I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how designers design and why and have been exploring several areas within this topic. This post starts at the beginning with a look at the basics of the design process when it comes to designing for people whether it’s architecture, outdoor public space or products, it all follows the same formula.

I really enjoyed the TED talk from Paul Bennett, a creative director at the design and innovation company IDEO who believes, as I do, that design can make the world a better place. I think it’s a great place to kick off this whole thought surrounding design for people. According to TED he says “‘Small is the new big,’ and his design approach reflects this philosophy. For often, it’s not the biggest ideas that have the most impact, but the small, the personal, and the intimate.”

His talk, split into four chapters, is based around analyzing what and how people do things and to then design based on that. Instead of trying to change people, change the way things work for people. The first chapter has the brilliant and very British title, “The blinding glimpse of the bleeding obvious” which discusses those solutions that stare you in the face to the point where you almost miss them.

IDEO was asked by a healthcare system to describe to them the patients experience. The client was then shocked when they came back with a video instead of some sort of powerpoint presentation with all sorts of charts and bubble diagrams. The video was over 6 minutes of simply staring at the ceiling tiles because, in the hospital, that is truly the real user experience.

image via Lisa Town

Bennett says that it is “looking at the situation from the position of the person out as opposed to the traditional situation of the organization in.” This is such brilliant sentence that appeals to all forms of design and something far too often missed. For the people at the hospital it was then a huge realization that it wasn’t about this massive change but rather about small details that can make a huge impact. Simple gestures.

The second chapter was titled directly from a quote from the Buddha, “Finding yourself in the margins”. This part of the talk looks at the edges of things, going beyond blanket vision and blanket solutions and extending your vision all the way out into the peripheral zone. Look around, watching how people work and interact and being careful to pick up on even the tiniest of human gestures in order to dictate how to design things for that user. Seeing things in the world and using them to create new opportunities.

IDEO’s Jane Fulton Suri has an interesting book called Thoughtless Acts?: Obeservatons on Intuitive Design that covers this very thinking of really seeing what people respond to, how they interact with the space around them. The things that people do that have huge intention and huge opportunity. We all communicate with each other in a highly visual way, subconciously, without even realizing what we’re doing. Bennett says it well, “People design their own experiences, you can draw from this.”

I like the image below of the guy following the line in the Japanese subway. It reminded me of a particular subway stop in Mexico City which is right at a hospital, I think the only subway in the world that has a subway stop literally at a hospital, and there were lines like this at the stop. They were textured and meant for the blind to find their way from the subway car to the hospital. But I found many people, including myself, compelled to walk along it.

image via thoughtlessacts

The third section he calls, “Having Beginner’s Mind” and calls this “unthinking situations and looking at things afresh.” My favorite example he gave was of his friend who was a designer at Ikea and charged with the task of coming up with a storage solution for children. The first thing he noticed was that children don’t interact with the world in the same way that adults do. They don’t automatically think of putting things up in shelving units. He immediately started looking at the world like a child, doing things that they do like crawling under tables. (Or in my case when I was a kid, turning a dining room table into an entire fort ;-) He then came up with a solution that looks absolutely nothing like the famous Billy bookcase or anything even remotely resembling a bookcase. But instead, it a solution that goes under things that children can hang items like stuffed animals from.

“Reframing the ordinary” and looking at things through the users perspective, getting into their shoes and using that information to fuel solutions.

image via petit_kchou

The last section is called “Pick battles big enough to matter, small enough to win” or “where do we start, how do we start and what do we do to start?”

This really gets into my frustration with those designers out thre that design in their own bubble and create this artistic, scultpural form that is then placed into the space producing no relationship with it’s surrounding whatsoever. The object itself could be exquisite but if it doesn’t work and people don’t know what to do with it, it fails whereas a solution that may not be as sexy works because of it’s intuitive design that deivers what the user needs and wants and fits within it’s intended environment.

This ends on a great note in bringing it all home with saying that, as designers we need to start with the user, tranfer ourselves to their world and look for the solution through their eyes. Before trying to get all fancy, think about what the user is doing and what they truly need, not just what might look, feel, smell or sound cool.

And if you have a few minutes, check out the original talk from Paul Bennett at the top of this post.

A “desire line” is the preferred path which one takes to get from one place to another, often referring to the worn path through grass, shrubs or any other location which was not designed or designated for pedestrian traffic. Chances are there is a sidewalk nearby but has been considered the less direct route and therefore is the least perferred option. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what the desire lines and active patterns might look on a city-wide scale.

While visiting MFO Park near Zürich, Switzerland there was a very interesting phenomenon, a desire line that quite literally glowed. Even though the park acts similar to a plaza in that there are no paths, the whole site is meant for walking, there was a very distinct path that many people took on a continual basis. This connection is between the public transit and a residential portion of the neighborhood which the park essentially was placed right in the middle of. So the people just cut through the park and slip past wall-like clipped hedges that border the edge of the site.

images via Lisa Town

The way people navigate through space is such a huge piece of the design puzzle, it shapes cities and forms experiences. I often thought it would be really interesting to be able to track people in a more visual way in how they go about their day. I wonder what kind of patterns would form as their lines crossed large spaces, cut corners and brought to light the eaiest way in the pedestrians mind to get from point A to point B. Especially now that there is a greater shift from the vehicular and more focus on those on foot or wheels. How do these people move through the urban fabric in a vehicular world? What could their paths tell us about how a city’s infrastructure could potentially be restructured to better fit the needs of the people now and in the future?

I wrote recently in reference to an article on Copenhagenize about the bike counter. This is a really interesting device but while it may explain the chapter about how many people use a specific path and the patterns of time and day usage, such a device wouldn’t explain the whole story of perhaps what other paths people would like to use. It would be really interesting if there was a way to be able to track people ithat was effortless and allowed them to go about their typical day while still furthering the experiment. How cool would it be to deploy such an experiment and, after say a week, have the city turned into a life size urban traffic diagram?

image via contrail

Pepin Gelardi has thought of this as well and came up with something called Contrail as part of Design21’s Power To The Pedal” design competition. From Contrail’s website: “Contrail is a tool for developing bicycle communities. As you ride, contrail leaves a faint chalk line behind your bike. The goal is to encourage a new cycle of biking participation by allowing the biking community to leave a unique mark on the road and to reclaim this crucial shared space.”

Contrail points out an interesting note in that by actively placing lines where cyclists go, cars become aware of the use and the hope is that they would then become more aware and cautious of the cyclists. In addition, this could spur on more cyclists to take to the road and follow the masses with the feeling of safety in numbers.

image via contrail

One interesting thought might be to tap into the power of gps devices and conduct an experiment that tracks people with these devices for a period of time, analyzing the patterns that emerge from the data. It would be really interesting to track not only bikes but pedestrians as well to get a sense of how the entire city operates and even more important, how it could potentially operate even better.

I came across this video on Twitter via @RainGardens because of their clever line attached to the link that said “Could a rain garden have prevented this tragic accident?” and intriguing as it was, I had to click on the link. But when I watched the clip, it brought up a whole gigantic frustration that I have with how our environment is perceived, here in the United States especially, and my fear for the next generation and their immersion in the on-line social culture that is causing a serious disconnect with the physical reality.

In this video clip a girl is being interviewed about having fallen down an open manhole because she was texting as she was walking down the street, therefore not paying attention and assuming her safety. While the open manhole certainly exhibited some serious neglegence, that’s not the point here. The point is that it could’ve been anything, it doesn’t even matter specifically what kind of hazard, even just a branch in the sidewalk from the wind and she still wouldn’t have seen it because of her absorption in this alternate world and she still would’ve fallen. The girl is asked if there was anything to warn her that there was an open manhole in the sidewalk like a cone or something, to which the girl replies “No, there was no guy there”. Yeah…that’s because if there was just a cone then she would’ve tripped over the cone and still fallen down the hole.

Then when the girl is asked how she feels about being criticized for texting while walking down the street and not paying attention, she says that it’s not her job and that she should be able to walk down her own street and text without worrying what is going to happen to her. Right there, boom, that’s the problem with kids these days.

This is exactly what happens when your environment has been made to be overly safe with guardrails around everything and lawyers ready to launch coupled with the black hole of technology sucking out everyone’s souls. People (and I’m looking in the general direction of those in the US here) expect the world to just lay out a red carpet for them instead of opening their eyes and figuring out how to respond to the environment on their own. See a hole? Step over it. See a ledge? Don’t step over it. It’s simple and yet people don’t get to that decision point because they are trained that they shouldn’t have to…because it’s not their responsibility to watch out for themselves. This causes a serious disconnect and lack of understanding between people and their environment. I seriously worry about the next generation. Are they going to grow up into self-absorbed adults that don’t know how to interact with the physical world? This is scary stuff people.

As someone who is focused on the physical realm and outdoor space, I take this as a challenge. We need to create places that can compete with this virtual reality and pull people out of their zombie mode…spaces that are exciting, educational and inspiring. We need to build up our green infrastructure, focus our cities more on the pedestrian scale, create linkages, spaces and events within that are exciting, inspiring and educational that encourage people to engage themselves with their very own cities. There are lots of great things going on out there as the world strives for the ultimate model of a sustainable city and we need to continue to find creative ways to get people, especially the younger generation, to put down the cell phone or turn off the computer and pick up their walking shoes and bike helmets.

Accept the challenge.

One of the reasons I pursued landscape architecture is because I am ridiculously fascinated by the decisions people make in how they interact with people and space. Everyone is so different and how one person views their environment will likely be entirely different from the view of another. One person may find a situation pleasant while another may find it frustrating and confusing. But why? And that’s why it is so interesting to get to know more about how people think on a larger scale. Explore the differences and what elements influence our decisions.

When I saw the website link for Fifty People, One Question on Belly of an Architect, I immediately knew I had to check out the clips. It also reminded me of a task in Venice where I was asked, as part of a group, to “Find Balance” which turned into a series of video clips recording the differing thoughts and stories of people from 4 corners of the globe in different areas of the watery city. I’ll have to see if can find those…

It’s especially interesting to look at the who and the why behind the action…what are the factors at play, what lead up to that moment? The first question by Fifty People, One Question was “By the end of today, what would I wish to happen?” Most people were shocked and replied “today?” with that kind of reaction you have when someone just presents you with an unexpected gift where you say….wow, is this for me? Thinking of a positive thing that could happen is like a gift because you are knocked off your path and distracted by this exciting possibility. A whole new world opened up, even if it’s just for a moment.

images via heynathan

The most recent question was “Where would you like to wake up?” This is an excellent question. There is so much that could lead up to that answer with so many elements rolled into who the person is and why or how they might end up in that particular location. Is it a simple wish, a far-fetched dream, another time or dimension…reality? Who’s reality? There’s everything from in a pink bubble, floating above the clouds, filled with pink bubbles to back in time during the French revolution to alive and in my own house.

Below is the nicely editd video of the answers from London. View the Fifty People, One Question website for more people and different cities.

Fifty People, One Question: London from Fifty People, One Question on Vimeo.

I saw the post in The Dirt recently and recall previous posts on Metropolis and a mention in Forbes regarding NY urban gardenening about Thomas Balsley’s rooftop monoculture forest at 101 Warren Street in Manhatten and I have to say that I’m conflicted about this project.

I’m surprised there isn’t more criticism on this, especially on the line from the Metropolis article, “The goal was to achieve a tranquil place rather than a pretty or functional one.” Wow, I could never imagine saying something like that and getting away with it. I realize that as professionals we are always happy when a green roof is built but shouldn’t there still be dialogue? What do people out there think of this one?

image via Thomas Balsley Associates

First, I’d like to address the simple fact that this project is built at all is quite the accomplishment. For an owner to decide that hauling up over a hundred large 25 foot tall Austrian Pines via crane onto the rooftop and allowing a 54″ soil depth down into the roof (or does this number include the raised/mounded portion above the roof?) is worth the money and the effort…is huge. HUGE. I remember just last year begging for 36″ with an architect only to have them tell me they would try to give me 18″ but that 12″ was more likely. Which meant that the small pine trees I’d been showing through several phases had been totally ignored in terms of their needs. And you can only build up and mound so much, depending on how much space there is.

While green roofs are popular these days, they are still costly and clients are not always willing to fork out the money for height, no matter how much more we say the value of their property will increase. But with more and more examples being built out there with trees that we are able to point to as designers and provide as successful, working examples to our clients, the better they can understand the benefits versus the cost.

image via Thomas Balsley Associates

image via metropolis

Although, I can’t help but wonder if 54″ is sufficient for trees that could eventually reach 60 feet in height (although perhaps the space will confine their growth and given that this is not a native forest environment, they’ll probably only get to 40′-50′ yet that is still large) and whether trees of that size are even appropriate for rooftop applications, not only for weight purposes but also wind. When I visited the Washington Mutual Green Roof earlier this year, they had some small Shore Pines, maybe 15′ feet tall at the most, that were tied down with several cables all around the trunk. Granted the pines at this mixed-used tower in Manhattan are only planted 2 stories up on the towers podium (this according to tbany.com, although Metropolis says 5 stories up), whereas the trees on the WAMU tower were much higher but I still wonder if wind is at all a factor (wind tunnel effect?) and what kind of precautions need to be taken for stabilization or is the soil depth sufficient for trees of this size? Perhaps it might seem like a silly question but a wind study was done for one project I was working on with a green roof and eventhough the roof space was just a couple stories above the ground we found the wind to actually be quite a significant issue. This is different everywhere, but it was one of the first questions that came to my mind when reading about large trees.

image via Lisa Town

Balsley mentions that he wanted to create a “monoculture of evergreens to emulate the northern forests” and are also an effort to avoid the typical blankets of sedum and highly manicured containers. While large expanses of sedums are a great option for achieving the benefits of a green roof for those that only have 6 inches or less to work with, they are an extensive type of roof and different from an intensive-style roof garden. But a roof garden also doesn’t have to be a high maintenance endeavor with over manicured pots, as Balsley mentions. In fact, I thought the typical point of a roof garden was to create something that was of a benefit to the environment as well as residents and not a maintenance hog? This seems like an over generalization on Balsley’s part in trying to justify the design. In fact the WAMU green roof is a beautiful and successful example of creating a natural and artistic landscape in a rooftop setting and doesn’t include any manicured pots.

image via Thomas Balsley Associates

Balsley states that the forest is “a different idea of what an amenity should be. It’s not always something you can use.” And this statement is fine (although again, quite bold) in one sense because I agree that the ability to look out into or over vegetation still provides a great amenity. Afterall, wouldn’t you rather look out over vegetation as opposed to other buildings or streets?

However, while it can be fine, albeit unfortunate, that people can’t “use” a roof garden it seems to me like there should be a reason for this other than the designer just not wanting people to. One great reason could be environmental or habitat benefits. Pine trees are excellent habitat for insects and birds and allow for hiding and perching opportunities. While I do like the way it looks to have these pine trees standing like artistic columns in waving mounds surrounded by corten and contrasting river-washed rock it does seem rather unfriendly in some areas and I think it could’ve been so simple to provide maximum habitat benefits without compromising the designer’s vision.

image via metropolis

The main thing missing for good habitat is a food source. I realize the point was for a monoculture, hence the choice of Mugo pines as the shrub base for the trees, but if a different shrub or groundcover were chosen that provided flowers and berries, then suddenly there is a food source and that changes the trees from simple perching areas to also providing nesting opportunities as birds want to nest near a food source. The monoculture of trees would still exist and the ground plane could be it’s own monoculture at the trunk base, thus the overall vision would be unchanged yet the environmental benefits would’ve more then doubled just from one simple plant choice revision.

So with all that I ask, does a monoculture of mature pine trees belong on a green roof? Should design vision take precendence over usability or environmental impact? Does one need to be able to “use” a green roof in order to achieve the same benefits? It will be really interesting to see how this forest does in fact grow and mature over the years and how the community and professional view towards the garden grows and changes along with it.

There’s a great post over at BLDGBLOG today in which Geoff Manaugh discusses the novel Ulysses and how the journey around Dublin could in fact be “descriptive realism“. To which he then poses the question…

“What if narrative – endlessly diverting narrative, latching onto distractions in every passing window and side-street, with no possible conversation or observation omitted – is the best way to diagram the urban world?”

While I love maps and can spend hours pouring over them, no matter now much information has been included or however creative the imagery, they still do not capture the true essence of a city. When I think of the experience of walking through a city like Marseille and then look at a map, there is definitely a lot missing. The map doesn’t convey the total chaos I felt and constant distractions pushing or pulling me in different directions making it near impossible to follow a straight line and the sensory overload on a particular street corner that stopped me in my tracks. Another example would be Venice and the feeling of wandering through a series of narrow walkways that open to sunlit plazas, feeling that sense of expansion and contraction while moving through space, allowing the city to be the guide.

This idea of allowing oneself to move through a city without motive, in a way that allows the terrain and urban fabric itself to encourage the path of movement and interactions, seeks to move beyond the simple facts of what the city looks like and describe the spatial relationships and the overall environment through a heightened awareness of the urban landscape.

Manaugh wonders about the thought of taking the narrative from Ulysses and putting it through some sort of machine that could turn it into a graphic to see what the outcome might be and whether it would look like the actual city described. I think it would be really interesting to take the machine out of the equation and hand someone a map and a narrative, have them analyze each separately and then ask them if they are of the same city. Or perhaps a narrative and several maps and ask them to match the narrative with the correct street map. What would be the outcome?

I watched a TED talk awhile ago given by Paula Scher, a successful graphic designer with over 30 years of experience, where she focused on this very topic. Her talk was titled “Serious Play”. She opened the talk by saying:

“My work is play and I play when I design. I even looked it up in the dictionary to make sure that I actually that. And the definition of play is, number one, to engage in a childlike activity or endeaver and two, was gambling. And I realize I do both when I’m designing. I’m both a kid and I’m gambling all the time. And I think that if you’re not then there’s something inherently wrong with the structure of the situation if you’re a designer.”

I also found an interview with her recently in the Pyschology Today blogs that covers the value of failure in relation to her talk.

“The thing about your mistakes is, when everybody praises something, you don’t learn anything. But when you do something terrible, you know what not to do. And that’s fantastic. You also learn what you could do if you manipulated it a different way. You have to try these things. You have to see where the failure takes you. That’s very scary and risky and also hard to do while you’re trying to do something professional. So you have to set aside some personal R&D to make the failure.”

The focus was the difference between solemn work and serious work. In the interview she defines “serious work as being where you make breakthroughs, and solemn work as doing the status quo and the level may be very good but it’s not breakthrough.”

She explains, and this is the gem right here, that “the best way to engage in serious play is to be totally and completely unqualified for the job.”

This especially struck me and hit on something that I have embraced in my career. Up until a few years ago, I don’t think I got a single job I was qualified for the day I stepped in the door. But somehow my energy and passion won out over those candidates with the skills already in place. That’s not to say I know exactly what I’m doing now, nor would I really want to, but I at least have a good base in which to have a bit more fun. I’ve always strongly believed in focusing in on what you want, finding a way to do it and just going for it even if what you want may seem a little (or even a lot) out of reach at the start. Be passionate and focused. Never be afraid to fail because failure is what greatness is made of.

“You have to get bad in order to get good. You have to try a lot of things and fail in order to make the next discovery.”

Check out Paula Scher and her talk on “Serious Play”. It’s a good one. She also shows many great images from her expansive career including some good ones on architecturally integrated graphic design and some from her newest project that involve turning some ugly overpasses into revolving artistic neighborhood gateways.