Citizen Engagement Through Public Spaces
Abstract
This project provides an overview of an exploration of embodiment needs and opportunities. The need I chose to explore was Cloud Gate, the public sculpture by Anish Kapoor located in Chicago’s Millennium Park and the large communal table placed in close proximity. My initial observations illustrated how the sculpture acted as a transducer by offering visitors various intangible experiences while the table functioned as a place of rest and reflection on said experiences.
The conceptualized design is an interactive table that captures visitors' engagement with the sculpture, themselves and the city while simultaneously assisting in the breakdown of cultural and social barriers. The design was tested with an activity involving foam core, a map, push pins and a simple question: where were you born? The goal was to test if the lingering positive effects of Cloud Gate could be detected by a simple prompt. Would people open up if they place a pin in the map? The testing proved to be partially successful in the sense of measuring or observing this type of interaction but fruitful in the information to build upon for future study. There is definitely something about the sculpture that brings out good qualities in its visitors and I think that cities can capitalize on these intangible experiences to help create a better experience for both tourists and citizens of urban environments.
Final Design Description
The need I chose to explore was Cloud Gate, the public sculpture by Anish Kapoor located in Chicago’s Millennium Park and the large communal table placed a few feet away.I was inspired to design a table with interactive features that engages both citizens and tourists of Chicago. My interests lie specifically in the moments when citizens and tourist break down social barriers because when multiplied, these moments make a better city. In my previous coursework, I focused on e-participation and its effectiveness in the urban environment. A consistent theme in my readings was how participation would wane after the initial engagement. In one of the class discussion forums, a fellow student posted an article written by Harrison and Dourish (1996) that discussed the differences between places and spaces. This study was very eye opening. What my earlier research seemed to miss was that you cannot create place artificially. Culture creates the place. What cities can do, and what Chicago did quite well, is to nurture culture by creating a space that encourages a sense of connection between individuals to the area. Something I noticed during my A1 observation at Cloud Gate. As they approached the sculpture, their moods lighten and smiles seem to come easier. Just a few feet away people tended to be less willing to let their guard down almost reverting back to their “city selves”. At the bean, there was a correspondence between the visitor and an intangible experience (emotional releases, cross-cultural interactions, new ideas and positive memories); with the sculpture acting as the transducer that allowed for this to occur.
In literature and politics people are presented as equals when seated together at a table. The interactions observed at Cloud Gate present visitors with the opportunity to speak with each other thus creating a moment where cultural and social barriors don’t exist. What I didn’t understand at the time of my observation but learned through the critique circle, was that this table is the art installation, Running Table designed by artist Dan Peterman. In addition to inspiring a sense of community, the table’s construction from recycled materials simultaneously points out societal consumption and inventive solutions for that consumption.
With all of this being said it felt a little heavy handed and a bit forced to get visitors to discuss cultural barriers, politics and ways to improve the world so I began to think about it as a more organic experience. By allowing visitors to engage with each other about the things that they love (food, travel, family, favorite places) obstacles to interaction can be broken down without forcing it.
With all of this information at hand about the interactions occurring at Cloud Gate, what kind of embodied experience could one design? After additional research and reflection, my thoughts led back to the table. It was already a focal point and A2 allowed me to explore the kinds of needs being discussed: where to eat, where to go next, how to get there? The final design would be an interactive table (a smart table, if you will) that acts as a kiosk and concierge. The surface of the table becomes a map, a translation device, a network; and a place to eat, a place to rest and a place to visit with co-workers, family or friends. Visitors could locate food options, favorite spots around the city, language options, architectural features of Chicago or even guided tours. In addition to providing information, users could sync the information to their devices to easily guide them to their next destination, while also using the table as a charging station.
Initially, I wasn’t concerned about the complexity of the prototype. Testing in public can be very complex and I might have had better success following a different approach. I did, however, value the experience and gained some additional insights highlighted in the evaluation section of this report.
References:
Harrison, S., & Dourish, P. (1996). Re-Place-ing Space: The Roles of Place and Space in Collaborative Systems. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW '96), Mark S. Ackerman (Ed.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 67-76. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/240080.240193
Journey Map
Prototype Description
The goal of my prototype was to recreate one of the potential features of the interactive table. To keep things simple, I chose a paper map, foam core and push pins. The intent was for subjects to pin where they are from and I would observe the interactions that occur. The goal with this simple exercise was to help me understand the opportunities the table provided. The final design would be more of an interactive directory that includes more robust features than a map.
Evaluation Process, Description, and Results
I completed two iterations of my prototype. One completed with close family and friends and the other completed in public. Each iteration proved to be significant in providing feedback and possible design changes.
Evaluation_Iteration 1:
In the first iteration, I chose to observe close family and friends reacting to the prototype. I utilized their feedback to make any adjustments prior to testing in public. The setup of the prototype was in my dining room with four subjects in total. The approach was subjective and based on personal observations.
Suggested Design Changes:
In order to streamline the testing process, it would be a good idea to insert some pins ahead of time. It was suggested by one of the subjects that no one likes to be the first one. I also made sure it was easy to grab the pin rather than keep them in the original packaging (which made the activity slightly cumbersome).
It was also suggested that I do not use the question "Where are you from?". This question not only has different meanings but could be interpreted as a culturally insensitive approach. For example, when asked this question, some users may think you are assuming they "look" like they are from somewhere else. For Iteration 2, I will pose two questions: "Where were you born?" and “Where to you live?” which I believe will allow for people to open up and discuss their personal journey.
Evaluation_Iteration 2
The goal of the second iteration was to observe how subjects (park visitors) reacted to the prototype in a public space (in the wild). I wanted to gain further insight into both the process and the prototype. The setup of the prototype was located at the communal table placed nearby the sculpture Cloud Gate in Chicago's Millennium Park. Instead of individuals, I chose to observe groups. Since I was observing during the holiday weekend, most people were traveling in groups and I was unable to observe any individual subjects. As in the first iteration, the approach was subjective and based on personal observations.
Results and Observations:
- This approach was not as successful as anticipated.
- The observation occurred around 3:00pm during a high traffic time. People observed were hot, appeared to be moody and mostly trying to locate food options.
- I accidentally took someone’s seat at the table and instead of asking me to move, they walked away in a huff. There was a plastic bag on the table which I mistakenly thought was someone's trash and moved it aside. Oops! I didn't consider the implications of certain cultural norms of "save my spot" or in this case "I was here first".
- Four different groups stopped to "pin" their birthplace. Two were from Illinois; one was from Oklahoma and another from Michigan.
- All four groups were quick about their placements and did not linger.
Suggested Design Changes:
The failure of this iteration taught me a lot about using a prototype in public and how even the simplest of prototypes can become complex when put to use or placed in context. After leaving the park, I realized that my presence was also a potential barrier. Generally speaking, people do not appreciate being approached in their free time (has anyone ever stopped to talk to Greenpeace). This made me realize that by directly approaching them, I was taking away their choice to participate. Given more time, I would have completed a 3rd Iteration where I placed a sign inviting people to participate. My observation would take place from a safe distance and allow the interactions to occur naturally.
In addition to the above comments, the other simple, yet not obvious, change would be to not use push pins. They kept falling out and creating a safety hazard. I think stickers or alternate markers would be more appropriate.
This project investigated the embodiment opportunity to support participation with both tourists and the citizens of an urban environment. I was intrigued by the intangible experiences observed during my A1 observation and I wanted to analyze the sculpture’s ability to transform visitors’ moods and perceptions. The challenge for was to conceptualize the interactions I observed at Cloud Gate and present an interactive opportunity (via the table) for visitors to engage with each other with the goal of breaking down potential cultural barriers.
Conclusion and Further Work
This project investigated the embodiment opportunity to support participation with both tourists and the citizens of an urban environment. I was intrigued by the intangible experiences observed during my A1 observation and I wanted to analyze the sculpture’s ability to transform visitors’ moods and perceptions. The challenge for was to conceptualize the interactions I observed at Cloud Gate and present an interactive opportunity (via the table) for visitors to engage with each other with the goal of breaking down potential cultural barriers.
The ideal solution was the table. At first I saw the sculpture as the focal point but after my observations, I realized that the bulk of the interactions were actually occurring at the table and it was the sculpture that was enabling strangers and friends to engage with each other. The design builds on the current table by creating an interactive surface in which visitors can connect (with each other and past users), utilize translation services, locate their next destination and get directions, find local venues or restaurants, charge their mobile devices or simply use as a physical surface for eating or taking a break.
I chose a simple prototype: foam core, map and push pins. The prototype was used to illustrate the map feature of the interactive table. In designing a follow up study, I would first complete a user study that gathers interests and needs. Utilizing the information found in this study, I would recreate the test but this time, allow for the interactions to occur naturally rather than directly approaching subjects. I would also like to further explore the potential entanglements. The more obvious ones were easier to discover; the ubiquitous selfie and weather (you can’t really control for these). My second iteration of the prototype uncovered additional items for exploration and study. Examples include: the cultural phenomena of “I was here first”, moodiness of weary travelers or stressed out employees taking a break. I was so enamored with how the sculpture was transforming people's moods for the better during A1 and A2 observations that I never considered the range of moods and how fleeting feelings can be. During the critique circle, a fellow classmate questioned how I would measure the experience, which was an excellent question. At this point I am not sure but this would be a great place to begin further study.
Overall, this project provided a surface level observation of how Cloud Gate has the potential to transform people’s moods and how a table can provide the opportunity for people to rest and to interact. It is particularly important to highlight that even though a small data set was used, the exercise of placing the pin sparked curiosity and prompted further discussion. Capturing this curiosity, willingness to ask questions and engage with others is what will make this successful.