Week 2 Reading Responses: Public Space as City Organizer

Response to Kevin Lynch, Image of the City

After reading the first chapter of Kevin Lynch's Image of the City, I have many opinions on the various subjects discussed in the reading. First off I'd like to agree with Lynch's statements about gathering a "public image" when it comes to navigating a city or an environment. If there is some sort of visual image, or structure or even area that is commonly recognized by not only one individual but rather a large group, than that is an example of a successfully planned out environment. However it is also a good thing to have this "public image" be something that can be looked at from many perspectives. I also agree with Lynch when he says that, "The observer himself should play an active role in perceiving the world and have a creative part in developing his image. He should have the power to change that image to fit changing needs." Basically saying that the people should be able to see their "image" no matter what the conditions. Finally I'd like to comment on the section of the reading where Lynch discusses devices that aid orientation and how the "breech the experience of interconnection." I can see where he is coming from when this is said. Devices such as GPS and smart-phones take the individual away from the environment. Instead of learning the surroundings by gathering visual images, the individual simply relies on animated roads and electronic voices as their guide. This in turn prevents a legitimate understanding of a place. I tend to agree on many points that Lynch as making, and overall really enjoyed the perspective he takes on the ideas of a city as an environment. He does not side with either traditional style of city such as the "organized grid" such as New York City nor the mess of urban planning that is Boston. To Lynch it's all about whether or not everything works in synchronicity and can be easily navigated through ideas such as the "public image" and without devices that aid orientation.


Response to William H Whyte, Sitting Spaces


Through out the entire reading all I could ask myself was, "what took these people so long to figure it out." The process that they took was more or less an adequate way of doing things, however the order in which it was done was completely off. One would think that when trying to figure out why certain plazas gather more people, you would look into the seating space. Yes the sun and dimensions of a plaza play a role but those are secondary issues in this case. So to me the process was more shocking than the actual finding itself. To create a space that will allow more people to gather, one must allow the space in which people can sit to grow and be quite large it's as simple as that. In relation to that point, if I were a designer convincing client to remove handrails form planters around the plaza I would simply say that if they want more people to gather in the plaza than putting up handrails around the planters would be a bad decision. Removing them would allow ledges that people can sit on, and people can sit where ever along said ledge without being restricted to specific areas like in the case of an individual stationary chair. An argument can be made however for placing handrails along said planters. The handrails, depending on height can be used to lean on for individuals who may choose not to sit. They also can prevent damages done to the plants because the rails themselves creates what is understood to be a boundary line.