3 ms·

"It's pretty clear that this object has been placed by a rigid authority with strong opinions on the right and wrong way to use their bench." Should benches ev

by cturner 10y ago

"It's pretty clear that this object has been placed by a rigid authority with strong opinions on the right and wrong way to use their bench." Should benches even be fixed in place? That is an expression of authority also. What if we were to built it out of modular components, and place it, without it being bolted in place? There would be problems from doing this. Are some of the same problems true of the multi-use bench you describe? There are problems with your analogy to phones. Phones are private property. The benches in this thread are public property. We could quibble about what those terms mean, but it's clear that they are affected by different priorities and dynamics.

pimlottc 10y ago
It's a rough analogy, I admit. But the meaning of "public" vs "private", that's one of the central issues here. What rights does a random person have over an object in the public space? They don't own it, but somehow they should have some say. Maybe that's a bad question; this is not just about legal rights. Does the object suggest a sense of partnership, of shared ownership, of community? If I feel engaged in my city, I'll respect it, I'll take care of it, I'll help it develop. If not, I won't bother. Maybe it'll get littered, broken, tagged. Design plays a role here in forming that impression.
- cturner 10y ago
  I'm interested in this idea: can we imagine a world where people are so engaged that individuals just take care of problems like graffiti without there needing to be a council for it. What would it take to produce that spirit between people? For there to be a bench, and for its use to not be defined, and for people to use it as it is marked. > If not, I won't bother Often there are communities who feel differently. The people who are invested in the community will maintain it. Outsiders will respect it less. Some will take it for granted, others will actively undermine it for the lulz. These groups live alongside one another, and share resources, but they are socialised differently. Sometimes, though, things stick. In Australia, people leave their things on the beach when they go swimming. Messing with people's stuff seems to be a universal taboo. There'll be weird individuals who break it, but no subculture.

by cturner 10y ago

pimlottc 10y ago

It's a rough analogy, I admit. But the meaning of "public" vs "private", that's one of the central issues here. What rights does a random person have over an object in the public space? They don't own it, but somehow they should have some say. Maybe that's a bad question; this is not just about legal rights. Does the object suggest a sense of partnership, of shared ownership, of community? If I feel engaged in my city, I'll respect it, I'll take care of it, I'll help it develop. If not, I won't bother. Maybe it'll get littered, broken, tagged. Design plays a role here in forming that impression.

cturner 10y ago
I'm interested in this idea: can we imagine a world where people are so engaged that individuals just take care of problems like graffiti without there needing to be a council for it. What would it take to produce that spirit between people? For there to be a bench, and for its use to not be defined, and for people to use it as it is marked. > If not, I won't bother Often there are communities who feel differently. The people who are invested in the community will maintain it. Outsiders will respect it less. Some will take it for granted, others will actively undermine it for the lulz. These groups live alongside one another, and share resources, but they are socialised differently. Sometimes, though, things stick. In Australia, people leave their things on the beach when they go swimming. Messing with people's stuff seems to be a universal taboo. There'll be weird individuals who break it, but no subculture.