Consumption Spaces

By Daniel Chen

April 30, 2008

 The design of our surrounding environment has a critical impact on how we view and

interact with the material world. Whether we realize it or not, our consumption behaviors are

constantly being reshaped, influenced, and remade by the spaces that we inhabit everyday. High

ceilings with plenty of sunlight can make us feel comfortable and safe from the harsh weather

outside. Space formed by walls, landscaping, and other physical barriers can dictate where we

can go and what we can see. Artful display windows can arouse our material desires. In this way,

the relationship between space and individual can serve as a lens through which to explore and

understand the broader changes that have affected our consumption habits over time.

This paper examines two points in time when our physical surroundings both influenced

and mirrored many of the cultural and socio-economic transformations that occurred

concurrently. Drawing on historian William Leach’s book Land of Desire, the first section of this

essay looks at how and why a new culture of consumption and material desire grew out of the

late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. With the help of a new commercial and

architectural aesthetic, a transformed attitude emerged in which material abundance and mass

consumption would be a uniting and homogenizing force for Americans. Indeed, the

democratization of desire enabled all Americans to strive and aspire to a more abundant and

luxurious life. The second portion of this essay, drawing on Lizabeth Cohen’s book, A

Consumer’s Republic, studies a period nearly half a century later with the emergence of the

shopping center in the 1950s. In some ways, the shopping mall was a continuation from Leach’s

world. Architecture and design continued to play a significant role in shaping our wants, needs,

and desires. Store and retail design continued to become more rationalized and scientific.

Architect Victor Gruen, a figure whom many call the father of American mall making, designed

some of the prototypical malls that best exemplified this rationalization. However, unlike the
early twentieth century when consumption and desire was a uniting force, consumption during

the postwar decades after the 1950s became much more divisive across racial, social and

economic boundaries. As private spaces catering to only those living in middle class suburban

communities, the mall as consumption center greatly contributed to a more fragmented American

public, both symbolically and geographically. Although it is true that the mall helped to solidify

the communities of certain groups of people, it also served as a physical symbol of the growing

divide between whites and blacks and the rich and poor.

Before delving into the details of how architectural design contributed to the emergence

of this new material culture during the turn of the twentieth century, we should first define what

this culture was and why it emerged during this period. A new corporate landscape full of

productive and consolidated big businesses began to show dominance in an economy once

dependent on small family owned firms. In this shift, America found itself producing goods at a

scale, never seen before in its history. The increased output of goods necessitated an increase in

aggregate demand for new products.1 Firms had to devise new methods of creating demand for

the goods that they produced. Growing out of this relationship between supply and demand,

Leach argues that the turn of the century experienced a crucial change in culture from one of

earlier republicanism and Christian virtues to one “preoccupied with consumption, with comfort

and bodily well-being, with luxury, spending, and acquisition…American consumer capitalism

produced a culture almost violently hostile to the past and to tradition, a future-oriented culture

of desire that confused the good life with goods.” 2 In other words, a new mentality surfaced

centrally focused on the longing for and acquisition of new goods. Material abundance was now

the ultimate goal. This new materialistic attitude was not a divisive force, however. In fact,

1
Leach, William. Page 11
2
Ibid. Page viii.
Leach writes, “American culture became more democratic after 1880 in the sense that everybody

– children as well as adults, men and women, black and white – would have the same right as

individuals to desire, long for, wish for whatever they pleased…” 3 In this fashion, the universal

desire to want new technologies and luxuries would be an equalizing force that allowed all

Americans collective participation.

This new culture was partly a result of the conscious efforts made by retailers, architects,

and designers to remake consumption environments into more effective sales settings. Leach

demonstrates how giant retailers and department stores such as Wanamaker’s and Macy’s

constructed a new commercial aesthetic designed specifically to make consumers long for and

desire new things. At the core of these changes was the increased usage of glass, windows, color,

light, billboards, and electronic signs. Before 1885, store owners barely paid attention to the

presentation of goods. Stores were primarily small one-outlet shops rarely displaying their

products in windows and if they did, it was done haphazardly with no specific intentions. By the

late nineteenth century, times had changed.

John Wanamaker, founder of Wanamaker’s department stores, was perhaps the most

innovative and daring of all merchants at the time. Born in Philadelphia in 1838, Wanamaker

became one of the most significant retailers in American history. He pioneered new types of

window displays all towards making shopping a spectacular experience. All of his buildings had

large show windows occupying the entire exterior circumference of his stores.4 Leach claims that

these show windows were at the leading edge of this commercial aesthetic overhaul. Along with

window designers Frank Baum and Elbert Hubbard, Wanamaker focused on ways to make goods

look as appealing as possible, to make consumers achingly long for these products. Leach writes,

3
Leach, William. Page 6.
4
Ibid. Page 40.
“Glass was a symbol of the merchant’s unilateral power … the pictures behind the glass enticed

the viewer…the result was a mingling of refusal and desire that must have greatly intensified

desire.” 5 In addition to using more glass and color, Wanamaker implemented spectacular

displays within the stores to grab shoppers’ attentions. Leach describes Wanamaker’s “House

Palatial,” opened in 1908 at his New York store. It was a real, constructed to scale mansion, a

permanent exhibition of furniture and accessories in the heart of the store’s rotunda.6

The spatial transformations were not limited to aesthetics. Department stores also

widened aisles so that shoppers could walk around more easily. They added basement entrances

to subway stops so that consumers could walk directly to stores.7 Wanamaker constructed

elevators and escalators to ease circulation problems. A journal article from the “Dry Goods

Economist” stated “A step at the entrance is a mistake…No hindrance should be offered to

people who may drift into the store.” 8 Every effort was made to remake shopping as enjoyable

and convenient as possible. All of these changes helped promote the goals of merchandisers: to

persuade people that all desires, longings, problems, and virtually any despair could be instantly

solved by purchasing more and more things.

Leach maintains that for the most part, this new culture of consumption was a

democratizing one in which the right to desire was an equalizing force among all Americans.

However, it should be noted that retailers were not totally oblivious to class distinctions and

hierarchies. For example, Leach provides an example of a Marshall Fields’ interior that was

entirely keyed to different classes. The design of the store “… was calculated to stir up feelings

of inadequacy and envy and meant to inspire impulsive buying … ” In the fur department, one

side of the store had glass cases showing the most luxurious lines of fur while the other side had
5
Leach, William. Page 63.
6
Ibid. Page 80.
7
Ibid, Page 72.
8
Ibid. Page 73.
tables and counters selling the lower and more affordable lines.9 Many department stores also

incorporated bargain basements. Wanamakers’, for example, created areas called “Bargain

Marts” and “Underpriced Basements” within their stores. In 1909, Filenes department stores

opened “Filene’s Automatic Bargain Basement” directly beneath its downtown crossing location.

The intermixing of classes in consumption spaces also changed according to different

geographic locations. Louis Stern, founder of Stern’s Department Stores, stated that “In Chicago

unlike New York, the classes intermingle and shop under the same roof. And this for ought I

know, may have led to the adoption of the Bargain Mart, as an experiment for separating the

masses from the classes.” Stern later adds, “I do not admit there is a necessity [to separate the

classes]. Such distinctions are undemocratic and un-American – certainly alien to the New World

ideas of equality.”10 Thus, Stern offers insight into the minds of many American retailers during

this period. His acknowledgment and moral wrestling of the social implications of segregating

consumption spheres demonstrate the force of the democratic ideals of equality that permeated

this era. Despite the instances in which retailers attempted to segment the market, it can be

argued that this new culture of consumption and desire was primarily one that seemed to affect

everyone: “… a culture that seemed to offer everyone access to an unlimited supply of goods and

that promised a lifetime of security, well-being, and happiness.”11 It was true that not everyone

could afford all of these goods; however, everyone at least had the opportunity to desire these

goods. The glass displays may have placed an undeniable barrier between the haves and have-

nots, but they also brought a new sense of transparency. Poor consumers had the opportunity to

aspire and dream towards these material goals.

9
Leach, William. Page 78.
10
Ibid. Page 79.
11
Ibid. Page 111.
 One must ask however, whether these democratic ideals of equality through consumption

persisted throughout the rest of the twentieth century? Or did this unifying culture of

consumption break down to a system of segregation across class, social, and economic lines?

Lizabeth Cohen in A Consumer’s Republic argues that the latter ultimately occurs in parallel

with suburbanization, the growth of the automobile, and the decentralization of cities. Indeed,

many of the segmenting retail strategies that merchandisers experimented with in the early

twentieth century hinted at a later phenomenon that emerged during the 1950s with the rapid

growth and popularity of the suburban shopping center.

The shopping mall as we recognize it today emerged during the late 1940s and early

1950s in America’s postwar suburban communities. To be sure, the growth and development of

the mall was, in some ways, a rational progression of many ideas that first found roots in turn of

the century retailing. The consumption center as spectacle continued to influence the design of

malls. Victor Gruen was one the preeminent architects at the time that focused on retail spaces.

One of the malls he designed was the Southdale Mall in 1952 in a suburb of Minneapolis. A

completely indoor and climate-controlled mall, Southdale included a manmade tropical

environment with orchids and rainforest trees. The immense garden court which included a juice

bar, newsstand, and radio booth, ensured that shoppers had places to rest and relax.12 Gruen

designed sidewalk cafes, ponds, dramatic lighting, and pedestrian-friendly flooring so that

shoppers could enjoy their time and spend as many hours there as possible.13 Escalators were

positioned at the end of corridors, forcing shoppers to walk past other stores. They also ensured

that movement throughout the mall was made as effortless as possible. An advertisement for

escalators at the time stated that, “the escalator beckons to the customer and assures him that he

12
Hardwick, Jeffrey. Page 48.
13
Ibid. Page 151.
can travel upward quickly and without effort. No waiting, no crowding. This induces casual

shoppers to visit the upper floors…and look at merchandise they would otherwise never have

noticed.” 14

Thus, in many ways, Gruen envisioned the mall to be a more perfect downtown. The

smoke stacks, telephone poles, ugly signage, trash, pollution, and litter of the haphazard retail

development in urban centers could be eliminated in this planned and super rationalized

environment. Gruen’s theory was simple: the more time people spent enjoying themselves in a

consumption setting, the more money they would ultimately spend. Hence, if he could seduce

mall-goers with grand fountains, twirling sculptures, rose gardens, and fancy display windows,

the more profitable the mall would be financially.

Shopping malls also had broader intentions above and beyond inducing impulsive

consumption. Opened in 1954, Gruen’s Northland Shopping Center in Detroit serves as a prime

example of how shopping centers encompassed more than the satisfaction of material desires.

The mall included several auditoriums, an infirmary, a post office, bars and restaurants, its own

power plant, water tower and private police force.15 The auditoriums could be rented out for civic

purposes such as educational programs, evening concerts and plays, dances and classes for

teenagers, and community outreach for local charities.16 Gruen hoped that malls would help

create a public culture full of entertainment, events, and density. In this way he hoped that

consumerism would become a way to express social connections. Gruen recreated and reformed

a more perfect urbanity for suburbanites, a world in which these consumers could feel both a part

of the larger civil world yet totally secure and safe from the unpredictability of real life. Through

retail, Gruen saw an underlying moral current in his own mall designs which he hoped would

14
Farrell, James. Page 29.
15
Hardwick, Jeffrey. Page 127.
16
Cohen, Lizabeth. Page 264.
make for happier people and better democracy by serving as crystallization points for community

life.17

However, while Gruen’s vision of the mall seemed all encompassing, democratic, and

ideal, it did not affect all Americans in the same way. An analysis of the actual grand opening of

Gruen’s Northland Shopping Center in 1954 gives us insight into how many private malls

operated. Northland’s grand opening marketing techniques and operating procedures

demonstrate that suburban shopping centers exclusively targeted a certain population, primarily

white middle class households. First, malls for the most part only were accessible by those

shoppers who owned automobiles. During the opening of Northland, the mall management

offered free gallons of gas to any shopper that might be running low. This enticement

demonstrates how critical the automobile was in attracting shoppers to the new mall. Second,

although only ten miles from the center of Detroit, the Northland region was a world apart from

the inner city. The mall owners specifically advertised to their next door neighbors in nearby

affluent suburban communities such as Magnolia Gardens, an all white neighborhood. Third and

finally, as private developments, shopping malls were often highly regulated spaces. In fact,

during the opening of Northland, six private policemen patrolled the mall in order to maintain

order and keep out trespassers. Even in each department store, the management hired twelve

detectives, six in plain clothes and six in uniform, to look for any suspicious behavior.18 It is true

that malls did serve as community crystallization points but they only helped solidify certain

groups, namely those who lived in the middle and upper class white suburbs that surrounded

most shopping centers.

17
Cohen, Lizabeth. Page 139
18
Hardwick, Jeffrey, Page 125.
 It can be argued, thus that without the rapid growth of the suburb, malls would not have

dominated the American consumer landscape as quickly or as strongly. The growth and

popularity of the suburb motivated real estate developers to bring retail directly to a new set of

differentiated customers. The postwar affluence of 1945 compelled middle class white

Americans to pursue independent homeownership. Access to easy credit, mortgages, and tax

benefits through the GI Bill of Rights made it easier to purchase single family homes. However

these federal assistance programs, specifically those provided by the Federal Housing

Administration and Veterans Administration only helped certain types of homes for certain types

of consumers. They were biased towards men over women, middle over working class, whites

over blacks.19 In other words, these new private real estate markets aggravated the sense of

inequality as new residential hierarchies were formulated. In contrast to the heterogeneous

population of the city during the turn of the century, when it was possible for people of all

classes to shop under the same roof, postwar American communities shifted towards more

homogenous communities separated by class and racial lines. New housing developments were

instantly categorized into a stratified hierarchy based on amenities, pricing and location. Many

working class families were thus priced out of the most desired communities. Furthermore,

suburban communities increasingly used zoning and architectural style guidelines to regulate

what type of consumer could buy into certain communities, all in the name of preserving

homogeneity and property values. Developers and real estate investors understood that financial

profits were dependent on economic segregation and keeping African-Americans out of these

new suburban neighborhoods.20 In this way, shopping malls were thus a natural outgrowth of this

new suburban consumer market. Retailers saw the opportunity to build a shopping experience

19
Cohen, Lizabeth. Page 200
20
Ibid. Page 208.
catered entirely to this differentiated class of citizens. Developers located shopping centers in

close proximity to new affluent white communities in the hopes of capturing this market in

accordance to Reilly’s Law of Retail Gravitation, the economic theory which predicted that

households would patronize shopping centers closest to home.

This suburban consumer population sought refuge at malls over city centers primarily

because malls represented new consumption spaces that were devoid of all unwanted urban

elements which included the homeless, racial minorities, and poor people. Cohen writes, “Market

segmentation became the guiding principle of this mix of commercial and civic activity, as the

shopping center sought perhaps contradictorily to legitimize itself as a true community center

and to define that community in exclusionary socioeconomic and racial terms.” 21 Hence, Cohen

bridges the gap between Gruen’s idealistic vision and the practical result of his mall

developments. The new community that Gruen’s malls provided was designed and developed

only for an exclusive class of consumers. However, they were not exclusive simply by virtue of

their locations. Indeed, businesses actively employed marketing, site selection and rigorous

policing techniques to ensure that certain types of Americans were kept out of malls. The

chairman of a New Jersey Retail Department store once stated in 1964, “there are many kinds of

people, and we must, therefore, consider the qualitative and quantitative composition of the

population.” 22 The social exclusion was furthered by controlled access limited primarily to

automobiles. Lower income households rarely owned cars and were therefore physically

impeded from traveling to the shopping centers. Granted, malls offered bus services to

accommodate those who did not drive or own automobiles but the bus schedules and service

locations catered to non-driving women and housewives from surrounding suburban

21
Cohen, Lizabath. Page 265.
22
Ibid. Page 265.
communities.23 In this manner, malls actively emphasized and exacerbated the uneven

geographic distribution of wealth that fractured the American population during the postwar

years.

By the 1970s, Americans of all ages spent more leisure time in shopping centers than

anywhere else.24 Leisure and consumption became inseparable activities. The growth and

popularity of malls directly influenced racial and class identities. They helped crystallize the

justifications for white flight and suburbanization. Whereas in the late nineteenth and early

twentieth centuries, downtown shopping centers were some of the only places where people of

all races and classes had the opportunity to intermingle, postwar America in the 1950s

experienced a significant shift towards segregated consumption spheres, thus leading to ever

greater market segmentation in the 1960s and 1970s. The emergence of suburban communities

and their respective shopping centers served as stark reminders of the social, racial and economic

differences which inherently defined America’s population. The democratic ideal of equality and

sameness under one nation was replaced by an acknowledgement of innate disparity and

difference.

23
Cohen, Lizabeth. Page 267.
24
Ibid. Page 270.
Works Cited

Cohen, Lizabeth. 2003. A Consumer’s Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar
America. New York: Vintage Books.

Farrell, James J. 2003. One Nation under Goods: Malls and the Seductions of American
Shopping. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Books.

Hardwick, Jeffrey. 2004. Mall Maker: Victor Gruen, Architect of an American Dream.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Leach, William. 1994. Land of Desire: Merchants, Power, and the Rise of a New American
Culture. New York: Vintage Books.