Authenticity is Key to Sense of Place

From the previous entry on sense of place, one thing I take away is the importance of authenticity. So how do we think about or define authenticity? Greg Lavardra in his design blog not only discusses it, but cites a TED talk by marketing consultant and author Joseph Pine on the topic of authenticity.
See: http://blog.lamidesign.com/2009/04/consumers-and-authenticity-considering.html


According to Pine, what people want more and more is to have authentic experiences. This involves not only goods and services we buy, but all the elements that contribute to the lives we lead. That is, people want to have the sense that their own lives are authentic. So what does authenticity mean? He points out that the basis for how we today think about authenticity was first clearly defined by Polonius in Shakespeare’s Hamlet when he says:

This above all: to thine own self be true,And it must follow, as the night the day,Thou canst not then be false to any man.
-William Shakespeare, Hamlet, act I, scene iii, 78-80

Pine breaks this idea of authenticity into two parts. For a thing (person, good, services, experience) to be authentic, it must first be what is says it is and it must second be true to itself. For both, if the answer is yes, then the thing is real and if not, then it is fake.

But what is the difference between these two facets of authenticity?

1. Is the thing what it says it is?
To me this means that when experienced, is this thing under consideration as advertised? So if a consumer gets what they pay for, the thing is real in this dimension.

2. Is it true to itself?
To me this means the thing under consideration is consistent with or is a manifestation of its creator’s values and mission. If so, then the thing is real in this dimension.

I do think there is a rather blurry line between these two ideas, but it does seem to be a useful way to think about authenticity.

See: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/joseph_pine_on_what_consumers_want.html

With two possible answers (real/fake) to two questions (Is something what it says it is? Is it true to itself?, we get a 2 by 2 matrix of possibilities.



This is not to say that any one of the four quadrants is superior to any other in any metaphysical way, but Pine argues that it is becoming increasingly important for business to come across as offering authentic experiences because that is what their customers want. He says that customers prefer Real/Real to Real/Fake or Fake/Real and all three are preferred to Fake/Fake. I’d rather leave it to psychologists and sociologists to figure out why, but I cannot help but think that new technologies that allow us the ability to fake almost anything at very low cost might be part of the issue.

Before getting to the authenticity of cities and neighborhoods, I’d like to explain this matrix with a few examples from a couple of unrelated areas.

First, let’s think about bottled water. There are lots of brands of bottled water that advertise themselves as offering high quality water. When you buy them that is exactly what you get. They are what they say they are, and in that sense are Real. However, it has recently come out that Dasani put out by the Coca-Cola company is just high quality filtered tap water. This is the same company that once used the tag line “It’s the real thing” to promote Coke’s authenticity. I would have to say using the initials PWS instead of the longer “public water source” on bottles of Dasani is a sign that Coke is not being true to itself. I’d have to call Dasani a Real/Fake.

The automobile industry offers some great examples as well. BMW projects itself as a producer of high quality, high performance automobiles built with state of the art technology and design. As that is what they sell, they are what they say they are. If you go to the BMW factory, you will find that everything about the company is geared towards continuing to produce this type of automobile. The BMW experience is Real/Real.

Let’s contrast this with the Cadillac brand during the 1950-2000 time period. During the 1950s, Cadillac billed itself as producing the largest, most comfortable, and best luxury cars in the world. The cars were built to some of the highest standards of the day. They were what they said they were. And in the 1950s the company was fully intending to maintain that position. They were real/real.

By the late 1970s though, they were not trying to compete with BMW, but they were still producing the best large luxury cars in the US. However, there were signs that Cadillac was not being true to itself. To cut costs, GM was finding ways to share parts with other brands in the company. Although they sold products that were as billed, the company was no longer being true to itself; they were becoming real/fake.

Then they offered the Cimarron model in 1981-1982. In fact, the Cadillac Cimarron was supposedly designed to compete with the BMW 320 as a performance car. But the Cimarron was seriously lacking in performance and, with a fake convertible top as an option, no matter what the advertising said, the Cimarron did not exhibit cutting edge design. Was the Cimarron experience what Cadillac said it was? Heck no, it was fake. Was Cadillac being true to itself? No. Cadillac had been known for large comfortable luxury cars. This was certainly not one of those. The Cimarron experience was fake/fake and the car was a complete failure.

Check out the Lamidesign blog for some great examples of the real/fake matrix with respect to architecture.

So how does any of this apply to neighborhoods or towns?

Real/Real
Let’s start with small town America. Rural towns are what they say they are. Most everyone that works in town lives there too, went to school there and most people know each other’s names. The pace is slower and high school sports, fishing and the weather are big topics of conversation. You can get just about anywhere within a 10 minute walk and the best meal and conversation in town is at the local deli/Italian/German restaurant. And at this point, most of these small towns are just trying to stay afloat and have no choice but to be true to themselves. Almost every small town I have visited has been Real/Real.

Now let’s turn to the city. Residential city neighborhoods built in the 1900-1940 time period are what they say they are and are true to themselves. Much like small rural towns, they were built according to market forces of the time to meet the needs of their inhabitants without pretension or attempt to be anything other than what they were. Residential land use is mixed in with retail, churches and schools because walking was still an important means of transportation. These neighborhoods are Real/Real as well.

Fake/Fake
I’d like to contrast these with the new outer ring suburbs with their more isolated enclaves or loops and cul-du-saqs. The themes often seem to fall into one of a small set of categories. First, there is the Old World Chateaux theme where each house is presented to be the country estate of a member of the landed class from either England, France or Italy. Are these neighborhoods what they say they are? No. This is not Europe, this is not the 19th century and these houses are not on 50 acres. Are these neighborhoods true to themselves? Not really as I am sure few of the homeowners are European aristocracy. It would have to be classified as fake/fake. The second prevalent theme is similar, but based on 19th century American country estate architecture. All the fake/fake characteristics equally well apply here.

Taking a different tack, a third popular option is the small town America motif with wood frame farmhouse as the architectural cue. But has the developer created a small town on the edge of suburbia? Not really. The non-grid layout and entirely residential use of land means the development is not what it says it is. Is it true to itself? Again, no. Most people are from elsewhere, it is impossible to walk anywhere of interest, the dining and shopping experiences are varied and plentiful, the local high school might have 4000 students. And it is a good bet that few of the areas cops, teachers, services workers, etc. live in the neighborhood. Is the neighborhood was it says it is? No. Are these neighborhoods true to themselves? No. They are Fake/Fake.


Fake/Real
For an example of Fake/Real, I use an example from the Lamidesign blog again. Colonial Williamsburg is a mixture of pre-1776 buildings and newer buildings build to colonial specifications with colonial technology. As the city is not what it says it is, a preserved colonial village, it is a fake. However, as it is not composed of buildings made with 21st century building technology with a veneer of old details applied to them, but instead buildings true to colonial architecture in every way except the time of construction, the area is true to itself. It is a Fake/Real on the matrix.

Real/Fake
How about the ex-warehouse district turned artists studios neighborhood? Clearly the neighborhood says light industrial which does not match the reality. On the other hand, I would say they are true to themselves as they are indeed often barely livable warehouses finding a second life as something else. At this point, I would have to call the neighborhood Fake/Real. Of course, once a developer builds a new loft building designed to look like an old warehouse, we have crossed into the Fake/Fake area.

And this leads me to the New Urbanist concept. New Urbanists operate under the assumption that the economic constraints that created the walkable, mixed-use towns and city neighborhoods of the pre-war era also created the most livable and sustainable type of development. So what does it mean to recreate that after the automobile rendered those constraints obsolete? New Urbanist planning generally takes as a model streetcar suburb or small town. Taking architectural cues from those typologies, they create neighborhoods that look like they were built 90 years ago with a grid system of streets, mixed use of land -- houses, churches, schools, public buildings, retail all within walking distance of each other. Are these New Urbanist developments what they say they are (dense, walkable, mixed use)? Yes. To that extent they are real. Are they as old as the architecture would suggest? No, but let’s put that aside for a minute. Are they true to themselves? Not really. First off, they were not really built before WWII, but also, to make the system work, the individual looking shops are all owned and operated by one management company. While the retail area may look like a series of small mom-and-pop shops, that is not really the case. To this extent, these developments are fake. New Urbanism is largely Real/Fake on the authenticity matrix.

Midopolis: Real/Real
So now to the big question: What about Midopolis? Most of the 1950-1970 vintage suburbs I have visited have a lot in common. First off, the layout is not about creating detached exclusive enclaves, but it does acknowledge the freedom created by the automobile. These suburbs were not designed to look like small towns or clusters of European estates, but to look like suburbia. Clearly, these were residential neighborhoods oriented towards the automobile as the dominant mode of transportation and the idea that people would live here, but work in the central city. Retail and restaurants were built in strip malls designed to look like strip malls. Ok, I know strip malls are everyone’s least favorite archetype, but they are really no different from the new outer-ring suburban strip malls designed to look like little villages (small town or European, take your pick). Architecturally, the houses of this era are simple and unpretentious and their Frank Lloyd Wright inspired open plan layouts are the most notable departure from what came before. These are houses suited to the new post-war lifestyle with two living areas and a kitchen more tied to the living area than ever before.

At the end of the day, most inner-ring suburbs I have visited are exactly what they appear to be. And that makes them Real in that dimension. Are these inner-ring suburbs true to themselves? Conceptually, these first post-war suburbs were places where city residents aspired to go to leave the noise, pollution and density of the city and that is as true now as ever before. So long as they stay true to that vision, they will be true to themselves. These cities are what they say they are and they are true to themselves. This is as Real/Real as it gets.

So, in my opinion, inner ring suburbs have a great deal of authenticity potential, but is that the last word? I don’t think so. To further complicate things, when it comes to neighborhoods and cities, it is impossible to talk about authenticity without discussing the social dimension. And at the same time, this social dimension is critical to building a sense of place. Do inner-ring suburbs have a sense of place? Do they have or can they create an emotional connection with residents? Are they or can they become places that people care about? And how does the social component tie into the discussion?

If Mr. Pine tells us that having authentic experiences is becoming increasingly important in the marketplace, what can we make of the popularity of suburbs that are more Fake/Fake than anything else? These developments are the result of market forces, so it is hard to argue that people do not want this or are oblivious. Authenticity and design quality seems to matter elsewhere in the marketplace. After all, nobody wants a Mercedes that looks like a 1948 Plymouth. Nobody wants a HD LCD TV that looks like a 1972 Zenith. However, when it comes to housing, people openly prefer an architectural style that architects generally believe are largely comprised of poorly organized pastiche of historical details placed in settings inconsistent with the architecture. As for neighborhood design, the market says that families prefer isolated enclaves of residential land use to more interconnected neighborhoods. The question is not whether these developments have value, they clearly do, but whether their lack of authenticity will eventually matter and be their downfall. If and when this happens, will Midopolis be able to capitalize on the opportunity?

I have a suspicion that the social component is what is largely driving demand for the new suburbs. It may well be that real and authentic places have a population that that ethnically and economically reflects the region. But it may also well be that for a lot of Americans, there is a strong preference to live in a place that is much more homogeneous than the larger area and people are willing to overlook such inauthenticity if it means having higher status neighbors, better schools, lower crime, etc. It may well be that Midopolis must focus on attracting people who put authenticity above exclusivity.