Modern Transformation of Spatial Typology of Shopping Centers

A public shopping center is interpreted in the context of this study as a shopping center with the focus on mixed-use based on public functions, which is characterized by greater integration of its spaces into the life of its community. Its principal element is the recreational communication space (RCS) that defines and embodies these specifics. Said space unites separate functions into a single system with the help of pedestrian movement organized and shaped through its spatial and atmospheric characteristics in a certain way that helps in the realization of the specific center’s concept.

Practically, it can be argued that any sufficiently large multifunctional complex would also become a public center. Any connection of a number of functions requires a medium between them, both in spatial and in temporal sense. Public functions take this part in the cities, as they can both manifest spontaneously in spaces not fully suited to them [18], and be introduced intentionally, with understanding of their role in urban life. In the latter case, it is logical that the public functions of connecting nature would receive a corresponding architectural spatial realization – a recreational communication space. The driving role of a pedestrian movement and visitors’ interest, resembling that of a blood inside blood vessels (RCS) of the architectural complex, may impact the logic and viability of composition of its constituent parts. It is especially apparent in the structure of commercial complexes, where lack of pedestrian movement reaching some parts would result in lower customer attention to shops situated therein, potentially leading to their decline. Interpreting a complex multi-functional architectural formation as a system consisting of its parts in certain interrelations, we can consider RCS as its structure-forming element due to its role in enabling and defining the mode of these interrelations.

Thus, RCS (such as lobbies, atriums, malls) can be understood as a specialized element of public multifunctional complexes in general, connective medium of complex structures. This definition encompasses more than just communications. The configuration and logic of spatial solution of RCS allow it to serve as a driving vessel of multifunctionality that defines character, specifics and forms that it can assume corresponding to the conceptual idea of the architectural complex. No less important is the driving matter of multifunctionality – main functions that bring people to the complex. It may be commerce, work, habitation, study, public and cultural activities, transportation and many others. Still, the role that RCS plays for multifunctional public centers is an important question, not always distinctly realized, despite the fact that it may be considered as a structure-forming element of a complex multifunctional formation and a possible indicator of its specific type.

In the context of characteristic visual features indicating the peculiarities of a building’s type, another interesting question to consider would be the external realization of multifunctionality and flexibility of use in the architectural form of a polyfunctional hybrid structure. In this case, articulation of modularity of its build or accentuation of the more stable parts of its structure may serve as possible universally readable ways of its expression. In particular, this can be achieved through demonstrating and emphasizing its RCS as a carrier of a connecting public function, as it may be understood as a relatively stable element of polyfunctional structure in its integrating quality.

Public shopping centers are important in the general context of the development of polyfunctional architectural formations, as their evolution has formed one of the most known and successful formats of recreational communication space, – the mall, specific traits and peculiarities of which were later actively introduced to spatial organization of architectural buildings and complexes of other types. The development of public shopping centers in the course of 20^th century has visibly demonstrated the main problems that multifunctional complexes face in general – the difficulties in defining priorities and hierarchy of their multi-aspect organization, as well as the lack of attention to socio-cultural aspect of their subsequent existence. Of particular importance is the fact that the evolution of recreational communication spaces in public shopping centers continues, presenting new forms of their structural realization. These forms along with the lessons and specific techniques of organization of corresponding spaces can be implemented to the hybrid buildings of wider polyfunctional typology as well. However, the origins of RCS remain important, as the reasons for this element’s emergence and the problems present throughout its evolution define the spatial forms included in the modern typology of shopping centers and the direction of their further development.

E. Zeidler [2] stated that there is no sense in distinguishing separate multifunctional formations before the period of industrial revolution. They appeared and existed as constituent parts of their cities. Understood as such, they were built and used by our civilization for centuries.

At the same time, a retrospective analysis of the development of commercial spaces throughout their history may provide an additional perspective to this point of view. In studying the consequent evolution of architectural objects that eventually led to the formation of modern public shopping centers, it is important to note the dual nature of the development of these predecessor structures. Initial traits may be observed both in the development of separate commercial buildings and in the evolution of larger public commercial urban formations. It is particularly apparent when we consider the genesis of recreational communication spaces, as this element initially had urban origins [1, 4].

An Ancient Greek agora that emerged as a space for public and religious gatherings in front of temples, can serve as an example of a public commercial space shared with urban fabric without significant modifications, apart from those caused by its central location in the logic of the city’s use by its residents. An agora, like the one in Athens or Miletes, was fully situated inside the system of public spaces of the city, playing the part of its important hub element. Adjacent galleries, stoas, served as multifunctional semi-enclosed spaces, often hosting commercial functions alongside civic gatherings, judicial hearings and other activities [19].

Market squares and shopping streets are the most characteristic types of urban commercial formations that highlight the role of connective pedestrian public communication space as it brings together separate commercial establishments. Its spatial morphology may traditionally possess a hub, compact quality (in a square) or a transitive, elongated one (in a street). An active movement inside such a space does not only unite smaller commercial establishments into a single systemic entity, but also promote the emergence of an attractive environment for residents’ social life. Market squares and streets existed as organic elements of urban fabric, the pedestrian activity inherent to them was a natural part of the larger city’s pedestrian structure, their adjacent public and recreation functions being an important constituent of the urban life (Fig. 1). Market quarters or districts included both hubs and transitive, connective parts united into a system with complex organization. As such, they served as spatially and functionally denser fragments of urban fabric in the larger system of a city. Market quarter usually combined enclosed structures, covered spaces and open streets; they housed many different functions aside from just commerce and traditionally served as a space for communication and other kinds of social activities (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

Spatial structure of market squares, streets and districts. Top illustration – Rows in Bridge Street, Chester, UK, art by P. Mazell, Public domain [16]; bottom illustration – Grand Bazaar in Instabul, Turkey, photo by Gryffindor, Public domain [16]

Starting from the Ancient Roman period of the development of commercial objects, the practice of structural separation of functionally homogenous spaces gained prominence. Covered commercial structures and even large specialized complexes, like Trajan Market, serve as examples of this trend. Purposefully constructed covered trade premises of Late Medieval Europe that came to be known as Cloth Halls (like Sukiennice in Wroclaw or Cloth-Hall in Ypres), were distinguished from the urban fabric as specialized nodes of commercial activity with significantly wider possibilities of controlling the conditions under which said activity occur.

The covering of a shopping area was also a natural step in the countries with hotter climate, which is the reason of covered bazaars gaining prominence in the cities of Levantes and Middle East, as well as North Africa. Grand Bazaar in Istanbul enclosed a number of intersecting commercial passages, structurally similar to streets, under its roof, forming a dedicated spatially dense commercial district in the urban fabric. The dome of Toqi Sarrofon in Bukhara protected the intersection of streets below it from heat, providing favorable conditions for the commercial activity and comfortable being of people inside, visitors of its combined moneylender shops, mosque and adjacent Sarrofon baths. The organized commercial formations of this kind can be considered antecedents for the further intersection of qualities aimed at comfort and urban connectivity in an architectural structure (Fig. 2).

Figure 2.

Spatial structure of covered commercial structures and 19th century department stores. Top illustration – Trajan Market in Rome, Italy, photo by Szilas, Public domain [16]; bottom illustration – “Au Bon Marche” in Paris, France, photo by anonymous author, Public domain [16]

In 19^th century the first department stores appeared as enclosed shops of immense area. Their vast, protected, comfortable interior environment served almost exclusively their commercial function. An example of a department store of this kind can be seen in “Au Bon Marche” in Paris, built in 1877. The movement of visitors inside a department store was primarily functional and probably was not considered in urban scale categories. This may be inferred from the fact that its connective pedestrian space did not receive any specific structural prominence by itself aside from its role as a lobby of commercial building (although often a spatially developed one) (Fig. 2).

As we can observe, the basic functional organization of commercial structures is primarily oriented towards providing protection and accessibility of commercial function, and these qualities evolved in the course of their historical development. Meanwhile, commercial spaces in a wider sense were part of an urban fabric from the beginning, and when considered in ensemble with adjacent functions relate to urban planning categories. Market squares, streets and districts evolved as well, their spaces becoming more intensive by the number of connections and uses, while also integrating comfortable qualities on a larger scale. It was the development of the future connective vessel of public shopping centers, but exteriorized, occurring outside – consequent crystallization of recreational communication space from the urban environment. It is in the course of 19^th century that these two directions of development fully merged in the structure of a shopping arcade.

A shopping arcade is a holistically designed architectural object with a comfortable, highly organized environment; its interior pedestrian space includes connections on the urban planning level, integrating into the adjacent urban spaces. Here, the essentially urbanistic space of earlier proto-RCS was considered and fully realized as a part of architectural structure.

An example of such commercial space may be observed in the Paschenko-Tryapkin Arcade in Kharkiv (built in 1875; ruined during World War II and subsequently demolished). The pedestrian public recreational communication space of an arcade in the city is not as borrowed from the urban fabric, as it is a planned element that is built into the existing system of pedestrian movement, intentionally filling its gaps; as such, it served as a socially activating, spatially rich fragment in the continuity of urban spaces. While the connective pedestrian space in department stores turned into purely interior element with predominantly commercial function, its variant formed in arcades played the main structure-forming role in a holistically designed complex. In this way, it renewed the public meaning of its earlier urban iterations, this time in the covered structure. It is then we can speak about the emergence of the first fully realized RCS, similar to those used in modern shopping centers as their main structure-forming element, most known presently as a “mall” (Fig. 3).

Figure 3.

Spatial structure of 19th century shopping arcades. Illustration – Paschenko-Tryapkin (Old) Arcade in Kharkiv, Ukraine, postcard [17]

Despite the promising nature of this approach in retrospective, the predominance of functionalist views in architectural thought of the first part of 20^th century resulted in preference being given to the more organized and controllable realization of separate commercial function in the department stores. At the same time, another, more complex type of organization of commercial spaces gradually took shape that included department stores as part of its structure – a public shopping center, also known as a shopping mall.

The first groupings of stores that actively used the new possibilities of automobile transport for their reach were located in suburban areas and on the outskirts of US cities, where the processes of desurbanization were gaining strength. On the one hand, such a new beginning made it possible to deconstruct and reconstruct the logic of the multifunctional space from scratch, based on the immediate challenges of the present. On the other hand, from the very start, automobile shopping centers assumed the role of public and recreational centers for the residents of the suburbs, which were distanced from the old city centers, but felt the need for their own, similar urban spaces.

Thus, the combination of various functions other than commerce became an important part of the development of suburban shopping centers from the very beginning. Accordingly, it led to the emergence of a relevant new form of connecting space. Its initial implementation was a morphological necessity – pedestrian traffic between a group of spatially separated functions required a distinct and convenient place for its passage. Presumably, such a space appeared as a path from the parking lot to a large department store, around which additional stores, attracted by the favorable location, were grouped. In accordance with the aspirations of the residents of suburbs to have their own “city center”, this pedestrian space received advanced landscaping and began to be designed like an urban space. Additional public functions opened onto it, while its parts were used for social activities, recreation and public events.

RCS acted as an important constituent of a suburban shopping center by organizing pedestrian movement inside and ensuring the accessibility of the rest of the spatial components of its functional program – initially. However, with the active development of this new promising type and widening of the array of uses that it encompasses, RCS gained new traits aimed at realizing particular qualities connected to the location and general concept of different complexes. In light of that, architectural spatial qualities of RCS can be considered as an indicator of different types of public shopping centers, while its organization at the design stage defines the basic logic of connection and use of different parts of the complex. Active changes to this element, meanwhile, can indicate the transformation of spatial typology of shopping centers, emergence of new qualities or the search for new types of these structures. Let us consider these differences and peculiarities in the organization of RCS on a number of modern cases.

When considering the modern typology of public shopping center and its transformation, it is useful to employ the classification describing spatial organization differences of their RCS as a base. A number of articles is dedicated to the classification of shopping centers in their modern interpretation and elaborates on the examples of specific types. Among them, F. Rao studied the spatial morphology transformation of shopping centers as it stems from three retail types of main street, power center and suburban mall, forming synergies between them, while lifestyle center is mentioned as the fourth spatial alternative [20]. L. Dolega with co-authors proposed a flexible multi-factor classification of shopping spaces based on spatial composition, size and function, as well as product diversity and economic health [21]; of these factors, the first two clearly relate to architectural spatial design of commercial complexes. D. Herman in his essay in “The Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping / Harvard Design School Project on the City 2” distinguished two main spatial types of shopping malls as a “dumbbell” and a “cluster” type, noting that most complexes combine the qualities of both [22]. S. Deb proposed four main types of shopping centers by their morphology, these being “cartesian” (grid-based), “dumbbell” (linear axial), “tree” (branching axial) and a mixed type [23]. Meanwhile, O. Berezko distinguished the recreational communication space (denoted in the study as “public space”) into linear, court and mixed type by their configuration [24]. Previous work by present author considered various classification methods of shopping center typology; it was then proposed to update the classification discussed by B. Maitland for further use [25], as it is suitable for highlighting the underlying logic of spatial organization of particular types.

First significant examples of shopping centers had formed on suburban territories, which became reflected in their structure. They are primarily characterized by their enclosed, introverted organization, with limited impact of external connections, as embodied in the spatial confuguration of their RCS. Described qualities serve as a base for distinction of an introverted shopping center type [25]. The shopping is a primary driver of multifunctionality for it, while the mixed use and entertainment primarily serve to improve its efficiency in the functional logic of the complex by ensuring the work of enclosed system of movement inside, reinforcing and accentuating its parts as needed. RCS of such a complex is often designed with the goal of creating and strengthening the contrast between indoor and outdoor environment through its intensity of use and peculiarity of detailing (Fig. 4). Interesting to note is that special attention in visitors’ reviews on this type is given to additional ways of energizing activity inside, like social functions, active recreation, entertainment etc [26]. It may reflect the conceptual need for the formation of a full-scale separate hub of public life in the interior spaces of introverted shopping centers, initially intended to replace traditional urban spaces for suburbs. Examples of the type may be observed in “Mall of America” in Bloomington, USA or “Karavan” and “Daffi” shopping centers in Kharkiv, Ukraine.

Figure 4.

Spatial structure of an introverted shopping center. Illustration – “Mall of America” in Bloomington, USA, photo by Thomson200, Public domain [16]

Eventually, the active construction of public shopping centers in cities (as opposed to the suburban situation of their genesis) has led to the modification of their architectural spatial organization towards adaptation to urban conditions, therefore crystallizing a new type. An integrated shopping center (similar in structure to a shopping arcade, as remarked by B. Maitland [1]) connects existing public spaces in its immediate surroundings, supporting and enriching the structure of the resulting complex system of urban fabric due to its crucial placement and orientation of RCS towards external connections. The size of an integrated shopping center may be large; however, due to its different logic of use, it also serves as a supporting element in the larger system of an architectural mega-structure, urban district or a city as a whole. In these cases, reviews by visitors primarily highlight the specific qualities of a public shopping center through which it can be useful in supporting a larger system – most often, its comfort, convenience, providing communications and additional services lacking in the urban area around it. RCS of such a complex is usually of a transitive, integrated character; more open, it has a larger number of outside connections and does not necessarily aim to create a visual contrast with its surroundings. It serves not as an end destination of a path, but its organized conduit in a complex system of urban life and in this quality becomes an integrating tool for its design (Fig. 5). An example of an earlier integrated shopping center of larger size may be seen in “Toronto Eaton Centre” in Canada, modern ones can be observed in “Cabot Circus” in Bristol, UK or “Liverpool One” in Liverpool, UK, while “Ave Plaza” in Kharkiv, Ukraine can serve as a smaller example of the type.

Figure 5.

Spatial structure of an integrated shopping center. Illustration – “Cabot Circus” in Bristol, UK, photo by Jongleur100, Public domain [16]

Shopping centers of the thematic type emerged in 1960–1970s; however, they warrant additional attention in connection with the crisis of traditional approaches and solutions of shopping complexes in 2000–2010s. Under thematic shopping centers, lifestyle centers, festival malls, outlet villages, retail parks and many other subtypes of related spatial organization may be grouped. Such a type of organization of multifunctional public commercial formations is characterized by an articulated attention to architectural and spatial detailing, as well as to aesthetic and semantic aspect of the resulting spaces in general. This observation is further reinforced by visitors’ reviews on the buildings of the type that universally favor the aesthetic qualities of a complex, while maintaining a high interest in energization of activities inside, but exhibit lower attention to qualities connected to basic convenience when compared to the introverted and integrated shopping centers [26]. The spatial logic of RCS of a thematic shopping center is drawing attention to visually expressive spaces and maintaining activity inside with the use of additional non-commercial functions, often including cultural and educational activities along with the more common socializing, recreation and active entertainment. This accentuation of public and cultural functions, as well as an increased attention to architectural spatial qualities of environment make thematic shopping center a promising type in the context of the present shift of perspective on the shopping center design. It also makes its logic of connecting multiple functions into a singular complex via semantically charged RCS a potentially useful tool for designing polyfunctional hybrid formations of a wider type.

Based on a structured approach to human perception of urban environment (like the one presented by K. Lynch [27] or discussed in connection to commercial centers by Z. Tan [28]) and utilizing characteristic archetypal elements, such a tool can help construct a hierarchic and meaningful space both for easier navigation and for facilitating its realization as an integral part of urban life. Thus, it can be argued that the architectural composition of thematic type is primarily based on semantic spatial modeling of a quasi-urban network of spaces, creating a “mallscape” of sorts (Fig. 6). “Ghirardelli Square” in San-Francisco, USA may serve as an earlier example of a thematic shopping center, location- and context-specific in its commercial specialization (trading in chocolate due to it being based on the old buildings of confectionery factory), while “Coal Drops Yard” in London, UK is a smaller case, basing its expressiveness on the architectural memory of the place. “Nikolskyi” in Kharkiv, Ukraine presents a complicated case, as besides having a strong thematic component to its appeal, its spatial structure is dominated by functional qualities of an introverted type, which may not be the best solution for its prominent location in the city’s historical center.

Figure 6.

Spatial structure of a thematic shopping center. Illustration – “Coal Drops Yard” in London, UK, photo by Andy Scott, Public domain [16]

It can be observed that the history of development of larger urban public commercial formations is reflected in the spatial variety of modern public shopping centers (Fig. 7). Looking back at the antecedents of shopping malls, two main lines of their influence on the modern transformation of spatial typology of these architectural formations can be discerned – functional and urbanistic. The development of interior commercial spaces led to the emphasizing of qualities aimed at creating a comfortable environment for commercial and associated activities – functional control of pedestrian movement and environmental conditions that is fully realized in introverted spatial schemes. Meanwhile, the legacy of urban influences on the spatial structure of shopping centers can be further separated into them being suited to work as part of a larger system (emphasizing situational conditionality of their solutions) and the conscious semantic crafting of an urban or quasi-urban narrative in their design (working with context, mimicking or re-modeling a city in themselves).

Figure 7.

Transformation of recreational communication space of public shopping centers and their antecedents. Own work

Thus, the prerequisite influences and causes for the emergence of introverted, integrated and thematic spatial schemes can be distinguished. Each is characterized by a corresponding type of RCS with different qualities (Fig. 8). The aforementioned distinction is considered important by the author in light of the modern spatial transformation of shopping centers because it highlights different RCS logic priorities that eventually result in different spatial types of these buildings. It is useful to distinguish between introverted and thematic types, as an introverted shopping center may have strong thematic influences, but its RCS-hub primarily focuses on control and separation of pedestrian movement within its structure, following the functionalist tradition in this regard. Meanwhile, thematic shopping center emphasizes uniqueness and atmosphere of its RCS-mallscape, building on context and permeating semantic narratives without focus on separation. By distinguishing integrated and thematic types, RCS-conduit from RCS-mallscape, different shopping center design goals can be articulated, namely providing support for a larger system and semantic modeling of a quasi-urban space.

Figure 8.

Three types of recreational communication spaces by their primary logic of spatial organization (blue color on the schemes denotes RCS, light green – shops and additional functions, dark green – department stores as anchors). Illustrations, top to bottom – “Mall of America” in Bloomington, USA, photo by Thomson200, Public domain [16]; “Cabot Circus” in Bristol, UK, photo by Jongleur100, Public domain [16]; “Coal Drops Yard” in London, UK, photo by Andy Scott, Public domain [16]; planning schemes – own work

Such tri-point distinction may cause a number of liminal examples to blur the classification, as borders between introverted and integrated shopping centers are more naturally apparent, than between each of them and thematic. However, the distinguishing factor in identifying the third type is the driving force behind its structure – if the focus on the semantic modeling of quasi-urban space factors over functional movement control or system support in its spatial organization (while all three are usually present in modern solutions), the public shopping center may be considered a thematic one. “Ghirardelli Square” in San Francisco, “Namba Parks” in Osaka, and “Coal Drops Yard” in London can serve as examples of thematic centers by such distinction, illustrating the concept in different decades of public shopping center's history. Meanwhile, “West Edmonton Mall” in Edmonton, Canada or “Nikolskyi” in Kharkiv, Ukraine are still primarily introverted centers, albeit with a stronger role of their overarching theme.

In the same vein, “Cabot Circus” in Bristol, UK or “Victoria Gate” in Leeds, UK are integrated centers. This distinction is reflected in the perception of shopping center's attractive qualities as expressed in visitor's reviews, with different perceived priorities corresponding to three different types [26]. It also maps to a “sense of place” in the context of shopping centers as outlined by van den Berg [14], with perception of place attachment (accessibility and comfort), place dependence (functional use and socializing) and place identity (semantic and aesthetic articulation of place) approximately corresponding to the qualities resulting from the influences mentioned above. While all three are present and important to different degrees, effect of place attachment would be more in line with qualities of integrated shopping centers, place dependence would resonate with introverted solutions, while place identity is definitely linked to the attractive qualities of thematic shopping centers.

Modern transformation of architectural morphology of shopping centers highlights the continuing divergence of spatial formats suitable for their different roles in contemporary situations, further emphasizing the introverted, integrated and thematic spatial schemes. The emergence of “destination malls”, commercial complexes of a significant size with prominent role of entertainment functions, further develops RCS as autonomous hub of activities with a distinct and protected environment. Relatively smaller malls are often designed as part of larger multifunctional complexes (hotels, transport hubs and renovated urban districts in particular) to reinforce the resulting system with their accessible RCS of a conduit type and a convenient trade. Meanwhile, lifestyle centers are enjoying increased attention of developers due to the focus of their RCS-mallscape on unique architectural environment and physical experience, while continuing to be an object of critisism for the deceptively quasi-public nature of their spaces [20].

Another prominent aspect of the modern spatial transformation of shopping centers is connected with the procedures known as “demalling”. They are employed in modern architectural practice as an answer to the problem of “dead malls”, aiming at reconstructing their spatial and functional structure for a more viable use [8]. Design process there is often centered on RCS, opening and adjusting it to work with different functions, but still using it as a basis for the repurposed functional scheme. In fact, some of the processes known under “demalling” specifically focus on transforming the RCS of a hub type into a conduit or a mallscape type. Furthermore, it can be argued that in light of the current shift of perpective in the construction of public shopping centers, caused by the advent of e-commerce, the type-specific architectural tools of thematic shopping centers become even more relevant. As a large part of particular appeal of a traditional physical commercial complex is connected to the experience of visit, aesthetic detailing and overall semantic narrative of RCS provide its atmospherics and character; in the context of forming the sense of place, it creates its unique identity.

An aesthetically and semantically organized RCS-mallscape is a complex object for design, as ideally it should represent not a replica, but a particular mode of existing of an urban fabric in its latest morphological transformation. The problems of private ownership of such a quasi-public space, its existing social control and filtering, as highlighted by a number of authors [29, 30], remain. However, the architectural design of its structure has a genetically conditioned model in its relationship with urban fabric, and often strived to recreate it. The semantic structuring of recreational communication space can be considered as the next, potentially constructive step in this direction and in this quality deserves additional attention as a factor for its further transformation. Such semantic dimension of design ranges from the simple echoing of overarching theme on decoration and detailing, to assigning different but systemically connected (and readable) meanings to different zones and locations of the spatial structure of RCS, to designing the viewscapes and routes through it as part of a quasi-urban experience (which benefits both atmospherics and navigation inside shopping center). Adjacent to that are tools for controlling and articulating the perceived scale of its artificial, but semi-urban environment. The evaluation of specific architectural techniques suitable for these goals may warrant further, more focused study.