Pardon Me, Is This Seat Taken?
Beng Abella Lipsey
My husband and I headed out to the Union Market in Washington DC on a chilly, rainy December morning in 2018. We were excited to try out this new Food Hall in DC. We were hungrily looking forward to sampling some of the Asian cuisines which we read about.
We took our time going around the whole place. Finally, we decided on pork buns and Japanese ramen. The place was packed with a weekend crowd. It was hard to find a seat. Finally, we found one free bar stool, in a common shared table. One of us stood while another sat. The high level of the table made it easier for us to share our food and talk, even though one of us was standing.
When the next few chairs were vacated, a couple came in and sat in front of us. They were earlier warned by the group leaving that the chairs were wobbly. We agreed with the observation. We exchanged greetings. The table was quite narrow. We couldn’t help but look at them and what they were eating. They bought some of the “DC empanadas” which we were also “eyeing” earlier. They were in turn “eyeing” our pork buns. We started asking each other about how the food tasted. They asked us where we were from. We found out they lived in DC and that the market was their regular weekend haunt. We shared with them our excitement about our first visit to Union Market. We exchanged smiles as they said good-bye.
I reflected on how the arrangement of our seating, particularly the “proximity” between us and the couple, allowed for this conversation to happen so easily. “Hall defined “proxemics” as the study of “social and personal space” and the accompanying ways by which man perceives it [4]. He further clarified that distance or space between individuals is determined by and has an impact on several social factors, such as: the kind of relationship which one has with the other person, the quality and the quantity of the “communication or stimulation” which is exchanged, and also the kind of activities which can be done within that spatial framework [4]. In his study of American relationships, he defined the normal distances which are observable for various types of relationships, including "intimate, personal, social, and public.” [4]
“In his study on “proxemics,” Hall also brought in the concepts of “sociopetal” and “sociofugal” settings, concepts which were earlier used by Humphry Osmond and Robert Sommer when they were studying the impact of the physical arrangement on socialization in a hospital ward setting [5]. A “sociopetal” arrangement is the physical arrangement and layout of furniture and seating which allows for the maximum amount of interaction between the participants [2, 4]. This arrangement is usually concentric because this type of arrangement ensures shorter distances and maximized eye contact. Some examples of a “sociopetal” arrangement are the tables in a French café and the living room arrangement in one’s home. “Sociofugal” settings, on the other hand, impede interaction, conversations, and socialization [2, 4]. This physical setting has an increased amount of distance and barriers between people. The usual types of “sociofugal” arrangements are the seating in an airport terminal and the desk arrangement in libraries.”
The Union Market Food Hall in DC implemented these “sociopetal” principles, when they designed the various types of seating that they made available in the main dining area.
In the center of the Food Hall is a circular, “diner style” lunch counter. This diner is clearly a crowd favorite, as most of the chairs were filled up. This "diner-style" lunch counter seating was also highlighted by Elijah Anderson when he was describing the Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia. He explains that when one sits in a coffee bar or lunch counter, people generally are giving other people a license to talk to them.1
This kind of seating reduces the distance between diners and allows strangers to sit intimately, side by side. It also increases the possibility of eye-contact between the customers and the person manning the counter, thus encouraging conversations.
Union Market provided seating for different types of consumers. The traditional café style chairs and tables were clear favorites of the families, whose children had to be seated either in "high chairs" or in the conventional café chairs. This café type seating was also strategically placed in the center / main entrance of the Food Hall, such that people who were seated in them could look out and watch everything else happening.
Some food and bar stalls experimented with even more extended, buffet style tables. Again, the idea is to encourage conversations among different groups of people. This particular stall served alcohol and was likely planned to have more patrons during dinner time and after dinner hours.
Toward the back of the Food Hall, a more dimly lit area with graffiti design and contemporary art images also had bar stools and tables. This type of seating and interior design, usually seen in a bar, encourages conversations among both the people seated and the ones standing up.
Union Market is a relatively newer type of Food Hall. Even though it is privately owned, it was conceptualized as a place where the community can gather and socialize together [3]. Aside from providing “centripetal” type of seating, they also used "centripetal" concepts in planning the overall layout of the market. The seating sections are scattered all over the area and generally located in the center of the food hall space, such that the diners can watch other shoppers as they go around choosing their food. At the same time, the shoppers can, in turn, watch the diners and what seems to be popular, in terms of food ordered. We note that the planners added two "diner-style" food stalls as anchor establishments for the area.
Overall, however, we felt that there was not enough seating provided in the area. It took us a while before we found available seating. We noticed that there were a lot of people who were looking for seats as well. The adequacy of seating needs to be addressed, as the best way to get people to stay and socialize is to provide them with enough comfortable seating [7].
Image courtesy of Edens Group [6]
Over-all, the Union Market Food Hall was planned with a “centripetal” lay-out and with “centripetal” type of seating. This lay-out and seating pattern encourages socialization, because of the decreased distance and opportunity for eye-contact which it provides. This is in line with the Union Market’s general objective of being a place where the community can gather and socialize together.
Sources:
Elijah Anderson, The Cosmopolitan Canopy: Race and Civility in Everyday Life (New York, New York W.W. Norton & Co., c2011. 1st ed., 2011).
Paul A. Bell, Environmental Psychology. 5th edn (Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers, 2001).
'Cultivating Development, Trends, and Opportunities at the Intersection of Food and Real Estate', (Washington, DC, USA Urban Land Institute 2016).
Edward T. Hall, The Hidden Dimension (New York: Anchor Books, 1990).
Robert Sommer, Personal Space; the Behavioral Basis of Design (Englewood Cliffs, N.J Prentice-Hall, 1969).
Jessica Voelker, 'Guide to the Union Market Opening (Photo Courtesy of Edens Group)', in Washingtonian (Washington, DC 2012).
William Hollingsworth Whyte, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Washington, D.C: Conservation Foundation, 1980).