We have visited many public spaces throughout this trip. Some are extremely large and control the interaction that happens within them. For instance, Plaza de Armas is made up of both wooden benches and concrete seats. The wooden benches are nailed into the ground making them unmovable. Similarly, the concrete seating is around the trees and is also immobile. One of the most important qualities about a public open space is the way in which it allows for interaction. As William Whyte has pointed out, a successful characteristic is for a space to allow movement and freedom of choice through movable chairs. This will make the users more comfortable. However, Plaza de Armas clearly did not have this quality, yet was still a successful place full of people. On the other hand, the open space within GAM had plenty of moveable options and the freedom of choice in interaction. For instance, the picnic benches were able to move and allowed users to face one another or separate ways. Similarly, the concrete benches, while not moveable, are close enough to allow a larger group to interact together, or for strangers to turn away from each other. It was extremely interesting to me that while Plaza de Armas seemed to be missing a key quality of a successful place, it was far more packed than the GAM plaza that I have analyzed above.
Hey Ashley!
What a thought-provoking comparison! Personally, I understand what William Whyte is arguing, and movable chairs are a great way to create freedom, because you can of course do anything with them. However, it seems that his argument might be a bit outdated. Whyte wants moveable chairs, but it seems like both spaces rethink what a “chair” really is, and so many other places we have seen do that same thing. Some great examples were seen at Idolfo Ibanez, where the chairs are very abstract and make you question the “chair” of your mind’s eye. Of course, there are some great examples of exploration in seating in earlier design and art movements during Whyte’s life, but maybe, due to continued advances in design, architecture, planning, landscape, etc., Whyte’s answer is now not the only answer. A standard chair is very literal, and while you can have many different arrangements of chairs, it only affords you to sit on it one or two ways. The types of seating we have seen in places like Plaza de Armas and GAM are excellent in this way because they afford more uses, like sitting, standing, laying, using it as a table, etc. The seating does not only serve as seating, but, unlike a standard chair, it provides architectural/landscape value even when it is not in use.
Great feedback, Dan! It’s so nice to have an architects view as while I look at the space as a whole, you look at the small details such as those youve discussed. Thanks for sharing your insight!