How Design Is Appropriated: Understanding Habitation through the Observation of Situated Behavior

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a theory paper about methods, specifically about how designers and design researchers can use indicators to describe and analyze the use of environments.   I am impressed by the range of citations of previous research and the general sophistication of the argumentation.  I have suggestions for making the article easier to read.

 

1. I had to reread the argument around line 212-215 (and 222-227) that this is not an empirical paper, but rather an argument about how best to use five indicators.  The distinction between routines and indicators was mentioned, but the importance of that distinction to the whole paper needs more attention at the time you introduce it.  Also, sharpen the distinction between sight and thought.  This presumably is the research framework that you mention toward the end  (line 629), so let the reader know early on (by using the phrase "research framework” in that early section of the paper).

 

2. Clarify the origin of the categories you use. You cite Zeisel, Webb, Hall, Eco, and Tuan.  But have you synthesized a new/ more comprehensive framework? Is any part original to you? Have you theorized an underlying order among the concepts of adaptation, signs, traces, alterations, adaptations, use, abandonment, personalization, and individualization?

 

3. Why do you introduce a new concept from literary criticism at the very end of your paper (line 703)?  Should it be part of the research design?  At least mention in the introduction/ overview that the argument of the paper will be placed in the context of other disciplines. 

 

4. Line 104: misinterpretation of Cranz on parks who did not study why public parks are not visited.  There is no footnote to a page number for this claim, probably because that particular fact is not in the book.  In citing other studies you usually used page numbers. On line 772 the bibliographic entry for this book is not correct; check the subtitle, which is A History of Urban Parks in America  (not Modern).

 

5. You could improve the writing by following White, Elements of Style.

 

The single most effective change you can make would be to eliminate the indefinite "it," which deadens writing.   I kept track of the numerous uses of the indefinite it; at least 21 sentences begin with the indefinite "it"--it is interesting, it is possible, etc, etc.  Don't hide behind the indefinite it; figure out what you want to say and your readers will be grateful! And your writing will be more scientific because you have to identify who or what is responsible for your observations.

 

Other stylistic problems include your using "on the other hand" without having first used "on the one hand."  If you mean "however," say "however," or "in contrast" or "alternatively."

 

The paper has a couple instances of unclear referents. E.g. Line 449; the pronoun “they” should be “the latter.” I found about half dozen instances of the wrong adverb or adjectival form, or the wrong comparative form, or the wrong preposition. Even though reviewers are told not to attend to grammatical issues, I took notes so I might as will share: lines 190, 564, 629, 637, 638, 646, 652, 678,

 

Some overly abstract language on line 182-184.

 

I really liked the intellectual sophistication in the phrase on line 93 ”enormous force of its materiality.”

 

In general I appreciate the wide intellectual net of the references.

 

see my comments above to the author)s)

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper proposes a new set of indicators for socio-environmental observations as a method to understand the relation between a designed space and its potential uses, and the alignment between both. It is mainly framed within literature from the social sciences, and some references on design. 

 

The paper is clearly structured and well written. What needs to be improved is an integration of key references on observation as a method used in urban design and architecture and acknowledging their role both in the education and practice of these professions. What could be improved is a more cautious approach to interpreting the settings presented in the figures/ examples, which remain as hypotheses, and focusing more on the scale and scope within which this method serves a purpose beyond the more general observation as method in the architecture and urban design disciplines. Perhaps the authors could also consider what other methods could be combined with the observation based on socio-environmental indicators to yield the required results that would inform the design of new spaces. What follows are more specific comments on the paper. 

 

The framework of the paper is interesting due to the possibility it provides in helping to systematically identify commonalities between partially used spaces, ‘failing’/ unused or underutilised spaces, or creatively used spaces - as opposed to spaces used for what they have been initially designed for, or what the authors frame as ‘potential vs. actual or effective space’. The indicators ‘traces, alterations, adaptations, signs, and routines’ could be an interesting approach in terms of how observations are conducted.  

However, some references related to space are missing, for example, the work of William Whyte – which is based on observation - has been influential in both architecture and urban design. Also, in design education, the first step to starting a project are site observations. Therefore, the method is used in design and is not under-estimated. In fact, one of the draw backs in a design project would be the inability to do site observation before starting the design process. 

 

The design process described on pages 1-2 reflects how design used to be. Nowadays, both design and design education emphasise the importance of a participatory approach to initiating the design process, and even reach the approach of co-design, where the subject of design is involved in the decision-making process rather than being an object of study. References on co-design and participatory approaches are abundant. 

 

Design is not deterministic, but is the outcome of a project, which has a definite beginning and end. Any design could have multiple applications or users, and the design that allows for different uses to manifest, is then considered a successful one. 

 

The example of the curtains in the museum in Florence is a speculation and cannot be described as a ‘discrepancy’ between use and design, because the designer has not been asked about the intentions of the position of the window, rather than the curtain. This goes to space management and the decision to place the curtain to control light, which is common in museums. The conclusion that visitors need to look out of the museum to have a rest is a hypothesis, while the hypothesis of just curiosity to see what is outside is not included. 

 

The Venice example with the signs moves away from the design dimension towards the management dimension of space, and preferences of different stakeholders. 

In addition to changing design methodologies, what should be also kept in mind is that in public spaces, the public is not a homogeneous body of users with the same behaviour and hence the design of the space can never guess and respond to different needs, and hence a good design would allow for the users to adapt the space to their needs, which is considered a strength rather than a weakness. 

 

Observation as a method explained in this paper is more about micro-observation, the appreciation and noticing intricacies rather than understanding the space at large. This could be purposeful if a space would be upgraded or renewed while taking into consideration the most dominant uses and practices in it. However, the potential to inform the design of a new space is unclear, noting once again that it usually first starts with observing the intended site for a design project, then engaging with diverse stakeholders, to enable a collective decision-making process. This is what the authors refer to in the last paragraph, design being a process of enunciation rather than an assertive and fixed solution for a space. 

 

The authors are aware of the limitations of their proposal of social indicators and state them clearly in the conclusion, which is highly appreciated, and could be used to further indicate the specific applications of their method, while recommending how it could be developed for further applications. 

 

In terms of formatting, the authors could consider more concise figure captions, while keeping the explanation in the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Your argument is clear and compelling, and you use your examples very well.

William Whyte's The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces is a very important and influential study that uses the techniques you champion (and is by a trained sociologist), but it is not discussed or cited here, and it should be. It is the piece of observational work on the built environment most likely to be familiar to people within the design professions.

Literature on conducting a post occupancy evaluation, although aimed at designers, not sociologists, is also worth considering and citing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf