William Whyte in his
documentary titled "The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces - The Street
Corner" focused on why some public spaces are more successful than others.
Seven factors were discussed: "sittable spaces", provide seats (not
literally), and people will come; street, sun, water, trees, food, and
triangulation, which involves visual stimulation with the goal of attracting
people to the scene. Providing several
choices in terms of seating even makes the space more successful. At the
Seagram Plaza, where seating is in the form of fixed ledges and stairs, people
tend to cluster at desirable spots such as the stairs leading up to the
building entrance. On the other hand, Paley Park with its movable chairs allows
people to find their own niches.
For me however, the
success of public spaces is determined by how much they appeal to the senses.
People tend to develop a liking for things they can relate to. This is not a
complete deviation from Mr. Whyte's idea, his seven factors can actually be related
to the senses. For someone who frequents Paley Park, recalling the space would
bring back the smell of food and its imagined taste on the tongue; visions of
falling water droplets and refracted sunlight; the distinct, yet unobtrusive
sloshing sound of water, and the feel of moisture on the skin at certain times
of the year. For public spaces below street level, which Whyte categorized as
less successful (with the exception of Rockefeller Plaza), one will notice
that the visual element (street) is
missing. When the view is missing, sound loses certain qualities. That's two
out of the five senses required to experience a space.
Having said that,
are public spaces really intended for everyone? The word "public"
might denote everyone, but we are all different with distinct needs. Therefore,
we tend to go to places that appeal to us, and this applies to public spaces
also. At the Seagram Plaza, biking was not forbidden, but there was a lack of
bikers due to the presence of steps. Location, can also be used to screen
visitors. Paley Park is tucked between two buildings, the most unlikely place
to be associated with the word park. The Seagram Plaza for the most part keeps
out tourist just by being away from the touristy areas of NYC. Green Acre
restricts the use of cameras. One can conclude that being able to exclude
certain people can also make a space successful.
One question I asked
myself: Are public spaces becoming less successful in the 21st century as a
result of distractions such as technology?
-O.I.
I think that public places in the 21st century are definitely getting less use because of new technology. Before TV, video games, and computers were available for everyday people, people had to amuse themselves other ways. One would be going to the park or another public place. Instead, people, especially kids, are staying inside more and amusing themselves with technology.
ReplyDelete-Mike Tortoriello (group 21)
I would like to answer the question you asked yourself.
ReplyDeleteI do not think public spaces are becoming less successful in the 21st. As we can use internet everywhere, we tend to find a comfortable space to seat or lay down to use internet such as parks or benches on the streets. Kids also come out a lot, too. They tend to watch sports from TV and try to do those sports themselves. People who are not kids anymore also tend to do many activities that require space like park.
I agree that public spaces are being used less because of technology. But I also think that our ability to take technology with us allows us to travel anywhere without "risking" being cut off from the technological world. I think that public spaces should try to cater to our new uses of technology, for example a park with wifi would attract students (like our drill field at Virginia Tech). Large, stone plazas with limited seating do not attract people who are trying to work on computers while eating lunch, etc. Urban planners need to keep in mind how people in our time use technology and space so that public spaces can become more accessible and usable.
ReplyDelete-Kathleen Chambers
A park with wifi access doesn't function as a park anymore once that is introduced. Technology demands our attention. Trying to relate this to the 5 senses once again, our laptops and phones steal the visual experience from the park. We don't see anything else but those gadgets. Secondly, most people in the possession of either of these gadgets are usually connected to their earphones, the second sense is missing there. Also, these gadgets engage our hands(fingers). We are left with only 2 senses, that's a bad percentage. I was at both Seagrams and Paley Park a week before we got the video, and what I recall is that those who even bothered to admire both spaces just whipped out their phones, click(took pictures while still in motion) and moved on.
ReplyDelete-O.I.