Laptop Sculpture Beijing Park by Maciej Janiec

I’ve been a firm believer in the value of studying user behaviour when approaching the design of something new ever since I first encountered the theory of Product Semantics, along with human factors in design, while a student. To me this is applicable equally to the design of products, services, websites, buildings or places. When it comes to great placemaking it can become an invaluable tool for assessing what a community needs/wants from their public spaces going far beyond the use of consultation, surveys and focus groups alone. Dependent on size and location (amongst other factors) the primary uses of a public space can be partially predicted and catered for but the behavioural patterns and types of uses will always remain in evolution. By understanding this and by continuing to study the ways in which people use and want to use particular places the design can enable easy transitions and places can evolve with the changing patterns of their users.

I recently read an intriguing blog article by Anthony Townsend, researcher into the impacts of new technologies on cities and public institutions, on the Urban Omnibus forum entitled The Real Social Life of Wireless Public Spaces, which is in itself a response to a research paper and photo essay on the same subject led by a communications scholar named Keith Hampton. I’m not going to get into a discussion about the overall merits or possible flaws in the research by Hampton and his colleagues because I think the original blog by Townsend covers that very well. But the discussion got me thinking about the way wireless connectivity effects public space uses and their behavioural landscape.

As Susan Piedmont-Palladino puts it in her recent Time Magazine article, “Those trees that shaded city-dwellers out for a stroll decades ago now keep the glare off touch screens.”

And despite the fears that mobile communication technology would drive us all into lives of wireless isolation, the opposite seems to be happening. Bryant Park (in New York City), like myriad parks and plazas in other cities, is returning to a role it filled generations ago: a place to share, read, write, gossip, and debate…in short, communicate.

Laptop Users in Bryant Park NYC by kmccaul

Certainly I believe great public spaces tend to function as places of communication. It would be easy to fall into the trap of thinking that fostering this within public spaces is all about getting people to talk and engage face-to-face in those spaces, but to focus on that alone would be to ignore the myriad ways in which we communicate. One inference of Hampton’s study, as pointed out by Townsend in his rebuttal, is that because park-goers using wireless devices tend to arrive alone and leave alone this promotes social isolationism previously uncommon to such places. But I would question whether there was any hard evidence that the majority of park-users in at least 20 years prior to wireless connectivity were commonly interacting face-to-face, with the obvious exception of children’s play areas where both children and parents can often engage in this way.

Further more, the rise in use of mobile internet devices means that even if you do not provide wireless broadband connectivity in a public space that people will still connect to the internet with their phones, tablets or using a dongle connected to a laptop. Not providing wireless broadband only serves to limit the potential number of place users that might have come to use that facility. But how are mobile devices and wireless connectivity changing the behaviour patterns in public space?

For one thing park users are spreading information about their being there and the experience they have there.

The conversations park users are having are as likely to be with someone on the other end of the country as on the other end of the bench.

Susan Piedmont-Palladino

Girls using smartphones in the park - photo by Melisslissliss on Flickr

By logging into online services such a 4square or using twitter to tell people where they are and what they’re doing there, instantly posting photos of their activities, in essence they are promoting that space to the world beyond and potentially encouraging other people (not just friends but anyone who sees that post) to go there too. Events big and small, both organised and impromptu, in a public space are given a running commentary and begin to tell the stories of that place. This is something that those managing public spaces can start to tap into and connect those place users more intimately with the space.

While laptop users sat on benches or in areas of seating and tables may commonly be lone park-users, those accessing the internet wirelessly on smartphones might just as likely be in social groups. It also does not necessarily follow that lone park-users in one hour of the day will remain so. As Townsend points out, much of the communication that goes on wirelessly between park users and those elsewhere will include planning to physically meet up for either work related or social activity. It then should be incumbent on the design of the park (or other public space) to be facilitating both the arrangement of and the taking place of such gatherings. Parks could be furnished with informal “meeting” places. In fact old-fashioned structures such as Bandstands might not be too far from the mark for such activity.

Taking photo on smartphone in a park. Photo by ShawnaScottPhoto

Does this mean that Urban Designers, Landscape Architects, Planners, Designers of outdoor furnishings need to rethink the way parks and public spaces are developed and maintained and what kinds of furnishings go into them? I would say yes, but not radically so. Once again the principles of observation set out by William Holly Whyte and his colleagues in the late 1970′s still hold true when it comes to determining how to create spaces that meet and exceed the needs of park users. But now, as well as being able to record the physical movements and interactions of people in a public space by video, we can gather information about their online movements within that public space. We can answer questions about place user behaviour such as:

• Are they using online services primarily for work or leisure?
• Are they using the space as a solitary visitor (communicating by wireless device) or in a group (sharing online information via smartphone or tablet)?
• Are they blogging, using services such as Twitter, Twitpic or Yfrog to share images?
• If so, can this behaviour be harnessed to promote the place further and more actively engage users with the space?

There is also something for the designers of websites and applications, as well as UX designers (many of the guiding principles behind User-Experience design sharing much in common with the philosophy of William H. Whyte along with the forefathers of User Centered Design and Product Semantics) to consider in their work. Already good designers in this area consider the different types of device their work will be viewed on. But beyond that there is also an opportunity to consider where those sites and applications might be accessed and how that can be exploited to further enhance the experience of the user.

Public spaces and buildings such as parks and libraries were long since the nodes through which the productivity of a city flowed and urban life connected. Wireless connectivity has already markedly changed the way in which those spaces are used. It is now up to us to make the most of those public spaces and the behavioural evolution taking place within them and as such make them the true heart and soul of the city once more.

I first visited, and experienced, the Wellington Waterfront development in New Zealand’s capital city back in 2007, shortly after a redevelopment headed by Athfield Architects had been completed. What I liked most about the connecting walkway between the city’s key-note national ‘Te Papa’ museum, Queen’s wharf and the city Art Gallery and excellent Central Library is the vibrancy evident all the way along. Each place on route encourages people to congregate and interact while the features and sculptural elements are fun, inventive and most crucially represent the cultural language of the city and it’s people.

Take a look at my photos and see what you think.

William "Holly" Whyte at work

A short post today to tell you about one of my favourite websites for information and inspiration on all things to do with the design of public spaces. Project for Public Spaces (PPS) is about placemaking. No inverted commas used there, placemaking might not be a word that spell-checkers like but it defines perfectly the art of creating functioning spaces and buildings which enable communities to thrive.

As stated on the site the project itself was originally founded (by current President Fred Kent) in 1975, taking it’s cue largely from the work of William H. Whyte and has it’s base on Broadway in New York City. They describe the project’s approach as to help “citizens transform their public spaces into vital places that highlight local assets, spur rejuvenation and serve common needs.”

[The PPS has] completed projects in over 2500 communities in 40 countries and all 50 US states. Partnering with public and private organizations, federal, state and municipal agencies, business improvement districts, neighborhood associations and other civic groups, we improve communities by fostering successful public spaces.

View over Parc del la Cuitedella, Barcelona

It’s a fine record based on a great ethos – one I wholeheartedly endorse. But what I appreciate the most about their website is what a great and comprehensive resource it is: hundreds of articles including case-studies, research and important developments in the thinking and approach to placemaking and covering transportation, civic centres, markets, parks and the effects of markets and public places on local economies to name just some of the topic areas. There is also a catalogue of Great Public Spaces from around the world which anyone can nominate new spaces to if you register on the site for free. Conversely there is a ‘Hall of Shame’ to exemplify how it shouldn’t be done.

“It’s hard to create a space that will not attract people; what is remarkable is how often this has been accomplished.” -William H. Whyte

Well designed places are well used places

If you’re looking for greater academic or literary depth on a subject their is a ‘Store’ section selling books written by associate members of the project and another excellent resource is the close to 1,000,000 stock photos covering a vast multitude of public space scenes. The images are a very high quality and not free (there’s a US$50 minimum purchase) but for those willing to pay for top quality photography of people interactions in public space and buildings, perhaps to illustrate their work or a presentation, then I would suggest this could be a great place to search.

Ultimately it is the comprehensive representation of a fine methodology and ethos that continues to bring me back to the PPS website. That is that the proper development of truly great public space has a hugely beneficial effect on communities – their well-being, sense of self and happiness – can reduce local crime rates and help local economies, while bad public spaces effect adversely. Further more this is something which can be demonstrated readily through countless examples across the world and which is achievable anywhere given the right approach.

To see for yourself visit www.pps.org

It’s a noble mantra for any designer. It is the utopian zenith for creating product or space. Yet it is something that is rarely, if ever truly, achieved.

…it is the way things are organized that causes people’s disabilities, not their physical or intellectual impairments.

People come in all shapes and sizes, with varying abilities in varied realms, both physical and mental and each and everyone of us can, with the right design of products and spaces, experience, interact with and contribute to the world around us, without prejudice. To paraphrase the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is the way things are organized that causes people’s disabilities, not their physical or intellectual impairments.

…the truth is that if your product isn’t purchased, no matter how brilliantly all encompassing the idea, it will have no impact at all.

But there appears to be a major sticking point with this idealism and it comes from the need to market our products. Trying to sell something to “everyone” is both impractical and ineffective. Marketing of products tends to work best when dealing in specifics, when it is targeted. In fact without carefully consideration of who is most likely to buy a product you risk selling it to no one at all and the truth is that if your product isn’t purchased, no matter how brilliantly all encompassing the idea, it will have no impact at all.

So how do we remedy this apparent conflict between the needs, nay, the rights of the many and the imperative of marketing to the few?

The first step is to realize that such a conflict is false, based on lazy misconception. Neither people’s desires nor their need to interact effectively with the world around them is defined by physical, sensory or intellectual ability. The target market for a kettle or saucepan is as likely to include people with arthritic conditions as a person in a wheelchair attending university will need likely to get into a lecture hall. By not considering the way people of differing abilities might use your product or building you miss out on their potential custom. Equally if your design segregates people with a particular condition from other users when not necessary you risk alienating them, thus hindering the quality of their experience. That too will likely turn many those potential them away.

Neither people’s desires nor their need to interact effectively with the world around them is defined by physical, sensory or intellectual ability.

By considering the range of abilities all potential users of your product, service, website or building will include you stand the best chance of creating a great user experience for each and everyone in your target market. You’ll sell more.

Recognising Gaudi's unique genius - Casa Mila roof garden.

Capturing and indulging the spirit of a place is what gives it and it’s produce their flavour, their uniqueness. It’s something which flirts on the edges of what we can truly define but I think it is what makes us love places and things that remind us of them. Indulging spirit in design can create a kind of feedback loop between people, places and products. The design reflects them and they in turn reflect the design – a dialogue that forms and reforms the identity of places, regions and even countries, growing and evolving as it goes on.

People want to feel that the places they live and work in are theirs… those places and things should represent them in a way they want to see themselves.

In terms of buildings, places and products this is essentially what marketers call, ‘a point of difference’ – the unique selling point – and fostering and embedding the spirit of a place and people in design achieves this in a much greater way than any market analysis can do on it’s own. Because it does much more than that. It also connects people and place in a way that (if done well) makes them proud of where they live and who they collectively are. People want to feel that the places they live and work in are theirs and that they and the products they use represent them. Moreover those places and things should represent them in a way they want to see themselves.

Capturing and indulging the spirit of a place is what gives it and it’s produce their flavour, their uniqueness.

Fantasy & playfulness of represents & informs much of Barcelona's 'design spirit' (pictured: Miró's Dona i Ocell).

Barcelona as a city, a place and a people leaves me in no doubt as to it’s spirit: expressive, joyous, fantastical, embracing colour but occasionally reveling in the shadows. Princes of fantasy with strident vision such as Gaudí and Miró had great swathes of the city given over to them, financed to create in recognition of their individual genius. The results enliven brooding streets of gothic architecture and encourage and playfulness that has come to define the place and people and in response that same spirit infused and inspired to keep creating based on that ethos. It is not a perfect place. Nor is it a place where design has solved all it’s problems, but above all it provides, through design and the spirit encapsulated within, a sense that Barcelona is a city like no other in the world. That is a point of difference that provides real design value and which, ultimately can make any place a wonder and a joy.