Mall blurred lines between profit and public space

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 26/07/2019 (1981 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

If it be time for the obituary of Portage Place, let it be remembered this mall served well the community in which it was planted.

There will be people who say the mall failed its initial goal of rescuing the core of Winnipeg by attracting people from the suburbs to go downtown for high-end retail shopping. There’s truth in that evaluation.

Instead, the mall evolved into something better. The mall in the core became a hub for people in the core.

This sanctuary was much valued by Indigenous people who gather downtown, by new immigrants who rent cheap accommodation in the blocks north of the mall, by people working downtown, by bored teenagers who go downtown looking for adventure, by pushers of illegal drugs, by homeless people who need protection from harsh weather and by anyone who needed a public washroom in a downtown where this essential amenity is scarce.

It’s been a week since city council approved a deal to sell the mall to Toronto firm Starlight Investments, which hasn’t fully detailed its plans but has suggested a mixed-use development that includes student housing. The sale prompted much concern about losing an important “public space,” and some said downtown Winnipeg would miss its “town square.”

But describing any mall as “public space” is inaccurate. Malls are private spaces, not public. They’re owned and managed by private companies for the pursuit of profit.

It’s understandable some shoppers believe they are in public places because malls are tricky that way. They’re designed to create the illusion of old-fashioned marketplaces where people stroll past business storefronts in weather that’s always ideal, the pretense of outdoors enhanced by benches, indoor trees, fountains, a big clock and skylights that allow sunlight.

The illusion falls apart, though, when malls are compared with legitimate public places. Around the private space of Portage Place mall, for example, public places include the streets, sidewalks, Air Canada Window Park and Central Park.

In authentic public places, people aren’t judged on their ability to spend money. Also, they can wear what they want, hang out as long as they want, engage freely in town square-style debates and lobby strangers for important causes, such as the upcoming elections.

Malls have rules designed for one purpose: to construct optimum conditions for profit by the businesses that lease mall space. Rules at Portage Place, which can be viewed on its website, prohibit “unauthorized loitering,” “extended food court use” and “extended stay in the mall with no intent to purchase.” Also prohibited are “distributing unauthorized material,” “objectionable language” and the catch-all phrase “general mischief.”

Malls don’t want visitors who appear intimidating or rough around the edges because such people might discourage the profitable patronage of people who have money to spend. That’s what happened at Portage Place.

If this mall were able to enforce its rules, perhaps it would have accomplished its inaugural vision of being a high-end retail destination. Instead, the exodus of businesses included McNally Robinson, Holt Renfrew Last Call, Giselle’s salon, Barnes & Castle, Carlton Cards, Smart Set, the Imax Theatre and Globe Cinema.

The retail-outlet owners usually said they left because the mall didn’t attract the right type of guests, by which they meant people who spend lots of money. They commonly said the mall attracted the wrong type of guests, by which they meant people whose coarse demeanour and dishevelled appearance scared away shoppers who prefer the polite company found in malls in safe suburbs.

So, if malls are private and the owners can do what they want in their buildings, why didn’t Portage Place management enforce their strict rules and oust people who repelled well-heeled and well-monied patrons?

Therein lies the tension for a corporation that respects the community in which it is located. It’s bad for public relations to evict people into a -20 C cold because they linger too long over a cup of coffee. Ejecting refugees and Indigenous people draws cries of racism.

A telling example was Sayisi Dene elder Joseph Meconse, who was a fixture in the food court, which he joked was “his office.” In February 2016, when mall security evicted him for “loitering,” more than 100 people protested with a round dance and drum ceremony in the food court. The mall apologized and hired an Indigenous security company.

It seems like the 32-year experiment that is Portage Place could be summed up by a sign that was painted on the rooftop of a business at the foot of the Slaw Rebchuk Bridge before the sign was painted over in 2012. The sign said “People Before Profit.”

Of course, this sign didn’t express the mandate of the Portage Place owners and managers. They’re not social workers, they’re business executives. Their personal livelihood depends on earning profits.

The reason these executives couldn’t reverse the sentiment of the sign, and put profit before people, was that people wouldn’t let them. The people who live downtown wouldn’t be snubbed by a mall that moved into their turf, and they wouldn’t be pushed out by esoteric arguments about whether a mall is private or public space.

The mall initially intended to change downtown. Instead, downtown changed the mall.

carl.degurse@freepress.mb.ca

Carl DeGurse is a member of the Free Press editorial board.