Supervision 5th March 2013

Supervision 5th March 2013

Today’s topic: The feed back from the committee

Overall assessment of the proposal:

This is a worthy proposal, which seems appropriate for the area of Kings Cross. A lot of thought has gone into the context and methodology for generating data, but it was hard to get a clear sense of what form the outcomes would take. What kind of graphical tools are anticipated? An interactive game? A mapping app? A community blog? How would they be disseminated?

Questions from supervisors;

• What is the graphical tools?

• If it is drawing, what kind of drawing?

• Why is it graphical, Instead of Fine Arty?

Answers

The “graphic tools” in this project can be more like design, plan or storyboard which can tell a future of the area and landmarks by drawing rather than art pices.

Illustrative tools/storyboarding illustration involving; schematic/linear/sketches/a collage.

People doing story board >  It’s going to go online (take them, scan them and up) + Community Blog(it can be encouraging local people to communicate online?)

How would they be disseminated?

• Put them online

• Publication

• exhibition+catalogue

• Blog

• demonstrative workshops with other universities

Required modifications:

• The title and proposal need to be more specific as to what the proposal is about beyond urban regeneration and landmarks. Is it a) graphics, and b) practice? Is it about memory and mythologising, using ethnographic methods with the local community, or about asking the local community to creatively visualise possible futures, using graphic methods? Or both?

New title: Graphic tools for public engagement that enable local communities creatively to visualise possible futures

I have got to explain that how using memory to help visualise future.

• The proposal needs to clarify the general nature of the research and what the contribution to knowledge will be.

Add Aim 3: Contribution to knowledge which is to demonstrate how storyboarding can enrich process of public engagement.

• The research methods also need to be clarified in relation to the way in which ethnography and community design activity/workshops will be combined.

Methodology part, 2nd paragraph, added some sentences indicated in blue. (Tricia will check this weekend)

————————————————————————

In order to acquire trustiness and fair position to locals, an ethnographical approach will be adopted to identify specific local communities and to help draw out latent local perspectives towards built-landmarks. Moreover, I will participate in the workshops as a local graphic designer. The main anticipated target groups are: people living in King’s Cross since before the rapid regeneration started, people commuting to the area for business and social purposes, and students and staff of CSM.

————————————————————————

• More specific terms are required in relation to the iterative process with the community. (Specific terms means just selection of terminology?)

Maybe we should say “Participatory creative workshop”? Maybe too many different idea in the paragraph? I will e-mail to ask James Swinson.

• More indicative detail is needed about the form that the outcomes could take.

Don’t have to be “I am going to blog” indicative description needed.

• what would be on blog?

• what would be exhibition like? What are in it?

• What would be in the catalogue?

• Aim A: to enrich public engagement by developing ‘emotionally driven’ graphic tools, what is this? There are problems of definition here. Whose emotion, how to measure it, and what for?

Just drop off the word “emotionally driven”. It is too difficult to explain in limited word count.

————————————————————————

To enrich public engagement processes by developing creative visualising guideline and precedential work as (emotionally driven) graphic tools that will stimulate and amplify local voices, and enable inhabitants to communicate in new ways with commercial and government stakeholders.

————————————————————————

• Aim B: needs to be more specific. It would maybe help to identify the landmarks and communities that will be involved.

Ideal modification: To explore which local landmarks have particular meaning for local people and have created a sense of a place over last 10 years(just before the regeneration has started)

• Objective (2) is unclear. Should this read ‘To inform the prototype graphic tools will be developed that will draw on the notion of design as fiction’? Or does it refer to a genre of writing called ‘design fiction’?

We need help from Andrea.

Notion of design as fiction because storyboard as a fiction which can tell a story visually.

• Objective 3 needs to be more specific in relation to defining the difference between the ‘locals’ and the ‘stakeholders’

Locals = Local residents and workers V.S. stakeholders = property developers and the council (business and the government)

*Local community includes stakeholders so I need it break it down such as residents/workers/

————————————————————————

To engage local communities which are cut off or left behind to (I should not assume before the research starts, people might be excited!! but defining “happening to me” vs “making happening” is good contrast) the rapid regeneration of the area, and the stakeholders who are driving in the development through a series of workshops.

————————————————————————

 

Website structure suggestion note

IMG_0157

 

Sample structure:

Context Review

- Case studies (what have other people done?)

- Literature Review (what other people have written?)

- How these above define my field??? (above two categories to define myself)

Methodology

-How am I going to act?

- plan your system (workshop etc) (iterative)

Outcomes

- What did I find out?

- what happened?

 

 

 

Modified RF3 – 4th March 2013 (before this supervision)

Title: Graphical story-telling tools for (to encourage local community groups for) public engagement: visualising local expectations toward life-cycle of built-landmarks, and their impact on social identity.

Subject Area

The purpose of this project is to develop graphic tools for public engagement and to explore the potential of graphic visualisation (graphic design which is generally used for commercial industry) to play a new (democratic) communications role in the process of urban regeneration. The National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement defines public engagement as ‘A two-way process, involving interaction and listening, with the goal of generating mutual benefit.’ The graphic tools focus on defining and exploring built-landmarks which confer on a community a significant sense of emotional security through that community’s shared experience of it.

Aims

  1. To enrich public engagement processes by developing creative visualising guideline and precedential work as (emotionally driven) graphic tools that will stimulate and amplify local voices, and enable inhabitants to communicate in new ways with commercial and government stakeholders.
  2. To explore how local perspectives for transformation of built-landmarks in King’s Cross which have been formed over time and produced emotional security for individuals and communities in the area.

Objectives

1) To document and evaluate materials of previous public engagement projects to contextualise the research. Interviews will be carried out with the current community groups. Consequently, relevant stakeholders will be contacted to identify important built-landmarks.

2) To inform the prototype graphic tools will be developed that will draw on a genre of writing called ‘design fiction’. ‘The invention, creation and construction of possible futures, which are explored, tested, evaluated and improved’ (Grand and Wiedmer), to allow, use, and materialise their central features as stories.

3) To engage local communities which are exposed to (are cut off or left behind to) the rapid regeneration of the area, and the stakeholders which are the dominance in the transformation through a series of workshops. The workshops will explore which built-landmarks are most significant for locals and facilitate them in the creation of their own visual stories featuring landmarks of the future. Meetings will be held with the stakeholders to present the outcomes from the workshops. The discussions form these meetings will be conveyed back to the locals. This cycle will be iterated and the graphic tools will be refined and synthesised into a design method. Furthermore, exhibitions will be set up in which the previous cycle’s results will be shown and tested, facilitating encounters between the locals and the stakeholders.

4) The project outcomes will be disseminated through print and digital media, and practical workshops held at both local and international levels.

Historical Context

Since the 1970s some critics of post war urbanisation (Goodman, 1971) have argued that conventional top-down management of architecture and planning has shattered communities and produced ugly, alienating and isolating cityscapes. In response “social design” initiatives, that respond to local residents’ needs and aspirations emerged and has become a world wide movement (Sanoff, 2000). Design professionals have developed many different and creative methods to engage with locals and work with them rather than against them. Bottom-up community participation in urban design has been driven in the UK by public bodies such as the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), architectural practices such as Muf and Soundings, and small innovative researcher groups such as Proboscis and Glass House Community-led design.

Contemporary Context

King’s Cross is now in the midst of a transformation into a new neighbourhood for central London. New landmarks have appeared such as Granary Square and the new concourse and entrance to King’s Cross station. The area is undergoing massive change and the skyline and built-landmarks are shifting on an almost daily basis. This can be quite bewildering for both long term residents and newcomers. The rapid change makes Kings Cross a very fertile ground to explore the importance of built-landmarks and how residents and the stakeholders can have a dialogue about the significance of these landmarks.

Theoretical Context

This research refers to the contemporary work of the Los Angeles School. Particularly, the concept of Thirdspace (Soja, 1996) which will be relevant to my analysis of the image of urban-landmarks. Because the Thirdspace is the trans-disciplinary challenge to cut across all perspectives and modes of thought.

Also, Kevin Lynch’s criteria for imageability(1960) will be derived to analyse how landmarks function in the lives of urban dwellers.

   Visual Methodologies (Rose, 2003) clearly outlined how visual research can be conducted. Her methodologies such as compositional interpretation and photo-elicitation methods will be applied into the project.

I will also focus on Jeremy Till’s Spatial Agency which suggests other ways of doing architecture by architects and non-specialists.

Methodology

Analysis of public engagement case studies, this will be complimented by interviews with public engagement practitioners to contextualise and inform the research.

In order to acquire trustiness and fair position to locals, an ethnographical approach will be adopted to identify specific local communities and to help draw out latent local perspectives towards built-landmarks. Moreover, I will participate in the workshops as a local graphic designer. The main anticipated target groups are: people living in King’s Cross since before the rapid regeneration started, people commuting to the area for business and social purposes, and students and staff of CSM.

The data from this human, spatial and historical research will inform the visual story by the graphic tools to be presented to the community to provoke reaction and encourage engagement.

In the series of workshops with identified community groups from above, using techniques of co-design, the graphic visualisation will be developed into the graphic tools that will enable locals to tell their stories visually. All activities in the workshops, and the way of recording will be continuously transformed to develop a co-participatory strategy for recordings. The recorded materials and practices, such as drawings, photographs and verbal stories will be analysed to synthesise creative guidelines to allow participants to express their own narratives as design fictions through the use of the graphic tools.

These outcomes will be presented at meetings and exhibitions for comment from the stakeholders.

The graphic tools and the guidelines will be tested in the workshops and could also be evaluated in exhibitions as open debates.

This project will be disseminated through a regular on-line report and a dossier containing documentation of all the conferences, workshops and exhibitions. In order to facilitate opportunities for encounters between locals and the stakeholders, the space of the exhibitions will be discovered during the progression of the project.

Prediction of the Form of the Final Presentation 

An exhibition and exhibition catalogue documenting of the process, and a written thesis.