrasting experiences of space
that is influenced by subjective position. These studies also re-signify the benefit of ‘zooming in’ on
urban spaces in order to uncover authentic experiences of the real and everyday individual.
Tyndall (2010) demonstrates a comparable grounded approach to deciphering urban
space, which locates similar results in the study of a single space, a shopping mall in Sydney. He
highlights the unwritten ‘public rhythm’ that influences the user groups of the area, therefore
producing a temporal publicity. This presents a platform for analysing the groups that successfully
co-exist in public space, as well as questioning which publics are excluded and on what basis. The
research also signifies the graduated relationship between security and publicness. Positive notions
of security are often transcended by the negative implications of governance or surveillance as
discussed by Foucault (1977). However, Tyndall’s study indicates the prevalence of the association
with security and safety, explaining that this perception is influenced by the individual’s social
position. This is explicitly demonstrated in contrasting relationship with the security staff that is
dependent on age and socio-economic background. Tyndall also contests the presupposition that
new public spaces such as shopping centres produce a ‘democratic deficit’ (Sennett, 1977; Davis,
1990; Mitchell, 2003). He demonstrates the ways his respondents remain ‘ambivalent’ towards
political engagement stating, “users voiced quite complex understandings of what they thought
were deeper societal shifts” (Tyndall, 2010: 132). From these findings, he proposes a repositioning
of publicity to “account for individual agency” (134). This is similar to the formations of individual
identity evidenced by Miller et al. reinforcing the argument that “the material culture that is a
shopping site becomes itself a form through which the nature of [pre-given genres] of identity
is discovered and refined” (1998: 187). Evidently, quasi-public spaces such as shopping centres
are significant spaces for ambivalent political reflection and the refining of self-identification by
active social agents. The application of such theories is influential to the following research, which
investigates the occurrence of this at Covent Garden.
Many researchers that propose a rethinking of public space recognise the significant
implications that arise from their findings. I argue that this reflectivity is incredibly important for
research of this nature. Social research has evidenced its role in interdisciplinary fields such as art
and photography, however I argue that the extent of its potential influence and role within urban
design on a large scale has not been successfully met. Whilst it is seemingly easy to criticise
spaces, it is undoubtedly difficult to offer constructive responses. This is demonstrated by the
unsuccessful attempt made by ‘signature’ architect and urbanist visionary, Rem Koolhaas, to ‘recast’
the Euralille shopping mall in France “as a piece of connective urban tissue” (Jewell, 2016: 38).
Koolhaas’ post-modernist approach to shopping goes beyond the fetishisation of the old public
sphere to think about the new forms of public sphere emerging within commercial spaces. The
arguments he presents in regards to publicness and shopping are relevant to discussion, and he
even goes as far to claim “shopping is arguably the last remaining form of public activity” (Koolhaas
et al. 2001). However, despite demonstrating an encouraging conceptualisation of quasi-public
space, he was arguably unable to deliver a ground breaking commercial design. As Dovey criticises,
“the mall works like any other private mall as a cul-de-sac rather than a thoroughfare in the urban
fabric” (2008:185). Koolhaas’ failure to deploy his own theories within the actual built form arguably

11. 7
reveals “the difficulty of being able to think about the shopping centre in conventional urban
terms” (Jewell, 2016: 38). There evidently needs to be a richer dialogue between social theorists,
architects, planners and developers in order to ensure this research is practically beneficial. I
argue that the aforementioned studies begin to do this by indicating that shopping centres can
provide users a platform for actively appropriating and presenting public identity. They support
grounded epistemological research methods as user knowledge and expressions of experiential
space validate claims of publicity in private spaces. This contests presupposed meta-theories that
are imposed on the users of these spaces, whilst largely ignoring the complex tensions between
democracy, consumption and identity. I argue that the tensions that arise from epistemological
investigation demonstrate the subjectivity of public space. An open-minded approach to this topic
signifies the ambiguities of public space that I propose are unjustly denied by many urban theorists
that fixate on its demise.

12. 8
SETTING THE SCENE
This chapter provides the reader with an overview of Covent Garden as a privatised public
space. It begins by outlining the reasons for studying Covent Garden, and then assesses the
experience of space at Covent Garden where I have considered which elements of its history are
important. It covers the history of ownership that sees the area pass through the hands of a private
family, public organisations and ultimately a private corporation. The chapter refers to secondary
resources that give an account of Covent Garden’s history, as well as including information
collected from an interview with former member of the GLC’s Historic Buildings Division and author
of ‘Covent Garden Market; Its History and Renovation’ (1980), Robert Thorne.
I have been an intermittent visitor to the site, from primary-school trips aged 9 that would
gather in the Plaza to have our packed lunch; family outings to the Christmas market, aged 14,
where I would complain about how cold and bored I was, unimpressed by the performers; running
barefoot on the cobblestones on my 18th birthday after departing Tiger Tiger; and entertaining
relatives from Sydney when my mum had suggested we meet at a Covent Garden bar to show
them a typical London area. Covent Garden is a place where I exhibit particular forms of ‘publicness’
including social interaction and public debate; although admittedly I was largely unaware I
was demonstrating this prior to completing this research. However, despite this re-emerging
engagement with the area, my connection with the space had remained fragmented. I would smirk
when old-school friends suggest a Covent Garden bar for girly catch-up cocktails, because I saw
it as too mainstream and relatively uncool. The popularity of Covent Garden continued to bemuse
me. What is it about this space that attracted so many different types people? Am I missing
something? I was also intrigued by the new masterplan of the area, which I was made aware of by
a throwaway comment from a family member who is a structural engineer. They had heard about
the Kohn Peterson Fox design and thought it might be of interest to my future career options in the
built environment. I had presumed Covent Garden had been recently ‘remade’ and in my view the
area did not appear to be in need of much renovation. Further reading around this topic indicated
that the site was being actually remade to increase its attraction for Londoners like me. Covent
Garden was now increasingly becoming a site of research interest. My interest in urban planning
and design was intriguing me into the varied user-ship and rich sociological processes taking place
there.

13. 9
Covent Garden started life as a 13th century garden for the Abbey Convent of St Peter’s
Church that linked the walled City of London with the Abbey of Westminster (Woodiwiss, 1980:13).
Following the reformation and dissolution of the monasteries in 1530, the land of the abbots
became the property of Henry VIII (Richardson, 1979:10). The majority of this land, excluding areas
north of Long Acre and Seven Dials, was subsequently transferred to John Russell the 1st Earl
of Bedford in 1541 (Thorne, 1980:2). Over time the convent garden became enclosed by a steady
increase in built structures around it. By 1613 the 3rd Earl of Bedford built a wall that enclosed the
twenty acres of the old convent garden. Under licence of the 4th Earl, the Crown’s own Surveyor-
of-the-King’s Works, Inigo Jones designed the iconic Piazza and St. Paul’s Church (Richardson,
1979:12). The portico between St. Paul’s Church and the Piazza is also a significant site for the
first instances of street theatre at Covent Garden (Figure 2). The Piazza, built between 1633-1637,
demonstrates Jones’ knowledge of Italian and Parisian squares illustrating “a continental way of
life in which the open square became a public meeting place and a location in which to sit and
stare” (Richardson, 1995: 12). The shared square is not the only sense that Covent Garden can
be seen to typify the public spaces outlined in the preceding review of literature. There are also
several accounts of the popularity of the area stemming from the coffee houses on Russell Street,
of which “every man of the better classes had his favourite haunt” (Jacobs, 1913:41). During late
17th century the Piazza remained known for its artistic tenants, whilst the aristocracy were drawn to
more secluded squares such as Soho Square, Golden Square, St James’s Square and Bloomsbury
“all these offered seclusion to those who could afford it. No strangers in these squares sheltered
from the rain in an arcade just outside your front room” (Richardson 1995:15). The coffee houses
gave the area a fashionable reputation due to their respected literary clientele such as England’s
first poet Laureate, John Dryden, who frequently visited Wills’s on Russell Street and produced
plays at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane (Jacobs, 1913:42). However, the area was also popular for
criminals that targeted the bourgeois gentleman as they left the premises (ibid). “The atmosphere
of democratic conviviality in the coffee-houses, about which it is so easy to be sentimental, was
offset by the dangers and brutalities of the streets around” (Thorne, 1980: 2). This extraordinary
and rambunctious mix of visitors is explored in Vic Gatrell’s ‘The First Bohemians: Life and Art in
London’s Golden Age’ who writes about the encounters between the prostitutes and artists, and
the “infinite zest and plausible disorder” that took to the streets of Covent Garden (2013: 4).
SETTING THE SCENE CONT. | COVENT GARDEN’S HISTORY
Figure 2. The first street performance in Covent Garden in 1662

14. 10
The coffee houses and theatres of Covent Garden were polarised to the “jumble, stink
and noise of the market” that was evolving in the Piazza. The establishment of the market is first
identified in the recording of a protest in 1649, though this was “probably no more than a huddle
of traders […], a picturesque side feature in the square rather than an engulfing activity (Thorne,
1980:9). By 1670 the 5th Earl of Bedford obtained a royal charter giving the right to hold a market
and to charge tolls (ibid). The ambiguous clauses of the charter did not differentiate between
types of food meaning that these tolls were to subject to negotiation by the Bedford’s or their
lessees, which resulted in many cases of protestation from traders who challenged them in the
courts (Richardson, 1995: 25). More than a century after its humble beginnings, the market had
filled the Piazza. The confusion that surrounded the tolls and the pandemonium of the dispersing
market resulted in the 6th Duke of Bedford introducing a ‘Dedicated Market’ that would replace the
assortment of shanty buildings that had appeared and systematically arrange the traders (Thorne,
1980:13). The Duke also obtained an Act of Parliament in order to regularise the tolls (Richardson,
1995:44). Charles Fowler, who had recently designed Hungerford Market that stood on the site of
Charing Cross station, presented the plans for the Market building in 1827, which was completed in
1830. Whilst there were practical reasons for doing it was primarily a way of regularising the trade.
The erection of the Central Market building reinstated control and a temporary sense of order over
the market for the Duke of Bedford, who also felt able to increase the rents due to the “improved
premises” (Thorne, 1980:20). Three buildings were erected on the Piazza to facilitate additional
trade. These were named Floral Hall (1887) now part of the Royal Opera House; Flower Market
(1871), which became the London Transport Museum in 1980; and Jubilee Hall Market (1904),
which still stands today (Richardson, 1995:80-82). The Bedford Estate sustained an “apparent
tranquillity” (Thorne, 1980:20) during the early Victorian era, however criticism of the management
of the area increased as the 20th century drew closer. Despite the construction of additional
market buildings the Bedford’s were “accused of misuse of its power over the traders” (Richardson,
1995:82). The highly disputed tolls had extended their grasp to traders on the external streets
as the market continued to spread beyond the enclosing structures. The 9th Duke of Bedford
expressed intentions to sell the market to a local authority as early as 1887. Whilst the deals never
materialised this was an interesting insight into what was to come. Eventually the estate was sold to
MP Harry Mallaby-Deeley in 1913, who then sold it on to Sir Thomas Beecham, in 1918. This transfer
from one private family to another can be seen as a “sideways step leaving the new owners in very
much the same position as the old ones” (Thorne, 1980: 44).
The market continued in the same way up until the purchase of the Covent Garden area by
the government-owned Covent Garden Authority in 1962 (ibid: 45). However the inability to resolve
the tensions of the market, which was “a delight for those who enjoyed its picturesque anarchy
yet monstrously inefficient”, and the increasing congestion of traffic needed to service it, led to its
relocation to Nine Elms, Battersea in 1974 (46). At this time the future of Covent Garden and the
market buildings remained uncertain. In 1968 the planning team for the area that comprised the
Greater London Council (GLC), the borough of Camden and the City of Westminster, proposed
the Comprehensive Development Plan (Richardson, 1995: 50). Some of elements of the plan were
sensitive to the heritage of Jones’ original Piazza and Charles Fowler’s 1827 design (Thorne, 1980:
50-51), however, it also included the introduction of grand hotels, offices, a conference centre and
most significantly a major road network (Woodiwiss, 1980:109). The proposed demolition required
in the peripheral streets meant that “60% of the area was to be razed, approximately 2000 people

15. 11
rehoused and many small businesses up-rooted” (Richardson, 1995: 128). The proposed plan
encouraged the organisation of local residents and businesses that formed the Covent Garden
Community Association (CGCA) in 1971. The plan was overturned and the ‘listing’ of 245 buildings
in the area meant that any redevelopment of this nature was impossible (Richardson, 1995: 131).
In 1973 the Government instructed the GLC to draw up new plans with full public
participation. They were convinced by the CGCA to built new public housing such as Odhams Walk,
to cater for families who had been forced out the area1
. The 1978 Action Plan was put forward and
the decision was made by the GLC to renovate Charles Fowler’s central market building to suit a
new purpose as a mixed-retail development. Robert Thorne explains that the selection of retail
tenants suited the presupposition of the increasing residential population of the area, “we wanted
to have one butcher, two greengrocers, at least two bookshops, you know at least one children’s
toy shop, a range of eating places…” However, he also comments on the naivety of the GLC in
perceiving the project as a local development to suit the needs of Londoners, “certainly not as a
project to attract tourists”. The abolition of the GLC by Thatcher’s Government in 1985 saw Covent
Garden pass over to the London Residuary Body (LRB) and the Covent Garden Area Trust (CGAT)
was formed to safeguard the buildings that surround the Piazza. Over the next 20 years several
private freeholders acquired these ‘Protected Lands’, and ownership passed from Guardian Royal
Exchange (1988-2000) to Scottish Widows and Henderson Global (2001-2006). In 2006 Capital
and Counties (CAPCO) acquired the estate of thirty properties. They have now ‘doubled’ their
portfolio after purchasing an additional 43 properties in the area (interview with Andrew Hicks).
A pattern can be traced back in the management of the area to provide the commercially minded
landlord with profitable land. The continuous attempts made by the Bedford Estate to control and
toll the market traders is not unlike the purchasing of additional properties by CAPCO and the
saturation of retail in the space, increasing the potential profit of the estate.
1
There was already similar housing available in the Peabody Estate in Drury Lane that was built in 1881 by
American millionaire and philanthropist George Peabody, (Christensen, 1979:7) (Figure 3).
Figure 3. The Peabody Estate, Wild Street

16. 12
For the most of its history Covent Garden was a public facility run by the private Bedford
family, there was then a curious reverse, as it became a public facility run by a public organisation. It
can be seen that the management of Covent Garden has returned to its origins, as it is now a public
space run by a private company. “It is not only the ‘changing fortunes’ of an area which must be
understood by locating it within a wider context, but also the character of the place itself” (Massey,
1994: 120).
What remains is an interesting space that evidences so many types of ‘publicness’
across its history, from the bohemians in the coffee shops and their interactions with prostitutes
on the street, to the democratic organisation of street traders or local communities against the
management of the area imposed on them. With this in mind, this thesis sets out to investigate the
character of Covent Garden that its users experience today.

17. 13
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the methods used in the research fieldwork. It begins by
demonstrating the influence of feminist epistemology and the resulting significance of experiential
public space. It then outlines the reasons for selecting particular research methods, the implications
of doing so and the subsequent process of transcribing and analysis the data collected. This
section concludes by discussing the necessary ethical considerations and outlining the research
presentation style.
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
The conception of public space put forward by feminist theorists provides a theoretical
standpoint more attuned to the varied decoding of experiential public space occurring in sites like
Covent Garden, as explained by Doreen Massey.
“Such a way of conceptualizing the spatial, moreover, inherently implies the existence in the
lived world of a simultaneous multiplicity of spaces […] Most evidently this is so because the
social relations of space are experienced differently, and variously interpreted, by those holding
different positions as part of it” (1994:3).
The methodological approach is shaped by the research aims to investigate the experience
of public space in Covent Garden, to explore what forms of ‘publicness’ the site enables and how
these experiences shape the values and meanings of public space for the users/respondents.
It is because of my mixed experience of Covent Garden that I am particularly interested in
other’s experience or interpretation of the space. To understand the repeated transformation
of this particular space, as well as its surprising popularity, I decided to investigate the multiple
subjective angles that propose contesting visions and ideas as to what this space is, and what it
should become. This is explored through embodied understandings of public space as opposed
to abstracted, rational and purely theoretical accounts. This is influenced by the significance
of subjective interpretations of space as demonstrated by standpoint feminist epistemology
(Fraser, 1990, 1992, 1997; Deutsche; 1998; Harding, 1987, 2004) and post-colonial studies (Kim,
2007). Therefore, rather than surveying the ownership or governance of the space as a form of
distinguishing between public or private space, this research thesis discerns ‘what is public’ through

18. 14
how different groups of people experience, interact with, and use the space. Whilst authors such as
Anna Minton and David Harvey provide significant critical Marxist analysis, a standpoint feminist
reading of these texts signifies the hollowness of the scientific and systematic claims made. In
response, this methodological approach goes beyond deducing ideas from empirically observable
data to inducing ideas from respondents’ statements. As Les Back argues, “the art of listening to
the world where we take the people we listen to as seriously as we take ourselves, is perhaps the
most important quality that sociology can offer today” (2007: 163). Specific research methods were
required to provide me with insightful details about the users experience that can most effectively
be collected by adopting qualitative research techniques. The participants’ understanding of
the space and their articulation and verbal representation of such is what I consider to be valid
knowledge. Therefore, this research relies on interview methods and observation to investigate
the definitions of publicness that are constituted at Covent Garden through the experience of
individuals that engage with the site.
The subjective interpretation of space also influences the articulation of the sample site
used in this research. It is therefore not clearly stated what is included within the defined area of
Covent Garden; it means different things to different people. As stated by Doreen Massey, “If one
considers almost any real place, and certainly on not defined primarily by administrative or political
boundaries, these supposed characteristics have little real purpose” (Massey, 1994: 152). Therefore
for the purpose of this research the definition of Covent Garden remains within the respondents’
interpretation of such, whether this is solely the Piazza, the iconic Market Building or the peripheral
streets that connect it to the rest of London. “I certainly could not begin to, nor would I want to,
define [Covent Garden], by drawing its enclosing boundaries” (ibid: 154).
SAMPLING
The evident multiplicity of interest groups identified from preliminary observation
indicated a need to represent the diverse users of the space. Admittedly, the research could have
successfully presented adequate claims addressing more specific processes, such as the tensions
between the area ‘caretakers’ Capital and Counties (CAPCO) and the market traders. However,
since the early conception of this study I have been determined to investigate and present a
holistic account of experience in Covent Garden. This is demonstrated to an extent by existing
studies into public space, however it could be argued that epistemic validity resides with either
extreme of micro or macro urbanism. One side of research predominately focuses on the ground-
level users of the space, with little space for discussion with area stakeholders of management
(Miller et al, 1998). Whilst on the other extreme, macro-urbanism is grounded solely from the
perspective of a multitude of experts – including themselves – neglecting to address or comment
on the experiences underway at ground-level (Minton, 2009). In response to this deficit in existing
research, this investigation identifies the experiences occurring at numerous levels of engagement.
This is in part due to the application of Lefebvre’s much-used mantra, the ‘right to the city’ (1991,
1996; Harvey, 2012), to demonstrate the multiple groups with supposed ‘rights’ to Covent Garden. It
is also influenced by a professional interest in the built environment that motivates me to verbalise

19. 15
the intentions of estate directors, architects and town planners. I argue that by presenting the
words of ‘experts’ with the same weighting as additional responses, this study mitigates potential
bias that negates the claims made in similar existing research. Unfortunately it can be seen that
thoughts expressed by representatives of authority often hold more weight than that of the users
as demonstrated by the meta-theorists critiqued in the literature review. Furthermore, I maintain
that this breadth of respondents increases its potential for consumption by such ‘experts’, who
would benefit from a clear understanding of the subjective implications of urban design. I aim
to present work that “can be read and listened to simultaneously” (Back, 2012:35) and therefore
intend to share the findings from this research with potential employers in the built environment
industry to demonstrate the significance of user experience, a process that is often marginalised by
corporate interests or the opinion of ‘experts’.
I was able to reach a wide demographic of respondents through the deployment of
purposive sampling techniques, as outlined by Bryman (2016:410-421). Criteria that primarily
determined the sampling of participants were relatively limited as I was interested in a range of
categorised groups; the criteria being that they visited, worked or lived in the Covent Garden area.
Whilst market traders and occasional visitors to the area would be interviewed using opportunistic
sampling, a selection of additional area stakeholders was composed to provide a preliminary guide
to potential interview subjects that would need contacting in advance. This included Capital and
Counties (CAPCO), Kohn Pederson Fox (KPF), Covent Garden Area Trust (CGAT), Covent Garden
Community Association (CGCA), Greater London Council (GLC) , Seven Dials Housing Cooperative
(SDHC) and Covent Garden Business Forum (CGBF). I contacted these stakeholder groups via
written letter during the first week of May, outlining my research and requesting a short meeting
with a representative of their establishment (Appendix 2 & 3). This form of communication was
chosen to maximise the impact and the letters were individually tailored to appeal to the different
interest groups. Responses to these initial letters were mixed, with CAPCO and CGAT responding
within a few days whilst the CGCA and SDHC took more than a month to reply and despite polite
chasing, no meet-up or interview was forthcoming; I also received no response from CGBF. This
clearly signified the differing levels of access to institutions available to me, as well as the resources
and funding, available to the different interest groups. It quickly became apparent that large
corporations such as CAPCO had more staff hours available to dedicate to university projects than
the community associations.
As well as contacting individuals directly, some respondents were recruited as a result
of snowball sampling (Bryman, 2016: 415). This was useful in exercising second-hand power
relations to secure interviews with other stakeholders. For example through my own efforts I had
not received a reply from KPF, but a personal email from CAPCO’s Director of Estates Andy Hicks
to KPF resulted in a prompt response and a subsequent interview was arranged. This impromptu
sampling method was also particularly helpful when theoretical and opportunistic sampling was
proving to be implausible for the resident sample group (Noy, 2008). Contact was eventually
made following a recommendation from street performer Peter Howarth, who made me aware of
the easily accessible Peabody Estate. This snowball sampling method was then repeated at the
residential site. A quickly formed friendship with the self-appointed ‘estate manager’, combined
with the number of residents visible and accessible to me in the communal ‘garden’, meant that
this sampling pool soon grew. Other interviewee’s such as tourists and additional visitors to the site

20. 16
were reached through opportunistic sampling whereby I approached individuals and simply asked
them if they would answer a few questions. This method was satisfactory for reaching individuals
that could not necessarily be arranged in advance due to participant’s time constraints, as they
were often only in the area for a few hours. This shorter timeframe meant that the correspondence
with tourists and other visitors to Covent Garden was often not as long as the other interviews;
however this is not to say they are less valuable.
It is extremely difficult to recognise a satisfactory sample size within qualitative research
(Bryman, 2016: 412). This issue was very pertinent to my research, as I was keen to present
accounts from multiple groups of people. I was in danger of becoming a ‘fieldwork junkie’ (Back,
2007:177). I found that the more interviews I carried out, the richer the responses were; however
on reflection this is likely due to me being at a later stage of the thesis whereby I had begun to
establish theoretical links. The purposive sampling technique identified particular user groups that I
felt were significant. Whilst this could clearly have been much larger I had reached a practical limit.
INTERVIEWING
Interviews provided a research method to gather information from respondents that reveal
how ‘publicness’ is phenomenologically constituted through experiences. The flexible qualitative
approach allows the researcher to use an iterative style of collecting and categorizing responses
that are not influenced by statistical significance (Bryman, 2016: 466-499. Semi-structured
interviews were chosen over alternative data collection methods such as questionnaire surveys, as
they gave space for conversation between the participant and myself (Becker, 1971; Oakley, 1981).
Although certain efforts were made to ‘naturalise’ the interview process, through conversational
questioning and purposefully selected modes of dress, this does not mean that the ‘researcher
reactivity’ is avoided entirely (Bryman, 1988:112). However, as supported by feminist standpoint
theory, it is deemed unnecessary to remove all subjective bias. In order to avoid the problematic
observations of the ungrounded researcher described in the opening review of literature, the
subjective epistemic approach that underpins this investigation “abandons the search for and
denies the possibility of the disinterested and dislocated view of nowhere” (Code, 1995: 29)
Interviews that were arranged in advance allowed me to draft questions and conversation
topics prior to the meeting. In addition to helping me ensure that I covered all relevant points, this
also meant that I was able to provide the interviewees with some background information about
my research. This allowed me to ensure that my respondents felt comfortable and prepared for the
interview. Whilst my initial question did not directly prompt them to think about the area as a public
or private space, this underlying theme of the research was not deceptively hidden. In addition to
the ethical issues that surround it I do not believe that my research would have benefitted from
covert research. My aim was to discover how my respondents genuinely responded when thinking
about their experience of Covent Garden, and the interviews were therefore suitably conversational
and open, which I argue produced far richer responses. As encouraged by Corbin and Strauss

21. 17
(2008: 123) I kept a fieldwork diary throughout the research process, utilised immediately following
the interviews, to record any immediate comments that I believed would be beneficial in improving
future research. Consistently referring back to these notes meant that data collection and research
questions could be adjusted accordingly to improve the interview technique and outcomes. This
further demonstrates the benefits of semi-structured interviews, which allowed the process to be
flexible and producing rich responses with information pertaining to the users experience. However,
some of the interviews, particularly those that deployed opportunistic sampling, did not produce
extensive results. The interview process highlighted the methodological implication referred to
as the ‘ethnographic fallacy’ (Duneier, 1999). This relates to the notion that everyday people are
experts of their own lives, which involves taking verbal accounts at face value. Whilst individual
experiences are valuable, particularly in privatised spaces such as Covent Garden where everyday
experiences are often overlooked, the stunted responses given by some visitors demonstrate that
whilst they are experts of their own lives, they can be unaware what they do and may not effectively
identity or explain their behaviours. Due to this ‘ethnographic fallacy’, analytic commentary and
theorisation of responses given in the interviews is necessary to present what I consider to be
significant to this research.
All of the respondents provided a perspective on the area that is grounded in their
experience. I was therefore keen to interview the participants at a location that reflected their
engagement with Covent Garden. Conducting interviews at the sites in which the respondent
interacts with the area was vital to uncovering materialities that occur in the specific environment.
Interviews took place in the offices of professionals at CAPCO, KPF and CGAT based in Covent
Garden, in the stands of stalls in the Jubilee Market Building (Figure 4), amongst visitors in the
Piazza, and within the Peabody estate. Whilst the research focuses on a specific area, it was clear
that there were significant characteristics that varied between the more precise interview locations.
Figure 4. The Jubilee Market Hall

22. 18
Interviews that took place with individuals in the ‘backstage’ areas (Goffman, 1959) such as the
offices, gives me a deeper insight into their everyday relationship with the area. I deliberately chose
not to conduct a walking interview with these participants for this reason, as this is realistically how
they engage with the space; as stated by them they would likely spend most of their day in the
office. Goffman’s ‘dramaturgical analogy’ describes social interaction “as if it were a performance in
a theatre” (Hart, 2005:259). As well as providing an effective way to decide the interview location
as the theatre in which the social actors perform, Goffman’s theorisation of ‘self’ offers a tool to
explain the ways in which I presented myself to the different interviewees in order to establish a
communicative atmosphere. I argue that this can best be evidenced by my choice of clothing or
‘costume’ that undoubtedly influenced the ‘self’ I was performing, as well as the way this ‘self’ was
received. For instance, in the interviews with stakeholder ‘experts’, CAPCO and KPF, I dressed in a
smart suit and was generally very professionally turned out. This decision was actively made in an
attempt to place myself within their field to produce a more conducive discussion. As explained
by Rogers, clothing can communicate various characteristics that can “create in-group/out-group
boundaries and determine what information will or will not be shared” (Gordon, 1992: 51 in reference
to Rogers, 1984: 80). I therefore felt that my mode of dress was equally as important when
interviewing the street performers and residents. For these interviews I dressed significantly more
casually, in jeans and trainers. Whilst I could not place myself within their social group, I wanted
them to feel comfortable in sharing opinions, knowing that I would be receptive of them; I did not
want them to think I was an ‘expert’ breaching their experience of the space.
In addition to presentations of ‘self’, my openly discussed interest in a future career within
the built environment was arguably important in enabling professional interviews to be conducted
with senior members of staff, such as the Director of the Covent Garden Estates, Andrew Hicks.
The motivation of the thesis articulated in my initial correspondence with CAPCO, “to explore
the experience of public space in accordance with effective public realm design, innovative
placemaking and increased user-ship”, suited the public image that CAPCO are evidently working
to promote. The representatives of the built environment, CAPCO and KPF, were quick to explain
their approach to managing Covent Garden before I prompted them with questions relating to
the research investigation about the experience of public space. I noticed similarities during the
interview process with KPF, and needed determination to guide the conversation towards the
relevant questions I had previously planned out. The meetings with CAPCO and KPF involved
much more persuasive questioning techniques, in order to get a response relating to the personal
experience of the space. However, I argue that this is due to their experience being honed in their
role as estate managers and architects.
DATA ANALYSIS; TRANSCRIPTION AND THEMATIC CODING
The interviews were audio recorded via the ‘Voice Notes’ application available on iPhone’s.
These were transcribed shortly after completion to give enough time to effectively study the data
and to provide an opportunity to adjust the interview technique if required. The recording and
transcription provides “a much more accurate and detailed account” of the interview than would
have been possible if I was solely relying on handwritten notes (Hammersley & Atkinson 1983:

23. 19
157). However, the obvious presence of the recording device arguably influences the responses
given as “awareness that proceedings are being recorded may significantly affect what occurs”
(ibid: 158). Covert recording of the interviews would have mitigated this, however this goes against
my personal principles of transparency, and is not recommended by the British Sociological
Association (BSA, 2002). I decided that the benefit of accurately recording and recalling the
responses was more important to the research. Participants were made aware of this prior to the
interview in the third clause of the ‘Participant Consent Form’ (Appendix 1).
The transcripts were then analysed to identity key themes that arose across the responses.
In addition to issues that were raised by several respondents, these themes were also informed
by existing literature within the topic of public space that signified the emerging topics of identity,
consumption, safety and subjectivity. This systematic procedure that is guided by thematic
objectives, provides a method informed by grounded theory for signifying previously elusive
relationships. By repeatedly re-reading the transcripts and referring back to my review of literature,
I was “digging beneath the surface to discover the hidden treasures contained in the data” (Corbin
& Strauss, 2008:4). This process was fairly challenging due to qualitative interview approach
that produced “rich, detailed answers” as opposed to “answers that can be coded and processed
quickly” (Bryman, 2016: 467). This resulted in identifying multiple themes that were gradually
consolidated by applying theory to them and omitting the more superfluous topics that arose. By
continually referring between existing theories, similar investigations and the printed transcripts I
was able to produce a cohesive analysis that met the investigations aim to uncover the processes
of publicness that people experience at Covent Garden.
ETHICS
This thesis has received full clearing from the Goldsmiths Research Ethics and Integrity
Sub-Committee (REISC), which involved the submission of an ethical approval form prior to the
commencement of research. The ethical considerations for this research have been in accordance
with the British Sociological Association ‘Statement of Ethical Practice’ (BSA, 2002). Prior to each
interview all participants were told about the nature of the project and completed a ‘Participant
Consent Form’ (Appendix 1). This includes clauses that specify the audio recording and subsequent
transcription of the interview. It also addresses the issue of anonymity within social research. It is
recognised that confidentiality is relatively challenging in qualitative research (Bryman, 2016:127).
The location of the research is unequivocally disclosed and whilst the participants gave permission
to include their name, the residents of the Peabody Estate are anonymised due to personal
information pertaining to their address being subsequently identifiable. They are referred to using
pseudonyms that are marked with an asterisk (*). Other participants have spoken under their own
names due to the significance of their identity for the purpose of research; this was clarified with
them in a follow up conversation whereby they specifically stated I could include this information.
None of the participants that took part in the study were especially vulnerable to risk from the
research. I safeguarded my personal safety by ensuring my partner was aware of my whereabouts
when conducting interviews and despite offers from some of the Peabody Resident’s I did not enter
anyone’s home.

24. 20
PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH
The photographs used within the thesis were taken by myself using an Olympus OM2n
and Kodak Gold 200 35mm colour film. The thesis has been put together in the style of research
reports produced by professional consultancy organisations operating within the built environment.
(Grosvenor, 2013; Arup, 2014). Photographs are used to give a flavour of the area for readers
who are not familiar with the site. The photographs should not overpower the responses given
by participants or detract from the theory that underpins this research. Instead they are used to
ensure the thesis is received with a degree of professionalism, which may influence the reception
of its concluding arguments. The images displayed within the document serve as visual elucidation
for the reader to gain a better account of the area that is being described. These photographs are
not illustrative of ‘visual sociology’ “to further our understanding of society and social relations”
(Hillyard, 2007:151), but are simply visual materials to set the scene for the reader; they are tools of
illustration rather than tools of analysis (Bolton et al, 2001: 515).
Figure 5. Crowds of people on James Street

25. 21
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The following analysis of responses is separated into five relevant chapters. It opens with a
discussion into the experience of performative class identity that is expressed by the participants.
It then outlines the relational issues of surveillance and safety that impact the ways in which
privatised public spaces like Covent Garden are perceived. The third chapter investigates the
occurrence of exclusion, presenting analysis of the implications of this on the way that Covent
Garden is understood and engaged with. The fourth theme of discussion focuses on the extent to
which Covent Garden can be described as a space that encourages ‘encounters with difference’, in
reference to the relevant theorisation of such as presented by Ash Amin. The section concludes
with a reflective summary of the tensions that are uncovered in quasi-public spaces and the
implications of this on the users’ experience.
As an overview the complex ways that different participants experience Covent Garden
became apparent through their responses to subversive questioning, in which they were asked to
name a site that they counterposed it to. The majority of interviewees responded with a site that
was not in fact a complete anonym but had similar specific characteristics and was only slightly
differentiated. The respondents clearly have a strong relationship with Covent Garden that is
not only substantiated in their engagement with the space but also grounded in their identity.
Street performer Pete articulates this interpretation of experiencing space, stating “in terms of
street performing...which is an easy context for me to see things in. I suppose it would be Trafalgar
Square”. This method of questioning demonstrates, both to the reader and the researcher, the
subjectivity of experiential public space that underpins the investigation. It speaks to the specificity
of Covent Garden against other commercialised and quasi-public spaces within the city and
further afield. It also reveals the extent to which places “are not so much bounded areas, as open
and porous networks of social relations…constructed through the specificity of their interaction
with other places” (Massey, 2013:121). I propose that the significant influence of the respondents’
subjective biographies, which is explicitly highlighted through this exercise, provides a useful
backdrop for the following discussion of additional findings.

26. 22
The transformation of Covent Garden from a working class food market to a fashionable
retail district saturated with high-end brands, presents a complex site with a rich and contesting
identity. The understanding of class identity is therefore articulated within the respondents varied
experience of the space. Whilst there are interpretations of class based primarily from relational
modes of production, the responses from participants of this study signifies the relational influence
towards accounts of self-identifying class. As proposed by Massey, “The notion of groups or classes
being mutually defined by the relations between them goes beyond the obvious case of capitalist
and worker” (1994: 87). It is understood that identifiers of professional class is of significance to
this research as this indicates key identifiers between the varying participant groups, which also
influenced their accessibility and availability to participate in the study. Whilst the interpretation of
professional class is applicable and relevant to discussion, responses collected in relation to Covent
Garden demonstrate additional and unequivocally more complex processes of class identity in
place. The definition of identity as performative and sits in alliance with the discussion presented in
Miller et al.’s Shopping, Place and Identity (1998). As explained in the literature review, their study
demonstrates the plurality and dynamism of identity versus “fixed and singular” (20) interpretations
such as Marxist classifications of class as means of production. This structured formation of
identity is criticised for presenting an “implicitly disembodied, un-situated masculine subject”
(Nelson, 1999:334 in reference to Rose, 1993: 29). Evidently, the development towards interpreting
class based on the hybrid understanding of experiential class and performative class identity
is illustrative of the feminist standpoint epistemology and the additional ‘rethinking of space’
grounding this thesis. As Massey goes on to explain, “any on-the-ground experience of trying to
build alliances would demonstrate the inadequacy of this view” (1994:244). The fluid interpretation
of both space and identity is supported by the standpoint methodology based upon the
participants’ experience as valid knowledge. Through the analysis of these responses, this chapter
reveals the ways in which Covent Garden, a privately managed quasi-public space, provides an
active site for modes of consumption that “increase in importance as central instruments within a
continual process of class construction” (Miller et al, 1998:157).
There were a number of informants who discussed Covent Garden as a mark of
identification, which fundamentally stemmed from the prevalence of luxury retail brands present
in the Market building and the bordering streets. These “connotations of social difference” (Miller
et al. 1998:148) demonstrate the way that social status is established through the use of consumer
commodities referred to as ‘cultural capital’ (Bourdieu, 1986). The response from a participant
who will be referred to hereafter as Lauren*, who had visited St. Paul’s churchyard within Covent
Garden on her lunch break, demonstrates this. She discussed the way that visiting Covent Garden
encouraged her to behave in a particular way and exhibit certain traits that are specific to a class
that she does not normally identify with, such as spending money on an “overpriced lunch or
a candle from Jo Malone”. It also shows the significance of place within this process as for this
respondent, class identity can be negotiated in relation to particular practices of consumption
facilitated in Covent Garden. Therefore the dynamic role of the process of consumption as the
class-differentiated market no longer solely serves as a site for the reproduction of social class
boundaries. Lauren’s response demonstrates that class-identity is more than “an act of situation
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS CONT. | CLASS IDENTITY

27. 23
within a given classification” (Miller et al. 1998:137).
This emerging role of shopping problematizes the conceptual dichotomy of public and
private. The acquisition of goods is deeply associated with capitalism and private consumption,
however these findings can be seen to reveal implications of retail within the public sphere. I
argue that the experience of shopping is closely related to publicity and can be interpreted as a
public behaviour. Evidently, shopping districts are more than a site for the reproduction of existing
class stratifications, as they also provide a space for constituting class identities through the
consumption of symbolic class signifiers. Instances of consumption in Covent Garden go “beyond
the isolated act of purchase… back into the social relations of production.” (Jackson, 1999: 28).
Lauren is aware of her agency in class mobility through visiting Covent Garden, even though she
states “it’s not my London here.” Whilst she may not openly identify with the middle or upper-
middle class that she believes this area is targeted towards, she is equipped with the economic
‘tools’ necessary to appropriate her performance of class in order to engage with Covent Garden;
she is able to extend her consumption beyond its normal levels by purchasing one off or luxury
items. This degree of class mobility suggests that there is a disjuncture between her performance
of class and her self-identification of class, which signifies the fluid nature of class-identity as
performative and embodied (Ruddick, 1996: 135). This is very similar to Miller et al.’s results from
two shopping centres in London, which “become a form through which the meaning of class is
understood and taken up in individual identity formation” (1998:20). Capital and Counties (CAPCO)
are clearly aware of the implications that particular brands have on the area and its users. This
indicates the explicit characteristics of Covent Garden to present it as a site of “affordable luxury”
(Andy Hicks of CAPCO) versus ‘ordinary’ shopping districts such as the case study of Wood Green
given by Miller et al. (1998). The notion of ‘accessible’ or ‘affordable’ luxury that was flagged up
numerous times during the interview, demonstrates that individuals like Lauren, are part of the
target consumers. The ‘affordability’ of one-off, luxury products appeals directly to the middle
classes such as Lauren who seeks out the area to “live some king of London fantasy life”. This
reveals the ways in which commercialised quasi-public spaces such as Covent Garden are an
arena for consumption behaviours that allow individuals to engage with their fluid class-identities.
Lauren’s experience of Covent Garden demonstrates that brands such as Jo Malone show that,
“what is being sold is not just the direct use value of the product itself but its symbolic significance
as a building block of a particular cohesive life-style” (Bauman, 1990: 205). Carefully selected
brands available in Covent Garden, accessible to middle classes through the purchase of one-
off items, provide certain individuals with symbolic tools to “manipulate or manage appearances
and therefore create and sustain a self-identity” (Warde, 1994a: 878 with reference to Beck, 1992;
Giddens, 1991; Bauman, 1983, 1990).
The proposition that class identity is constructed through consumption has consequences
for individuals that exhibit stricter class identities, from which they cannot perform the same
mobility that is described by Lauren. Responses that express “a sense of being below” (Miller et
al. 1998:147) reveal the ways that “consumption reproduces social hierarchy and class cohesion”
(Warde, 1994b: 64 in reference to Bourdeiu, 1984). Tony, a visitor to the Punch and Judy Pub,
voiced the feeling of not belonging in Covent Garden “because its not me”; he did not express the
same behaviours as Lauren who can self regulate her identity despite it not being ‘her London’. He
also demonstrated little interest in doing so as he goes on to say, “How can I fit in round here? Look

28. 24
I’m from East London. And in all fairness I don’t care”. Tony’s experience shows that commercialised
spaces have consequences for social stratification that can potentially exclude those who cannot
fully engage with the processes of consumption. However, additional responses in the research
demonstrate that some individuals resist these classifications through their engagement with the
space. Unlike Lauren, who describes how she would need to “dress the part” and be more willing
to splurge on unnecessary items, some respondents explained that they engaged with the site
beyond its role for consumption. Peabody Estate resident Claire*, recognised that there was limited
retail available for “a normal working class of people that are on a low wage”. However, despite this
she explained,
“It’s just lovely to go up into the Plazza because there’s always a lot going on, and you don’t
particularly have to be flushed with money. You don’t have to have a heavy purse, do you know
what I mean?”
Liz Potts of the CGAT showed a similar observation of the area,
“It is about specialist, fairly upmarket retail…and probably a lot of the shops are not places that I
would shop but it’s nice to walk around with someone and look at the fancy things ”
Whilst Claire and Liz believe that Covent Garden market is not necessarily for them, they
are able to actively seek out and engage with the space despite this. I argue that in doing so, this
presents personal agency and resistance (de Certeau, 1984) as structural barriers do not always
constrain individuals that self-identify as a particular class or demographic. It also shows that users
of the site do not feel obliged to shop, although it is recognised that this could be because these
individuals live and work in the area and therefore have specific reasons to visit it beyond its retail
use. The open design of the central Market building and arcades allows for the contemplation of
consumption, or the “spectacle de la merchandise” (Debord, 1987). These responses suggest that
Covent Garden provides a space for people to come “together across class and spatial boundaries,
despite their differential access because of inequalities in financial resources” (McDowell, 2003).
This is also applicable to Tony’s experience of the space, as despite expressing certain anxieties
about belonging in the space he was still present there. While he may not feel that he ‘fits in’ he is
able to engage with the area by visiting the pub with friends, which he clarifies is “the only context I
go down”.
Analysis of research reveals the ways in which the ambiguities of identity are comparable
to contemporary theories of space, as the responses indicate that neither Covent Garden nor its
users have a fixed class identity (Miller et al. 1998:156). Rather that the users mutually constitute
class and place identity through the appropriation of space. Covent Garden evidences the process
of symbolic consumption however it is not “merely a site for the performance of pre-given genres
of identity” (ibid:187.) The responses demonstrate the instability of class identity that is affected
by consumer behaviour (Featherstone, 1991) whilst also showing the role of agency in class
identification. The stable class positions based in the roles of production and occupation are
evidently insecure. The varied experiences of class identity contradict the decisive categorisation
of class that “forces everyone into one mould” (Massey, 1994: 244 in reference to Harvey, 1989).
Evidently, Covent Garden can “represent either class diversity or class similarity depending upon

29. 25
whether or not these particular shops become important to the shopper” (Miller et al, 1998: 186).
The discussion of findings implicates that “presumed certainties of cultural identity” (Carter et al.
1993: vii) pertaining to the social relations of production do not justify the complex relationship
that permeates between place and identity. It exposes the tension that can arise in ethnographic
research as contrasting readings of the space are revealed. In this sense, the creeping homogeneity
of Covent Garden through the “saturation of retail” (Lydia Firminger, KPF Architects), does not
contest its significance as a public space. Instead it should be interpreted through its impact on the
experience of the space for specific individuals. Critically, the findings show the numerous ways in
which people engage with quasi-public spaces that remain significant to their self-identification,
whether that is through consumption or appropriating their engagement with the space to suit
their needs. Responses indicated that people visit the area for reasons other than its retail by
users who “are interested in being in public as a means of constructing identity and creating social
connection” (Tyndall, 2010: 133). I propose that processes of consumption assist the forms of
publicness that are enabled at Covent Garden, disproving the association of privatisation with a
decline of publicness.
Figure 6. ‘Burberry Brit’ on King Street

30. 26
The use of surveillance in publicly accessible spaces and quasi-public spaces like Covent
Garden is often discussed in relation to the perceived ‘end of public space’ (Crawford, 1992; Sorkin,
1992; Sennett, 1977; Davis, 1990). Davis states, “’security’ has less to do with personal safety than
with the degree of personal insulation…from ‘unsavoury groups and individuals” (1990: 225).
However, as outlined in the opening review of such literature, the proposition that the idealised
public was truly accessible to all is incredibly problematic, and largely untrue. Instead, it can be
argued that the control and surveillance of public space, “generally exists alongside other usages
which do not necessarily imply the loss of common access” (Amin and Graham, 1999:21). Building
from this critique, this chapter explores the extent to which surveillance and perceived safety
influences the participants’ experience of Covent Garden in reference to the issues raised by the
respondents.
The varying subjective positions of the respondents are unmistakeably relevant to this
research, which is explicitly demonstrated in the contrasting decoding of situations from different
individuals. Several of the Peabody Estate residents commented on the feeling of safety in relation
to the changes in the securitised management of Covent Garden. Claire explained that whilst
there had previously been a large presence of community police officers in the area this was no
longer the case and it had become much safer. Steve*, who has lived in the area for 40 years,
also expressed this opinion explaining that the area felt “nice and comfortable” compared to its
days as a “rough market” in the late 1970s. When asked about the significant changes she had
experienced during her 37 years of living on the Peabody Estate, Shelly* explained that she had
also noticed a reduction in police presence in the area. However, when questioned if she felt that
this was because of the area had got safer, she stated “its because they’ve cut back. So no, we
don’t get them now because they haven’t got the time, and they haven’t got the police there to
do it”. Admittedly, this response took me by surprise as no other respondents had expressed this
view and I had noticed a large number of security guards around the Market area. I stated this to
Shelly, who maintained that there was not enough security staff. She replied that, “it would be nice,
once in a while to see some police.” This indicates that the user groups are not homogenous; whilst
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS CONT. |
SURVEILLANCE & SAFETY
Figure 7. CAPCO security staff on James Street

31. 27
the observation of something remained the same, the rationalisation and interpretation of it was
very different. The responses are demonstrative of the importance of standpoint research that
focuses on their individual experiences, therefore as a researcher it is not for me to say which is
true, but instead to deconstruct the reasons behind such responses in relation to relevant theory.
As explained by Les Back, “the usefulness of theory lies in its ability to invite us to ask different
questions of the social world. Hence the necessity and challenge to combine theoretical enquiry
and empirical investigation in equal measure”(2007:16).
Evidently, the experience of safety, surveillance and police relations varies greatly between
individuals from the same sample group but who have different biographies. Shelly’s reading of
the situation that relies on the physically observable presence of authoritative police shows the
extent to which individuals privilege safety over privacy. This is also demonstrative of the fact
that “perception is perhaps even more important than reality […] the illusion of safety is as vital or
even more so, than its reality” (Hazel, 1992: 28). The varied perception of safety, surveillance and
crime is addressed in Susan Smith’s quantitative analysis of crime survey data in the USA and UK,
indicating that the ‘fear of crime’ is highest “among the elderly, women, and residents of inner city
neighbourhoods” (1987:1). Whilst Shelly meets these biographic indicators, neighbour Julie*, who
also fits this demographic, vocalised her disagreement with Shelly on this issue. She explained to
Shelly that two police officers had passed through the Peabody Estate on the day of the interview,
also stating “but to be honest we don’t need em Shelly!” This indicates deviations of experience
regardless of gender or age, in the ways that individuals perceive the police either as a marker of
safety or a marker of crime. Existing research indicates that shifting perceptions of crime can also
be influenced by a sense of nostalgia that is associated with increased racial diversity of an area
(Taub et al. 1984, Back, 1996: 29-28). None of the participants that took part in this study explicitly
indicated feelings of this nature, in fact many spoke positively about the diversity of the area, but it
remains a point of consideration for ethnographies of this kind. Although he was supportive of the
‘cosmopolitanism’ of Covent Garden that resulted from the dominance of foreign visitors, Peabody
Estate resident Steve was very concerned by the changing demographic of the estate itself. He was
critical of the ‘drifters’ and ‘dregs of the earth’ that had recently moved in.
“People come here for a few months, youngsters, unmarried women – no disrespect to that, I know
that’s life that’s life – and they don’t stay and they don’t care. They literally don’t care”
(Steve, Peabody Estate resident for 40 years)
Although his response is not racialised, it is representative of the nostalgia expressed
towards loss of community resulting from high population turnover and changing social norms.
External research indicates a decrease in long-term residents’ experience of security following
population change (Smith, 2009; Buffel et al, 2013). However, the majority of responses in this
research reveal the opposite, as Steve, Claire and Julie describe Covent Garden as feeling
safer than when they first moved into the area despite a perceived reduction in police. The
aforementioned studies that indicate experiences of exclusion and uncertainties for long-term
residents are based in deprived inner-city areas. Intense urban deprivation produces additional

32. 28
variables such as unemployment, low-income and poor housing conditions that would impact on
the experience (Kesteloot & Meys 2008; Buffel et al, 2013.) I therefore argue that the reasons for the
disparity in results from this study stems from the proximity of this particular housing estate to the
central Covent Garden market area, as the extensively controlled site and generally affluent area
allows for them to feel “nice and comfortable” (Peabody Estate resident, Steve). Older residents in
deprived areas express increased insecurity due to neighbourhood decline, however the majority of
Covent Garden residents describe how the area has improved as a result of increased investment.
This is clearly explained by Claire, who states,
“Claire: It’s a good area. And it feels quite safe. And I feel that because it’s a tourist attraction, we’ve
got the theatres and the restaurants and all that, that I feel that maybe that’s one of the reasons
they particularly put more money in. Keep it looking good. Keep it clean.
Interviewer: But you can obviously benefit too?
Claire: Yeah I benefit as well, so I like that.”
I argue that these findings show that the feeling of safety goes beyond “guards and gates”
(John, 2006: 443), stemming from forms of control whereby indicators of crime are managed
more covertly. This is further demonstrated by the fact that none of the respondents apart
from the Peabody residents commented on the securitisation of Covent Garden. It shows that
CAPCO have been successful in ensuring a space that its target users feel is safe, so much so
that the perception of terrorism and additional crime is not relevant to their experience at the
time of research. Further research could concentrate on this topic in more detail, as questions
directly regarding surveillance or safety were not included. Although I cannot presume that my
respondents are necessarily aware of the “eyes and ears everywhere” as mentioned earlier (Andrew
Hicks, CAPCO), it does suggest that the extensive surveillance of the area it not a major concern
to the users, “welcoming security measures as a means of enhancing their safety” (Miller et al.
1998:74). This is indicative of the extent to which my respondents are people that engage with the
space positively and are not excluded from it. The individuals that took part in my study are people
who are able to use the site; therefore security is not an issue as it mediates the usability of the
space for them rather than contesting their access to it.
This thesis investigates people’s experience of space and how they construct
phenomenological forms of ‘publicness’, and it is clear that this has real consequences for the
space. The surveillance of the area and corresponding crime management reveals a tension
between producing a safe space for the majority of visitors that excludes certain individuals. As a
privately managed site, with palpably creeping commercialisation, Covent Garden demonstrates the
paradoxical nature of public space for different social groups. The experience of safety in public
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS CONT. | EXCLUSION

33. 29
space is often at the expense of “social and spatial exclusion for others” (Miller et al, 1998: 105);
as summarised by Zukin certain ways of managing space produces “social inclusion or exclusion,
depending on your point of view” (Zukin 1995: vii). This statement is particularly pertinent for
discussion of this site that arguably comes at the expense of the exclusion of particular socio-
economic groups. Initial research into the management of Covent Garden indicates the influence
of certain ‘publics’ being promoted at the expense of others. This was demonstrated by Covent
Garden Business Forum’s efforts to maintain a certain place identity in order to protect local
businesses, signified by its role in preventing the proposed needle exchange for drug addicts at
Tottenham Court Road, at the northern border of Covent Garden. Although I was unsuccessful in
arranging an interview with representatives of this organisation due to them longer being active,
information available on their website demonstrates some of the ways they promote and deny
specific characteristics of public space. Their website states,
“Camden’s infamous plan to put up a needle exchange facility within Tottenham Court Road
underground station was withdrawn after successful representation and the concerted efforts of
the Forum in 2006. This outcome alone demonstrates the key role that the Forum has to play in the
local community”
(Covent Garden Business Forum Online)
The statement is exactly what Randall speaks of when he states, “the mantle of speaking
for “the community” in devising and implementing schemes to remove the perceived threat, and
to disempower the homeless from having effective domains of self-presentation and resistance”
(Randall, 2003: 199). The rhetoric used in this statement demonstrates the type of people
permitted to the ‘community’ that the CGBF set out to promote that blatantly excludes the users
of the needle exchange. The appropriate community with rights to the space does not include
individuals that are “considered marginal to economic productivity” (Voyce, 2006:279). Through the
lack of access to individuals who simply did not and could not exist in the space during the time
of sampling, such as users of the relocated needle exchange, this thesis reveals the displacement
certain groups as a result of the current management of the space. This evaluation is presented in
response to the earlier criticism given against Miller et al.’s study that states, “on the basis of our
survey results, there is no evidence to support a thesis that shopping centres tend to create social
exclusion” (1998:88). Although the majority of informants did not directly address the exclusion
of these groups, likely due to their absence from the space, and whilst the experience of Covent
Garden from the perspective of these individuals is not explicitly accessible, this is not to say
that exclusion is not occurring. As noted in the methodology, I argue that the exclusion of certain
groups from public space should be addressed in relation to their phenomenology, however for
the purpose of this study this is discussed through the accounts from respondents in the sample
group. Peabody Estate Resident Claire’s response is evident of the uncertainties that surround
the exclusion of certain groups. When asked about the changes in the Covent Garden area, she
addressed the extent to which people experience issues of drug use as an observer.

34. 30
“There was a problem with drug users and injecting and stuff like that because of local
hostels. And that problem seems to have gone. Well that went…that was here when I first moved
here for a year or so. So they moved that…obviously that’s just been moved on and the problem
hasn’t been, you know the underlying problems haven’t been sorted”
Her response demonstrates that respondents are not naïve to external concerns, but that
they are reflexively engaged in the system and have ambivalent relationships towards these issues.
This is undoubtedly a very complex concern that has tangible repercussions on the experience of
Covent Garden, for groups that are both included or excluded from the space. The mixed response
given by Claire, who realises the wider implications of relocating or closing hostels, is emblematic
of the tensions that arise in privately managed public space; who has rights to it? Evidently certain
groups of people are refused their right to occupy public space in areas such as Covent Garden.
This occurs through the deployment of a ‘right to exclude’ by the managers of quasi-public space
(Macpherson, 1978; Blomley, 2000 cited in Mitchell & Staeheli, 2006:148). Andrew Hicks of CAPCO,
addressed ‘rough sleepers’ when asked if there were any kinds of behaviours or people that were
banned or kept out from the site.
“We get straight in there and we deal with it. Most of it is our land, so we would have absolute
control and a big burly security guard would move them”.
This demonstrates the use of CAPCO’s ‘right to exclude’ through a focus on land ownership
and control. Whilst CAPCO “don’t beat them up and turf them out” (Andy Hicks), this rhetoric
is demonstrative of the evocative and violent connotations of expulsion (Blomley, 2000:88).
Significantly, he did not present the same ambivalence or uneasiness towards exclusion rather
than solving the problem as shown by Claire. In fact, he was critical of the soup kitchen on Agar
Street that connects Covent Garden with the Strand, that is “exacerbate the problem…making it
easier to stay on the streets”. This speaks to the subjective position of respondents that influences
their decoding of certain situations. The management of these issues in shopping districts, and the
resulting deployment of the security and control, is strongly linked to the need to develop safer
spaces for consumption and to protect the exchange value of private property (Mitchell & Staeheli,
2006: 149). In regard to policy in New Zealand, Laurenson & Collins describe the “displacement
of (visible) homeless people from central city areas which are valued as sites of commercial
transaction and conspicuous consumption” (2007: 656). The control over access within commercial
spaces can be seen to safeguard particular behaviours of consumption, as particular groups are
excluded due to their inability to engage with these activities. However as explained by Doherty
et al. it can also suggested that the regulation of homelessness in public places “is couched in the
‘reasonable’ language of the wider social good, rather than vested interests or personal benefit”
(2008:292). This is not to suggest that exclusion is a positive characteristic in the management of
quasi-public spaces, rather to open up critical discussion for the potential implications of this on
the experience for other users.

35. 31
Doreen Massey proposes, “we need to ask whether our relative mobility and power over
mobility and communication entrenches the spatial imprisonment of other groups” (1994: 151).
The previous chapters uncover the relative mobility pertaining to self-identification and the ‘safe
space’ of communication facilitated through the surveillance of the space. In doing so, this also
demonstrates the spatial imprisonment of other groups through physical and ideological exclusion.
The decoding of this problematic characteristic of publicity can be understood by returning to the
relevant theorisations of public space, as described effectively by Rosalyn Deutsche.
“Distinctions and similarities are drawn, exclusions enacted, decisions made. However much the
democratic public sphere promises openness and accessibility it can never be fully inclusive…It is,
from the start, a strategy of distinction, dependent on constitutive exclusions, the attempt to place
something outside” (1998:289).
As outlined in the introductory review of literature, it can be seen that the normative
formation of the public sphere and public space argue that publicity is contested by exclusion,
privatisation and individualistic consumer culture. However, theorists that uphold the potential of
quasi-public spaces, such as privately managed shopping districts like Covent Garden, highlight
the existence of ‘publicness’ that occurs in these sites despite this. Authors that recognise the
false nostalgia promotes in idealised visions of public space allow for “more complex if not more
compassionate assessment of contemporary publicity” (Tyndall, 2010: 125). These theorisations
of tangible public space recognise the process of exclusion as being vital conditions to the
democratic public sphere. Consequently, the exclusion of certain of groups does not disprove
Covent Garden’s conception as a public space, but it highlights the problematic issues that arise
from this topic which are explored in more detail in the subsequent concluding chapter.
Ash Amin gives a definition of public space largely based on the experiential encounter
with difference. He writes, “public spaces structured for free but fair play, plural but safe flow,
and controlled variety, the mingling of strangers is guided by different resonances of situated
multiplicity, different kinds of social reflex” (2012: 71). In accordance with this, I argue that the
intermingling of social groups that might not otherwise meet is vital to democratic urban society.
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS CONT. |
ENCOUNTERS WITH DIFFERENCE

36. 32
The extensive variety users of the area evidence the extent to which diversity, conflict and the
encounter with difference is enabled in Covent Garden (Figure 8). This is also supported in the
ways that a number of participants describe the space.
“A real diverse place, which is popular with all types of people from different walks of life” (Joanie,
Visitor to St Paul’s Churchyard)
“A crazy place, with such different characters…a real mishmash of sorts” (Lydia, KPF Architects)
“It’s just got so many people…and people from everywhere. I like that it is busy. Otherwise it will be
boring” (Tourist A).
In addition to the encounter with strangers, public space can also be described as a site
to engage with people who are already familiar to us; “these are spaces where people who already
know each other meet in known corners” (Amin, 2008:9). The extensive sociability of Covent
Garden is reflected in the numerous responses across the sample groups that describe it a place to
meet with friends. It is clear that Covent Garden can be deconstructed as a space to facilitate the
‘mingling’ of strangers and the meeting of friends.
In addition to this theorisation of public space, Amin reveals the importance of processes in
place to allow for successful navigation of these encounters with difference. He highlights the ways
in which people are able to make sense of space through awareness of their role within it (Amin,
2008). Interviews and observational research revealed the complex ways that different user groups
engaged with the street performers specific to their position. For example, several of the Peabody
Estate residents explained how they try to avoid the area during its busiest times and otherwise
they would have to weave through the crowds with their heavy shopping. I propose that this
Figure 8. Visitors gather to watch Punch & Judy by the Jubilee Market Building