Placemaking in the City
A 3-week design sprint using ethnographic research methods to propose an adaptable public space intervention within the city of Amsterdam.
Team: Clara Bradford, Hannah Liu, Shannon Stussy
Duration: 3 weeks
Location: Amsterdam, NL
My Role: Interviews, Mapping, Observation, Ideation
Overview
Throughout cities and places around the world, we see the need for interventions that will bring people together in such a way that will benefit the individuals living in those communities. Successful placemaking is making a public space intervention adaptable and programming it so that it can consistently evolve shape to serve the needs of a community and its people (Dekker, 2019). Over the course of 3 weeks, while studying at the University of Amsterdam, our team worked to use the placemaking method at the University of Amsterdam’s Science Park campus to create fun learning opportunities that also brought community members together.
The Outreach Department of the University of Amsterdam (two faculty members being our project partners) presented us with the following challenge:
“How can we, the Outreach Department, trigger citizens of the adjacent neighborhoods to come to Science Park and find added benefit?”
Assumptions
Prior to really digging into our problem space, we started with the following assumptions that we hoped to uncover answers to through our research:
People feel a barrier to UvA’s Science Park and to those within it
Citizens want to connect with each other
Photo by Clara Bradford
The Plan
Research Questions
From our assumptions and the challenge presented to us, we developed the following research questions:
What is important to the people who work in this space?
Why do or don’t they spend time here? (We wanted to answer this same question for those who live in the surrounding areas.)
In what ways can the knowledge that we share with visitors permeate through the community and the rest of Amsterdam in a way that is beneficial for all?
While sharing this knowledge, how might we also allow those opportunities to foster positive interactions and relationships community-wide?
Methods
Design Thinking Method:
We used this method to guide us throughout the duration of the 3 weeks, completing one phase of the method per week.
Empathize
Research
Our first week and a half was spent becoming familiar with the placemaking methodology as well as the city of Amsterdam, its people, its history, its ecosystem, and its political climate. We also spent time receiving an overview of key local government policies.
![20190709_110036.jpg](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/59d1451b268b96ef862ab5f8/1578589993488-AGRFQ1SGKKXIY1QKT2VC/20190709_110036.jpg)
![20190711_103452_HDR.jpg](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/59d1451b268b96ef862ab5f8/1578589998112-84Z47TEBJUBRBCEKYQX3/20190711_103452_HDR.jpg)
![20190709_095826_HDR.jpg](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/59d1451b268b96ef862ab5f8/1578590051218-1ANMS8VEQF8TAPWGZMLY/20190709_095826_HDR.jpg)
Levels of Public Interaction at Science Park
Based on the theories and concepts studied (in particular Anna Dekker’s “Levels of Public Interactions”, William Whyte’s “The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, and Jane Jacobs’ “Eyes on the Street” theory) we analyzed what matters most to people in general regarding human interactions their environment, and we compared this to what resources already exist at Science Park that can help us touch on these important matters.
Agendas, Context, Use, and Desires
While doing our research, we mapped the original challenge question to a model made up of 4 components.
Agendas (Top Down):
Through our lectures, city excursions, and literature reviews we learned about exogenous forces such as local and global political climate, governmental policies and plans, and economics.
Insights:
Along with its native born citizens, Amsterdam is home to a large population of immigrants and former refugees.
Amsterdam is a buzzing hub of science and culture.
Gentrification over time has pushed citizens of lower socioeconomic status further from the city center and its resources.
Design constraints:
We needed to create a welcoming and open community environment that fosters freedom to express oneself and their culture.
This information needs to be accessible to all, not just those in academia or who can afford to go to museums.
We needed to find what mattered to local neighborhood citizens that would help their community grow and thrive without increasing the cost of living.
Use (Flow Analysis):
While spending time doing observations in the city and at Science Park, we looked at the flow of how the city is used through its infrastructure, energy usage, waste, people etc.
Insights:
People in the city heavily rely on cycling (or walking for close distances) as their main mode of transport and public transportation comes in second.
There are usually grocery stores, shops, restaurants and schools within walking distance in a neighborhood.
This may give them no reason to explore outside of it (other than to commute to their job) if they do not see a reason for it.
Design constraints:
This placemaking intervention needs to be accessible via currently used modes of transportation. Science Park is close to the tram, cycling, and walking paths.
It would be helpful to have similar needs met at, or on the way to, Science Park so that the placemaking intervention did not seem as though it was not worth going to.
Context (Area Approach):
Through mapping out an overview of the space, we saw the existing context of public space, streets, squares, buildings, parking areas, industrial sites, office parks, waterfronts etc. that the spatial intervention would be situated within.
Insights:
We noted these points of interest and then examined the redundancy of the points between Science Park and the adjacent neighborhoods.
These redundant points tended to be parks/green spaces, cafes/restaurants, sports facilities, and academic spaces.
Design constraints:
There needs to be a quality about the placemaking intervention that sets it apart from other public spaces in the area.
Desires (Bottom Up):
Through interviews we got to know the needs and wishes of local actors and stakeholders such as UvA’s Outreach Department, citizens, and those working/studying at and visiting Science Park.
“I have my social network at home, why would I need to stay here?”
Creatures of Habit
We found that those who do come to Science Park are either there to work or are a student and don’t spend a lot of time there outside of those responsibilities. They seemed to have a wanting to keep their professional and private life separate outside of annual events.
For those that did spend time at Science Park’s campus outside of work and class, it was spent at the sporting facility or the nearby Cafe Polder. When asked about the community garden (Anna’s Tuin) at Science Park, only those who spent time at Science Park knew about it, but had never been (with the exception of one person who had walked through).
“Why would I go there? I’m not a student.”
Unintentional Barriers
We found that local neighborhood citizens where often confused by why we would be asking them if they went to Science Park if they were not a student. When we mentioned that there was a community garden and maybe they had heard of that, they all said that they had not heard of it.
It was at this point in our research, when we realized how distant and disconnected those outside of the campus must feel.
Insights:
Many residents don’t see a reason to go to Science Park to spend time, as they don’t think it has anything to offer them since they are not students.
Those who are students or work at Science Park don’t seem to have a want or need to spend personal time there.
For working-class individuals and young families in the surrounding neighborhoods, we gathered that they are in search of affordable after-work activities.
People like activities that include socializing, food, and sharing of cultures.
The outreach from the University is often done by taking the knowledge from Science Park to children in schools or other educational places in the city.
Design constraints:
The program implemented should not be overly academic, but should present new opportunities of learning in a fun way.
The intervention should not create a feeling of being at work and should have a relaxing and home-like feeling.
The design should be free or very low-cost.
Our placemaking intervention should allow for the use of food and socializing to bring the community together while sharing cultures and learning about science topics together.
The Outreach Department at UvA can spread the word about this new placemaking design in their regularly scheduled outreach activities, in order to bring people to the space.
Define
Being able to empathize allowed us to examine the different target groups of people that our placemaking intervention at Science Park could have a positive impact on.
Understanding their needs led us to the design ideation phase of the project with a “human-centered” approach.
Our research showed overlapping insights about the needs of the following target groups:
Families with young children
Working-class residents
Due to the overlap, we chose to focus on these target groups of people when coming up with the following design goals.
Design goals:
Make Science Park a destination
A place for young children to play in as well as a space that attracts older children to hang out with friends in an environment where they can also learn
A place where people from other neighborhoods can meet
Make a place that feels separate from school and work place
Based on theories about repeated interactions in public spaces creating a feeling that gives a sense of “home”, we wanted to design an intervention that made a space feel more like home rather than work
Create a place to learn together and share knowledge
It was noted from neighborhood interviews that people like sharing time together over food, meeting new people, and sharing of cultures
It is the goal of the Outreach Department at UvA to bring knowledge from within its walls to the community around it
Through these design goals we worked to break down any perceived barriers between the University space and the local community. It was our overarching goal create a space that fostered positive interactions while giving those in the space the option to passively or actively learn from each other.
Ideate
Based on these insights gathered, we were able to come up with our design goals which we then used to launch us into the ideate phase of the design thinking process.
While there were many ideas listed, we ultimately narrowed it down to the two we felt were most feasible with current resources and funds that were available to the university and community.
The following are what we shared with our project partners and we were happy to find them well-received!
The teams “placemaking” our workspace with design ideas.
Idea 1: Long Table Community Dinners
Goal: Residents can share their cultural background over a medium of food.
These dinners would be hosted on the campus of Science Park outside (weather permitting) and would be regularly scheduled as we found from placemaking theories and concepts that reoccurring events help foster a sense of comfort and predictability.
We felt that this would create a relaxing backdrop for members of the community of all ages to get to know each other over conversation and food.
Where would the food come from?
Community members would have the opportunity to bring their own food to share with other attendees, allowing for the sharing of cultures through the medium of food.
Local restaurants could use this opportunity to share their food and have more exposure of their businesses to the wider community.
Where would Science Park fit into the equation?
During these community dinners, there would be booths set up where individuals and families could walk around and view different science experiments.
These activities would demonstrated by those who work at Science Park and have the option to be interactive.
This would foster relationships between community members and Science Park students and employees and break down any feelings of barriers between the academic building and the local community.
Illustration by Hannah Liu
Dinner & Movie Nights
We proposed the idea to have a science themed movie playing some dinner nights as an alternative to the booths to keep things from getting repetitive and stale feeling.
There would be 2 “intermissions” where a brief video would play showing the audience current things being discovered in the work and studies that are going on in Science Park.
Again, this would allow for visitors to be exposed to this knowledge in a relaxed and approachable setting where they are also getting to have their own interactions with others from across the community.
Pros
Adaptable
Affordable
Quick to implement
Continual use
Cons
Weather
Food allergies
Waste issues
Idea 2: Overnight Under the Stars
Goal: Families can interact with Science Park in a friendly academic setting.
This would be one night (reoccurring monthly) where kids came to Science Park and learned about topics in the planetary and astronomy sectors of science through the use of the observatory at Science Park.
Run by volunteers who are students or who work at Science Park, this would be a night full of science learning activities where children would also have the opportunity to interact with other children from across the community that they might otherwise never interact with. These interactions would provide a space to share cultures in order to cultivate empathy for others from an early age.
Illustration by Hannah Liu
Pros
Immersive
Expands child’s social network
Complements existing outreach programs
Cons
Liability issues
Accessibility
Faculty availability
Looking Ahead
Our project partner was excited about both of our ideas and noted that these were both highly achievable possibilities based on the resources that are currently available. As 3 weeks only provided us with the proper amount of time to reach the “Ideation Phase”, prototyping, testing, and further research will be the next steps necessary in this process. Ideally, more stakeholders from our target user groups, stakeholders involved at the university, and possibly local restaurants would need to be interviewed. Even further, it would be beneficial to co-create these ideas in participatory design sessions with stakeholders. At this point we feel that we have enough momentum to carry this project forward with these mentioned next steps.
Reflection
This opportunity to apply design thinking and human-centered philosophies while exploring the field of urban planning was incredibly eye-opening to me. This is an area that I felt I wasn’t familiar with, but once I began learning in class lectures and conducting research in the field, I realized how much overlap there is with the world of user experience design and research. I loved having the opportunity to work with real stakeholders towards implementing a realistic and positive intervention in the community. I keep reflecting on the fact that our lived experience as citizens in this world is just one large “user experience” and how it is programs like these that are crucial to maintaining our human-human interactions. This caused me to reflect on my studies in human-computer interaction. If we can use opportunities provided by technology to maintain these human-human interactions, we need to make sure that we stay intentional throughout the design process. Prior to this program I thought I fully understood this. However, when I was physically put in front of the people you are designing for and are immersed in their environment, it drove the point home even further. Through my studies in the placemaking program, I saw first-hand the need to make sure we are constantly taking into consideration the micro-interactions within the physical and digital ecosystems that are the daily lives of the people we are designing for. All of the exogenous factors like public policies, economics, cultures, and the multitude of things that impact their needs are not going to go away. Knowing this, I loved being able to learn about these factors and use that knowledge to problem solve and design to create a more positive experience for local community that fosters learning and relationships. It is on this level that we start to make the world a better place.
25 July 2019. Celebrating our last day of the programme.
(Not so) Fun Fact: This was the hottest day on record in Amsterdam, 104 degrees F (40 Celsius). 🔥