No Sleep Till Brooklyn

Answering questions on Cookie Cutter Housing: Wrong Mix For Subdivisions by Rick Harrison.

1. What are the author's main points in this article?
     
   The main point of Harrison is that he dislikes Cookie Cutter Housing. His distaste aside, he has a few other key points. He believes in that ordinances should be reward-based instead of being minimum-based. The designers should think about the consumers, the people who will actually "live" in those houses. Another point Harrison emphasizes is that people should not be afraid to complain. He also points out that the area use of subdivisions is not successful.
     
2. How do you feel about subdivisions after reading this article? Are they a positive addition to city layouts or is urban sprawl a negative phenomenon? Why do you feel this way?
     
   If I am right with the meaning of the word subdivision, there are some subdivisions I have seen that host the exact houses all through the itself. I believe that these somehow give the feeling of security and belonging. I sometimes like these, but I now also agree with Rick Harrison. If the case is more similar to what he speaks of, like, same subdivisions, same houses all through the city, then he is right. However, the subdivisions I am familiar with are mostly grouped. Each subdivision consists of similar houses but the houses are different among different subdivisions, which gives the area variety I like.
      
3. Do you live in or near a subdivision? What about the author's viewpoints are true or false, in your view (how is this article relevant to what you know?)
    
   In Turkey, I do not live in a subdivision. On the opposite I live in the middle of the city, right next to the actual downtown and pretty close to the "social downtown". However, I have seen some subdivisions, which I have talked about in the previous question. I believe that answers this question also. The author has decent points on the concept he is talking about, however, not all subdivisions are like that, like I have said.

"Don't Click Here"

An article on why web-pages fail with a lot of examples; "Biggest Mistakes in Web Design 1995-2015" by Vincent Flanders. Here are some Q&A on it, as my assignment:

1. How does this reading relate to the concept of user-focused design that we have discussed in class?
    
   This article is all about user-focused design. We basically said that things need to be easy to understand and easy to use for the user. This article says exactly the same. The second point of Flanders, "[people should] figure out what the site is about within four seconds", is very alike Norman's point that everyday objects' how-to-use should be understood in a few seconds. Almost all the other points of Flanders' article is about easy use: Links with explanation, user's needs before yours, not keeping the user from going where he wants to go, well-built navigation, etc...
     
2. What points do you feel are most important?
    
   I feel like point 6 is the most important one. NO WEB-PAGE SHOULD EVER BE LIKE THAT!  I also believe that aiming the web-page towards the user and meeting his needs rather than the designer's or the company's need is highly important, since the user is the one who is going to use the web-site, eh? Point #4 is also crucial, since I can recall many times I was frustrated that I could not get to the end of something (like shopping) because the site would keep throwing things at me... Furthermore, a web-page needs to be light-weighted! Especially, when there are a lot of graphics the text loads first and while waiting for the graphics to load the "naked text" looks very awkward and uninviting. Also, people (like me) might just get bored and close the window/tab.
     
3. Create your own list of important design factors for a web-page.
     
   Although being full of himself, Flanders' article is great. I believe it covers every point on the subject, I have nothing else to say but accepting his list as my "factors for a web-page".

Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything: 42

As almost always the case is, I am assigned an reading assignment and questions on it. However, this time, I have four questions at hand, rather than the general three. For this post, the article is The Future of Retail by Nicholas Negroponte.

1. Does Negroponte explicitly state his thesis? If so, identify it. If not, write your own thesis statement for his essay.
   
   Negroponte does not have an thesis explicitly stated in his article. My thesis statement for his article would be: "Retail is going to shift into digital in the future because it is, or will be with a few changes, more convenient than what retail is now.
    
2. How does this reading relate to Norman's concepts of user-focused design?
   
   Negroponte's main reason for thinking in such way is that online shopping is more user-friendly. The buyer does not need to go to the store, does not need to walk around the store, does not need to carry the stuff he bought back, etc... Also, if the store does not have the product or if they are out, the user saves a trip. Negroponte also implies that the price of the products online are cheaper than in a store. These all apply to Norman's user-focused design concept: according to Negroporte, online shopping is more friendly to the user in every way. He further states that it is more convenient for the stores to switch to online retail, since they won't need to pay rent anymore.
    
3. Negroponte published this in 1998; to what extent do his ideas remain relevant today?
    
   Negroponte's ideas have became true for today in the core. People are inclined more towards online shopping, however, not in the extend he predicts. Negroponte almost says that all the retail stores are going to be closed, however, if not more, there are as many retail stores and retail store shoppers as there was in 1998. His point about the bookstores is quite a description for the situation today. However, his predictions fail when it comes to online food shopping: we do not have refrigerator-mailboxes. It might be because people still like the physically feeling or seeing their product, or another reason, but online shopping for food is not a big trend. Negroponte further says peer-to-peer buying and selling will be more popular since people will want to buy homemade food. Yes, people dare more careful with what they eat now, however, rather than peer-to-peer homemade food shopping, we have huge companies selling organic food. Overall, he does successfully predict that there will be an in increase in the use of online shopping, however his guess is way too higher than the situation nowadays.
    
4. What predictions would you make about the Future of Retail?
    
   I do not believe there will be drastic changes in retail. There will most likely be alterations. Since the humankind is more caring towards the environment now, to save energy almost through every aspect of retail shopping, online shopping might become more popular. On the other hand, people will still want to feel their clothes or food, these things will still be bought from stores. Other items however, like electronics, might be bought online more. Also, computers and internet access will be even more common in the future, which will affect this topic; probably increase the popularity of online shopping.

D town K

Last Friday, our task was to evaluate Downtown Kalamazoo. As we were assigned to do, we started with Burdick Street. A kind friend drove us there. Lead by GPS, we entered the street from the northern side. However, not soon after we had to make a turn since we were facing the part of the Burdick Street which was pedestrian-only. So we went all the way to the Kalamazoo Public Library and parked the car at where Lovell St. intersects with Burdick St. We got out of the car and started walking towards north, after we passed South St., I could feel the atmosphere of a Main Street. Simply, the detail and effort in the design of the street was saying "I'm the Main Street!". The red tiles caught my eye as we walked in. The tone of the red was perfect. Not very shiny of a red that has the feeling of wealth and showing of, but the mediocre red that is cozy and welcoming. The two-story, red-brick buildings contributed to that feeling. Except some buildings (like the indoor mall) the design of the buildings were going well together and creating a feeling of togetherness. The indoor mall's exterior was grey, and modern in design, which was standing out. I did not like this, believing in that it did not suit into that atmosphere. The mixture of the retail stores was well done. The street was home to a good mix of clothing stores, restaurants and miscellaneous shops. Combined with the emptiness of the streets, the types of the retail stores, the old design of the street as a whole gave the feeling that this place was for adults. To support my point I can say that I saw no other young person other than our friends evaluating the place. The street also contained benches and trashcans. Keeping mind that the street was aimed at adults, this was nice, since they might need to sit and rest. The vegetation was also appealing. In addition to contributing to the welcoming and friendly atmosphere, the short trees places through the sidewalk supplied shade to the benches and the people sitting on them. The street was open to car traffic at most of the parts, however, I do not believe this hindered the friendly atmosphere since the road was thin; only one lane. Every now and then a car wood pass, making a new sound, adding a new sight and breaking the monotonicity of the street; keeping it alive. Also, this made it easier for the shoppers to cross the street, making the shopping experience more convenient. As a whole, with the two-story red-brick buildings, with the vegetation and not very crowded pavements, it was as if the street was hugging the people on it.

My first recommendation will be to modify the indoor mall so it will suit the general design. Also, the color (green) of the benches can be changed. Lastly, it might be better to contribute to the feeling of safety through a way Whyte proposes.

In his book City, William Whyte says that a crowded Main Street is better since it draws people, and since people like other people. Downtown Kalamazoo fails in such sense. The streets are very empty, and with the wind blowing the leaves it gives the feeling of danger and loneliness.

Fight of the month: Whyte vs Gibbs

This post includes answers to two questions directed towards comparing two articles, each the subject of one of the last two blog posts.

1. To what extent do Whyte and Gibbs approach city design from different perspectives? Do you find one more convincing than the other?
   
   Whyte's and Gibbs' articles are different in basics. Although they both talk about city design for shopping, it is like they are talking about two completely different things. However, there are some common points they disagree on. Like crowd. Whyte wants a crowded and cluttered street full of people and objects that point people towards the shop. He tries to increase the number of the actual buyer buy massively increasing the number of people near the shopping place, almost hoping that they will turn out to be a customer. I say almost hoping since he proposes other adjustments to increase the chance of converting them into actual buyers. On the other hand, it seems as if Gibbs tries to address the person with the shopping intention already in his head, and make the street more attractive to them against other shopping places. A main difference is that while Whyte favors benches and alike street furniture, Gibbs does not approve such objects, believing in that they will draw loiters to the street. Weighting the whole article; Whyte's points are directed at metropolitan cities. While, Gibbs ideas are for more mediocre cities.
   As far as I'm concerned, I would favor Gibbs. Although I like people and being with them, I do not like overcrowded streets where it is tough to walk. I am a buyer only when I have the intention of buying. Therefore, I want it to be as easy and quick as possible to shop when I want to. Therefore, on the other occasions, like when I'm walking on the street, I would prefer it to be not cluttered and free of loiters, unlikeWhyte's city.
      
   
2. What elements of an urban area are particularly attractive to you? What elements repel you?
   As I already said in my previous answer, I do not like overcrowded cities where it is hard to walk. I like people, I really do. I like running into people, having quick chats with them. However, I do not like to slow down my pace since the flow of the street is slow, I do not like to try very hard not to bump into people, I do not like to stop when the person in front of me stops to check a window display, I do not like the street furniture to block my path while I'm walking. I would also want vegetation and scenery.

Now, it is time to go downtown and evaluate this place!

Take Back The City

In this blog post, "author" refers to William Whyte, and the chapter mentioned is the sixth chapter of his book City.

1. What do you feel were the author's key points in this chapter?
   
   People like being with other people, thus, sometimes crowded sidewalks can be appealing. A smaller sidewalk can easily be perceived as a crowded sidewalk.Obstacles can be placed in such ways on to the sidewalks that people will be drawn into the stores. However, the entrance to a store should be as open as possible; it should be large and left open when possible.
   Window shopping is still alive, thus, window displays are important. A window shopper will bring other window shoppers and increase the chance of having an actual customer. When one element of the display attracts a person, his attention is likely to be drawn to other elements. Window display designs should be aware that most pedestrians view the display from close and they rarely stand and stare at the middle of the display. Also, motion, enigma and sound contribute to drawing attention.
   Multi-function objects on the sidewalks are good, like trashcans that can be used in other purposes.
    
2. Compare Whyte's ideas on design to Norman's concepts that we studied earlier. What's similar? What's different?
   Use of visceral design elements is the greatest similarity. Most of the points Whyte makes are use of visceral elements to grab people's attention. Some other points of Whyte would be named as behavioral success by Norman, like covering a window with brown paper except a few eye holes. This is functional as in being successful in what it aims; drawing attention. The subject of entrance is also similar in both points of view. It should be easy to use. One big difference is the people on the sidewalks. While Whyte states a clutter as functional, Norman would disagree.
    
3. Create a checklist, based on Whyte's chapter, that could be used to analyze an urban area.
   
   
   • Vegetation
   • Wide entrances to stores
   • Large display windows of stores
   • Medium wide sidewalk
   • Cleanness
   • Benches, trash cans, etc.
   • Traffic flow
   • Buildings in all perspectives

Main Street vs The Mall

“What Main Street Can Learn from the Mall” by Steven Lagerfeld:

1. List the criteria Robert Gibbs uses to evaluate a Main Street.
  

There are a couple of criteria for design Robert Gibbs uses in his evaluation. First, he states that the decor of a street is important. Decoration like trees and planter boxes might look nice, but they are harmful to shopping when they prevent shoppers from seeing the shop windows or signs. The structural elements of a street is also important according to Gibbs. Designers should think twice before putting benches on the streets for they may draw loiters which in turn may repel shoppers. While trying to be visceral, the decor or the structure should not be disadvantageous to the function of the street as a whole.
Gibbs further touches the point of drawing loiters when he talks about dealing with the public's fears. A visible police presence should be ensured, Gibbs says. Also the benches and other a like features of the street should be either rearranged or removed so that they do not encourage loitering. Thus also, keeping the sidewalks clean. Furthermore, he believes lighting has an effect on the feeling of security along the presence of security/police.
Similar to Underhill's right side point, Gibbs names a "no-left-turn rule". This means that prospective shoppers should not have to take a left turn to enter the shopping center; this turn is against traffic and is repelling.
He also states the location of a shop depending on its kind is particularly important and gives a lot of examples. He underlines the point that clothing stores should not be next to restaurants or on the north side of the street. In addition, since retail stores; shoppers might be impulsive on their decisions to shop, since retails stores are not destinations like restaurants, they should be the ones located in high-traffic areas.
Gibbs also mentions that an average shoppers walks past a shop in about eight seconds, and that this should be kept in mind as a criteria.
Lastly, he highlights the importance of reflective elements of a shops display.

2. Think critically of Gibbs’ argument.  Do you think “Main Street” should be a mall?

I believe Main Street should not be a mall. As Gibbs states mall shopping is "out", and street shopping is "in". People had enough with huge tasteless shops and now want to move to outdoors and enjoy shopping with tasteful surroundings. There is a newly opened outdoor mall in Izmir, Turkey. The mall is constructed with cobblestone streets accompanied with decorations such as trees and benches. So far, it has been a great success. I believe inter shopping level between malls and main street should be the next trend.
  

3. Make your own checklist to judge a Main Street.  What things do you think are important?

I would add all the criteria Gibbs points out. However, I would re-evaluate his points with respect to cultural elements since these criteria might require adjustments depending to where they are implemented.