atom11 talk:Home

Contents 1 Page structure 2 Content

Page structure

1. Very clear structure. I think it works well if you make a page out of a word in the description (e.g. intimacy, survey) that gives the reader more information on the details of it. --Tomek 16:22, 22 September 2011 (CEST)

I agree, the structure is clear. However it would be nice if there was thumbnails and one short sentence which indicates the essence of what is beyond that link more. It is great the you have 'Go back' links. clearly.--ChristianFriedrich 10:19, 27 September 2011 (CEST)

2. The pages are a bit text-heavy. Take note that architects are visually oriented and the ones who visit your site will base their judgement 99% on graphics and visual explanation.--ChristianFriedrich 10:19, 27 September 2011 (CEST)

Content

1. I would encourage you to think beyond the stereotype of the "park". Think of the site, not as a park (one of many), but as a unique, one-of-a-kind place. you can propose any kind of development in there that you think is needed in delft. the place can facilitate, generate, encourage any kind of activity of any kind of users. Don't let its stereotypical "parkness" limit you. On the other hand investigating down to the most specific details what qualities of the park are valuable for people can give you a lot of design hints. --Tomek 16:22, 22 September 2011 (CEST)

The 'What if' scenarios are an interesting exploration in that direction. I propose you develop more of these conceptual visions and one for one take them seriously--ChristianFriedrich 10:29, 27 September 2011 (CEST)

2. The idea of "control" (of the flow of people in your case), I find a bit fishy. Makes me think of a theme park attraction with a queue of people lining up to enter, walk through and leave, and a fat guy eating potato chips behind a security camera observing them. Or a big brother scenario. Instead, how about thinking beyond the park, what makes people come there, is it really in everyone's best interest to keep a steady number of people in the park? Or is it maybe that you would like to eliminate mutual disturbance, not the number of people per se. How could you make people care about the park and prevent disturbances?.... keep asking yourselves questions, don't fall into easy assumptions--Tomek 16:27, 22 September 2011 (CEST)

Tomek, I appreciate your response as well as the comparison to the theme park/big brother scenario. That, coupled with advice to think of the site less as a "park" and more as a unique locale may give us momentum. It was interesting to discover, however, that the students we interviewed didn't use the site even though it has many of the qualities they desired. This makes me think we are missing something very obvious about why the site is not being used. Personally I would like to identify this factor. Even so, the stance we have taken is this one: the site is not used enough to declare it an asset to the community or city of Delft as it stands. Due to this reason, our intervention can not make any less people visit the site. Instead of thinking about this entrance as a controlling device, to me it feels more like an interesting entry condition that may make students/residents/tourists curious about what lies behind the barrier. It is against everyone's best interest to keep the site packed all the time, that seems counterintuitive to this idea of maintaining the intimacy of the site. Once we depart from thinking of the site as a park, I anticipate a better grasp of what constitutes an "intimate space" and how it applies to disturbances/crowds/etc.., which may also give some good design hints--Nate 17:30, 22 September 2011 (CEST)

The places which are now accepted and used by students are very open, transitory spaces - e.g. the center area of the campus, the library roof. And, even tough it is totally exposed, being on the library roof can be an intimate experience. Are you sure that closure is inviting? (I need more convincing)--ChristianFriedrich 10:30, 27 September 2011 (CEST)