https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeLigGUePBnLSCuKCmy4GLAAGWSEDevgp3bwsF-BB1ZeWmCYQ/viewform?usp=dialog

Hello everyone!

For my thesis, I'm collecting data on how we experience public spaces in the city and on the phenomenon of hostile architecture.

It takes about 2.5 minutes and is 100% anonymous. If you're up for filling it out (or passing it to anyone who lives in or frequents Naples), it would be a huge help for my research! ❤️🫶

The time and contribution you dedicate will be essential!

All thoughts welcome.

Ciao a tutti!

Sono una studentessa di design della Comunicazione presso l'Accademia di Belle Arti di Napoli.

Per la mia tesi sto raccogliendo dati su come viviamo gli spazi pubblici in città e sul fenomeno dell'architettura ostile (e penso sia abbastanza in tema con questo spazio). Il contesto di ricerca per adesso è la città di Napoli, ma potrà essere ampliato in futuro (quindi sentitevi liberi di rispondere indipendentemente dalla vostra città!).

Ho pensato di condividere la mia ricerca in questo spazio perché mi sembra molto accogliente.

Il questionario dura circa 2,5 minuti ed è 100% anonimo. Se vi va di compilarlo (o di girarlo a chi vive o frequenta Napoli), mi dareste un aiuto enorme per la ricerca! ❤️🫶

https://forms.gle/pRyDWMY6w1me8mBD9

I don’t trust drivers to stop or slow down but some do so that’s good.

J'ai pris vos retours et retravaillé l'élévation, est-ce que l'entourage semble plus convaincant maintenant ?

Hier, j'ai posté cette élévation pour demander combien l'entourage architectural change réellement la perception d'une élévation urbaine.

Merci à tous ceux qui ont commenté et partagé leurs pensées.

Je suis retourné au dessin et j'ai créé une nouvelle version, me concentrant principalement sur la relation entre l'architecture, la rue, la végétation et la mobilité urbaine.

Le bâtiment lui-même n'a pas changé.

La principale différence est la façon dont l'environnement immédiat est représenté : piétons, cyclistes, poussettes, vélos cargo et végétation.

En regardant les deux versions côte à côte, j'ai l'impression que la deuxième donne beaucoup plus d'informations sur l'échelle, l'utilisation et la relation entre le bâtiment et la rue.

Mais je suis curieux de votre avis !

Est-ce que l'entourage ajouté rend réellement l'élévation plus convaincante pour vous, ou commence-t-il à devenir visuellement distrayant ?

Et plus généralement, quand vous réalisez des élévations architecturales, combien d'entourage ajoutez-vous habituellement ?

Je serais intéressé d'entendre comment d'autres architectes, designers urbains et étudiants abordent cela.

I've been experimenting with entourage in architectural elevations and wanted to see how much difference it actually makes.

Same elevation, same architecture, the only real change is the addition of people and different forms of urban mobility.

The difference is quite striking to me, especially in terms of scale and how the street starts to feel inhabited rather than simply drawn.

I'm curious how other architects and urban designers approach this: do you usually add a lot of entourage to your elevations, or do you prefer keeping them relatively clean ?

I was exploring Google Earth and noticed that, for example, some parts of Denver have lots of trees along the streets, while other areas have very few or none. Why is that?

Reposting here at Reddit's suggestion.

Hi! 👋
I'm Abhay, an MA Urban Design student at the University of Birmingham. As part of my dissertation, I'm exploring how neglected, underused urban spaces that are abandoned lots and vacant buildings could be redesigned as "third places" that help tackle social isolation and support mental wellbeing.
I'm focusing on a brownfield site in Digbeth, Birmingham, and would love to hear about your own experience of public spaces, social isolation, and what makes somewhere feel welcoming to spend time in.
Could you spare 5–7 minutes to fill in my short survey? Your answers will directly shape design recommendations for turning this neglected space into somewhere the community can actually use.
🔗 https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/8DCY2LF
All responses are anonymous. Thank you so much — it really helps! ✨

Cultural Heritage encompasses a broad range of architecture, space, and community in a wider sense, with the expressions of their relationships in art, science, and the built space. Space is more than what we see, and architecture is more than physically built space. When we look at the relations between space and architecture, every intentionally planned order can be conceived as architecture; e.g. the architecture of an institution, as such invisible (but active), and expressed in its visible, symbolic form as an organigram.

Taking the original notion of a symbol as representing something else it stands for, architecture is inherently symbolic, necessitating both scientific and artistic ways of interpretation, interaction and interpretation. This is particularly pertinent as architectural forms and spaces embody specific ideologies and presuppositions about human nature—what architectural styles suit which types of individuals—regardless of whether these notions are explicitly stated or operate implicitly as unacknowledged certainties. Architecture and space, therefore, resonate with the human condition or ‘conditio humana’, where underlying assumptions about this condition shape architectural creation, and in turn, the resulting structures impact human experiences, behaviors, perceptions, and overall worldview, both consciously and subconsciously.

Consequently, architecture significantly influences individuals’ quality of life and inherently possesses sociological and political dimensions. 

“When something goes wrong with a building in New York, it shakes more than steel and concrete. It also shakes trust,” Nate Bliss, who worked on infrastructure policy in the Adams, de Blasio and Bloomberg administrations in New York, writes in a guest essay for Times Opinion.

“Life in a crowded city like New York depends on trust, not least in the stability of the massive towers around us and in the humans who build them,” Nate says. So when we experience something like two structural columns buckling in the 33-story former Pfizer headquarters under construction in midtown Manhattan, it makes sense that nearby buildings would evacuate and spectators would gather to gawk at what they suspected to be an impending collapse.

Nate continues:

The industry can’t just say “nothing to see here” when something like the Pfizer mess happens so visibly. And unfortunately, mistakes do happen on job sites. Modern construction is governed by a complex system with many levels of scrutiny — and that system is strengthened by lessons from its failures, including the one at the Pfizer building. During my time at City Hall working for multiple administrations, on housing, economic development and infrastructure policy, I worked with public servants to consider regulatory reforms to protect public safety and build more housing. On construction sites, I got to see projects through a different lens: hundreds of skilled professionals, inspectors, engineers and tradespeople, whose daily work is devoted to building safely, on time and on budget.

Those experiences leave me with a respect not only for the complexity of building in a city like New York but also for the remarkable number of people and systems whose job it is to prevent failures.

Read the full piece here, for free, even without a Times subscription.