This past July, the Apple Piazza Liberty opened in Milan. Above is a photo from the opening via Apple. There’s a band playing in the middle of the piazza.
The store is central to Apple’s vision of transforming its retail locations into “town squares.” And in this case, the store is quite literally an Italian piazza.
There’s a lot that is interesting about this store and this strategic move, as well as what this could signal about the future retail. (Curbed discusses that here.)
The urbanists who read this blog will likely lament the privatization of public space. Because at the end of the day, it is a gray area. Can I hang out an Apple Town Square all day and just read a book?
But at the same time, this is not necessarily a new idea. From the very beginning, the modern shopping mall was intended to be a new kind of town square. Or at least that’s how Victor Gruen saw it.
This past July, the Apple Piazza Liberty opened in Milan. Above is a photo from the opening via Apple. There’s a band playing in the middle of the piazza.
The store is central to Apple’s vision of transforming its retail locations into “town squares.” And in this case, the store is quite literally an Italian piazza.
There’s a lot that is interesting about this store and this strategic move, as well as what this could signal about the future retail. (Curbed discusses that here.)
The urbanists who read this blog will likely lament the privatization of public space. Because at the end of the day, it is a gray area. Can I hang out an Apple Town Square all day and just read a book?
But at the same time, this is not necessarily a new idea. From the very beginning, the modern shopping mall was intended to be a new kind of town square. Or at least that’s how Victor Gruen saw it.
However, what is perhaps new is this appropriation of public spaces for the purposes of what is arguably a new kind of retailing experience – one that almost feels paradoxical.
In the case of Apple Piazza Liberty, as well as in some of its other town squares, the actual retailing space is mostly hidden. Here it is underground. (How much to rent the basement?)
And yet, Apple’s presence feels monumental and almost sublime. Glass box, waterfall, and subtle Apple logo sitting in the middle of a beautiful Milanese piazza.
Earlier this week, Apple let us know that it is now calling its stores “town squares.” Not surprisingly, this elicited more than a few reactions. The Verge called it a “pretentious farce.” Others called it arrogant. Who is Apple to think that its stores could ever come close to a real town square?
It also raised important questions around the actual “publicness” of the spaces within our cities. Traditionally, town squares have indeed been public. But our cities are now also filled with many privately owned public spaces (POPS). Most of the time you don’t know the difference. Though sometimes you do.
The reality is that there is a longstanding tradition of private retail-oriented spaces trying to simulate the experience of a town square, and certainly of a gathering space. The creator of the modern mall, Victor Gruen, always thought of his “garden courts” as a kind of substitute for traditional urban spaces. This was him trying to nobly urbanize the suburbs.
What is perhaps unique about Apple’s town square nomenclature is that – beyond simply wanting to be a Starbucks-esque “third place” – they seem to be telling us that they want to usurp the public nucleus away from the proverbial “garden court” and place it in their individual stores.
And the reactions we have seen are because that feels far fetched.
However this plays out, this is a very clear acknowledgement by Apple that in today’s world being a store simply isn’t enough. That’s no longer interesting. Consumers have far easier options at their disposable. You need to give us more of a reason to visit you in your store or, dare I say, your town square.
However, what is perhaps new is this appropriation of public spaces for the purposes of what is arguably a new kind of retailing experience – one that almost feels paradoxical.
In the case of Apple Piazza Liberty, as well as in some of its other town squares, the actual retailing space is mostly hidden. Here it is underground. (How much to rent the basement?)
And yet, Apple’s presence feels monumental and almost sublime. Glass box, waterfall, and subtle Apple logo sitting in the middle of a beautiful Milanese piazza.
Earlier this week, Apple let us know that it is now calling its stores “town squares.” Not surprisingly, this elicited more than a few reactions. The Verge called it a “pretentious farce.” Others called it arrogant. Who is Apple to think that its stores could ever come close to a real town square?
It also raised important questions around the actual “publicness” of the spaces within our cities. Traditionally, town squares have indeed been public. But our cities are now also filled with many privately owned public spaces (POPS). Most of the time you don’t know the difference. Though sometimes you do.
The reality is that there is a longstanding tradition of private retail-oriented spaces trying to simulate the experience of a town square, and certainly of a gathering space. The creator of the modern mall, Victor Gruen, always thought of his “garden courts” as a kind of substitute for traditional urban spaces. This was him trying to nobly urbanize the suburbs.
What is perhaps unique about Apple’s town square nomenclature is that – beyond simply wanting to be a Starbucks-esque “third place” – they seem to be telling us that they want to usurp the public nucleus away from the proverbial “garden court” and place it in their individual stores.
And the reactions we have seen are because that feels far fetched.
However this plays out, this is a very clear acknowledgement by Apple that in today’s world being a store simply isn’t enough. That’s no longer interesting. Consumers have far easier options at their disposable. You need to give us more of a reason to visit you in your store or, dare I say, your town square.
The Gehl Institute has just launched (in beta) something called the Public Life Data Protocol. It was developed by the Institute, as well as by Gehl (the practice), the Municipality of Copenhagen, the City of San Francisco, and Seattle’s Department of Transportation.
The goal of the protocol is to improve the way in which we collect, share, and compare public space information. It is about improving public life in public spaces.
To do this, they have proposed a series of metrics that measure everything from “posture within the space” to “objects brought into the space.” They also propose spatial metrics that help to analyze public life in relation to its physical context.
Gehl is a real leader in this space. I commend them on opening up their methodology and working to create “a common language for people data.” Great data will only help us to build more human-centered cities.
To download a full PDF of the protocol, click here.
The Gehl Institute has just launched (in beta) something called the Public Life Data Protocol. It was developed by the Institute, as well as by Gehl (the practice), the Municipality of Copenhagen, the City of San Francisco, and Seattle’s Department of Transportation.
The goal of the protocol is to improve the way in which we collect, share, and compare public space information. It is about improving public life in public spaces.
To do this, they have proposed a series of metrics that measure everything from “posture within the space” to “objects brought into the space.” They also propose spatial metrics that help to analyze public life in relation to its physical context.
Gehl is a real leader in this space. I commend them on opening up their methodology and working to create “a common language for people data.” Great data will only help us to build more human-centered cities.
To download a full PDF of the protocol, click here.
