This article explores practices of uniformed, mobile ‘hospitality’ teams called ambassadors in Canadian downtown cores through document analysis and in-depth interviews with ambassadors, police and business improvement district (BID) personnel. The study reveals how ambassadors conduct surveillance and produce knowledge to remake downtowns for a consumption-oriented order, the institutions to which knowledge is transferred and for what purposes. The paper argues that the significance of ambassadors in downtown cores cannot be reduced to a physical security function. Rather, ambassadors’ scope is broader and reflects BIDs’ peculiar and precarious institutional position in urban governance, one that is highly dependent on knowledge for shaping and encouraging downtown consumption, justifying practices to its mandatory membership and board, and persuading other institutions to do its bidding.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtkinsonR. (2003) Domestication by cappuccino or a revenge on urban space: control and empowerment in the management of public spaces, Urban Studies, 40, pp. 1829–1843.
2.
BlomleyN. (2004) Unsettling the City: Urban Land and the Politics of Property. New York: Routledge.
3.
BrennerT.TheodoreN. (2002) Cities and geographies of ‘actually existing neo-liberalism’, Antipode, 24, pp. 341–379.
4.
BriffaultR. (1999) A government for our time? Business improvement districts and urban governance, Columbia Law Review, 99, pp. 365–477.
5.
Cambridge Core Area Patrol (2009) Annual report. Cambridge, Ontario.
6.
CloughN.VanderbeckR. (2006) Managing politics and consumption in business improvement districts: the geographies of political activism on Burlington, Vermont’s Church Street marketplace, Urban Studies, 43, pp. 2261–2284.
7.
ColemanR. (2003) Images from a neoliberal city: the state, surveillance and social control, Critical Criminology, 12, pp. 21–42.
8.
ColemanR. (2004) Reclaiming the Streets: Surveillance, Social Control and the City. Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.
9.
ColemanR.TombsS.WhyteD. (2005) Capital, crime control, and statecraft in the entrepreneurial city, Urban Studies, 42, pp. 2511–2530.
10.
CookI. (2008) Mobilising urban policies: the policy transfer of US business improvement districts to England and Wales, Urban Studies, 45, pp. 773–795.
11.
GrahamS.MarvinS. (2001) Splintering Urbanism. New York: Routledge.
12.
HoustounL.Jr (2003) Business Improvement Districts, 2nd edn.Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
13.
HoytL. (2003) The business improvement district: an internationally diffused approach to revitalization. International Downtown Association, Washington, DC.
14.
HoytL. (2006) Importing ideas: the transnational transfer of urban revitalization policy, International Journal of Public Administration, 29, pp. 211–243.
15.
HueyL.EricsonR.HaggertyK. (2005) Policing fantasy city, in: CooleyD. (Ed.) Re-imagining Policing in Canada, pp. 140–208. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
16.
KempaM.StenningP.WoodJ. (2003) Policing communal spaces: a reconfiguration of the ‘mass private property’ hypothesis, British Journal of Criminology, 44, pp. 562–581.
17.
KempaM.CarrierR.WoodJ.ShearingC. (1999) Reflections on the evolving concept of ‘private policing’, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 7, pp. 197–223.
LippertR. (2007) Urban revitalization, security, and knowledge transfer: the case of broken windows and kiddie bars, Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 22, pp. 29–54.
20.
LippertR. (2010) Mundane and mutant devices of power: sanctuaries and business improvement districts, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(4), pp. 477–494.
21.
LyonD. (2007) Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Cambridge: Polity.
22.
McCannE.WardK. (2010) Relationality/territoriality: toward a conceptualization of cities of the world, Geoforum, 41, pp. 175–184.
23.
MitchellD.StaeheliL. (2006) Clean and safe? Property redevelopment, public space and homelessness in downtown San Diego, in: LowS.SmithN. (Eds) The Politics of Public Space, pp. 143–176. London: Routledge.
24.
PeckJ.TickellA. (2002) Neoliberalizing space, in: BrennerN.TheodoreN. (Eds) Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in Western Europe and North America, pp. 33–57. Oxford: Blackwell.
25.
RuppertE. (2006) The Moral Economy of Cities: Making Good Citizens. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
26.
SchallerS.ModanG. (2005) Contesting public space and citizenship: implications for neighborhood business improvement districts, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(4), pp. 394–407.
StaeheliL.MitchellD. (2006) The People’s Property. New York: Routledge.
29.
StokesR. (2002) Place management in commercial areas: customer service representatives in Philadelphia’s central business district, Security Journal, 15, pp. 7–19.
30.
VindevogelF. (2005) Private security and urban crime mitigation: a bid for BIDs, Criminal Justice, 5(3), pp. 233–255.
31.
WardK. (2003) The limits to contemporary urban redevelopment: ‘doing’ entrepreneurial urbanism in Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, City, 7(2), pp. 199–211.
32.
WardK. (2006) ‘Policies in motion’, urban management and state restructuring: the trans-local expansion of business improvement districts, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30(1), pp. 54–75.
33.
WardK. (2007a) Business improvement districts: policy origins, mobile policies and urban liveability, Geography Compass, 1(3), pp. 657–672.
34.
WardK. (2007b) ‘Creating a personality for downtown’: business improvement districts in Milwaukee, Urban Geography, 28(8), pp. 781–808.
35.
WilsonD. (2004) Toward a contingent urban neo-liberalism, Urban Geography, 25, pp. 771–783.
36.
WilsonJ.KellingG. (1982) Broken windows, Atlantic Monthly, March, pp. 29–38.
