Mapping: remembering, making place

After having read about Lynch’s identification of five characteristics of place (paths, edges, districts, nodes and landmarks), I thought it might be interesting to try a mapping exercise with the class.  I gave my classmates an index card and asked them to draw their way from our studio in Burruss to the Au Bon Pain in Squires on the other side of campus; the results were quite interesting.

Of the six participants (and I’m excluding the professor, who drew another map – from Studio to GBJ), 3 used both the front and back of the index cards.  All drew in pen, 4 in black ink, 1 in red, 1 in blue.  Everyone drew stairs in some shape or form, 2 drew the stairs in elevation (interesting, since the readings note that it is easier for people to visualize themselves as aerial observers).

Paths: most individuals only drew a line as indicative of their trajectory, while a few also drew the paths that ran perpendicular to their own parcours, or paths they crossed along their way.

Edges: the Drillfield was defined as an edge condition in one drawing.  Buildings were treated as masses and edges.

Districts: the Drifllfield, treated as a mass, read as a district in the majority of the drawn maps.

Nodes: there were almost no nodes in these drawing, even though there are points along the way that are large intersections of pedestrian sidewalks; the only node noted on the majority of the drawings is the fork in the Drillfield (exit access to Prices Fork Road).

Landmarks: stairs and buildings were treated as landmarks; one individual noted what appear to be quads as landmarks, as well.

What I found even more interesting (as I tried to watch while I drew) was the order in which people drew their maps.  The readings noted that laying out a grid (working large) and then mapping a path (working small) was a sign of a more developed intellect – I am inclined to disagree (not just because I didn’t do it that way…).  Most people drew their landmarks, their edges, their guides, if you will, as they went. These are, mind you, all seniors and juniors in college, trained to think visually. And, they had all done the readings, so unless they wanted to be thought of as less intelligent, they veritably thought this process of drawing the map was the best way to express their intent!

I found the readings on Lynch to be most valuable to my thesis research, as well, since they attempt to pinpoint the way in which we remember place.  The readings mentioned Tuan, and I went back to my notes on Tuan’s Space and Place, which led me to some interesting notes about the relationship of the individual to place, particularly his note: “When space feels thoroughly familiar to us, it has become place.”  Implicit in this statement is the reading’s references to use and attachment – when people frequent a building, they are more likely to become attached to it (give it the moniker of place). So, as the reading notes, if hospitals are less likely to become places because people don’t frequent them (unless they have a chronic illness), and this is a condition applicable to a variety of places (anything that isn’t a First, Second or Third Place, really – post offices, gas stations, etc.) – what can we, as designers, do to make Tuan’s man “fall in love at first sight with a place as with a woman”? Must we live with spaces, or can any space become a place?

3 things I’ve been thinking about, that just so happen to be in the readings for this week.

About a year ago (oddly enough, the same time I started watching Bones), I realized what exactly it is that anthropologists do.  And then I realized, that it’s pretty much what I want to do.  This week, I found Nold Egenter on the internet, and now I want his job: architectural anthropologist.  The readings for this Tuesday’s DTR (Design Theory and Research) class only confirmed my leanings; though I was drawn to design because of the possibility of constructing realities, I’m very much interested in the research of these potential realities.

The readings defined “behavioral sciences” to include anthropology, sociology and psychology, and went on to further explore the aspects of behavioral sciences that are “concerned with the nature of human habitats and the relationship between the physical structure of the world and human activities and values…person-environment theory.”  The authors acknowledged that historically, anthropology as been concerned with primitive structures, though the field is changing, and it is in this movement towards the assessment of culture and contemporary building methods that I am particularly interested.

H&dM's Bird's Nest

In that same reading, from The Behavioral Sciences and Architectural Theory, the authors bring up another (sub-)topic with which I have been concerned (esp. for this project of authenticity to time/place): is it necessary to separate the idea of commodity and delight (as seen in Vitruvius’ utilitas vs. venustas)?  My friend Gavin (an architecture student) and I have had an interesting series of discussions on the topic.  My understanding is that he contends that structure and ornament (utilitas and venustas) can co-exist, only if structure is the source of ornamentation (see: Herzog & de Meuron).  I, on the other hand, coming from the point of view of an interior designer, believe that not only is ornamentation beautiful when seen as the result of structure, ornamentation in general is the tool through which designers can communicate with the end-user: the end-user doesn’t understand, necessarily, the beauty of the simple plan, the complexity of the wall-section, etc.  The end user does understand visual imagery: they get when something entertains them, and while the original goal of ornamentation might have been to educate (the Greeks used reliefs to depict mythologies), today ornamentation exists to delight. The text offers the idea that not only is it ludicrous to separate the two, the two are interdependent in a way that Gavin would agree with, to an extent, and I agree with (for the most part): basically, that there is delight to be found in commodity, and commodity to be found in delight.  The first statement (delight in commodity) is what Gavin argues about the work of H&dM. The latter is what can be said about Koolhaas’s work at IIT, where the image of Mies is a visual thing (an ornamentation of the exterior) that also serves as a communicatory tool to convey the school’s history.

Mies, maximized.

And since this post seems to be going all over the place, I think I’ll add a third topic to the mix, one more brought up by the reading: the importance of place in developing community.  Initial research into the idea of place and community building suggested that social units and physical units in cities were congruent.  Then the idea was abandoned, resulting in places like Cumbernauld and Milton Keynes, where “community without propinquity” aims to “provide its (the city’s) inhabitants with a rich set of nonlocal contacts.”  This idea of community not requiring a particular place throws a bucket of water at Oldenburg’s Third Place theories: but, it takes into account something Oldenburg didn’t, the impact of technology on a sense of community.  More people spend time online on community-oriented sites like Facebook and Second Life, and are less likely go to Third Places to find their sense of community.  They can do it from the comfort of their home, or even while at work.  And the idea that a coffee shop is intended for conversation (as a Third Place), is slowly being destroyed as more people come in with laptops, plug in, and start typing.  That’s not to say there are still people who come to the coffee shop to chat, meet regulars and partake in its Third Place-ness (the social unit and physical unit are still congruent), but the younger generation is less likely to do so.  So the question becomes: not will technology change the nature of the Third Place, but is this change for the good or for the worse?