Preliminary Space Observation
Feed back from Peer Review
Revision Plan
In my peer review workshop we mainly discussed my argument and how to concrete it with the evidence I have. Additionally, we discussed aesthetics and some of the more technical aspects of word press. Please note, that I am currently conducting a survey of users of this space and although I hint at results have yet to finalize the information gathered.
Feed back from Conference
Allyson: As I mentioned in our group conference, the audio comment above constitutes my main feedback. Below are some scattered notes that served as a foundation for the audio comment. Use it at your own risk! Design: – The home page should do more of the work of an introduction, I think. – you might include links to the next page/post at the end of each page/post. – use captions to make your in-text media more accessible (description + credit) -sub-headings might be more like sentences? (see “private” in Isolation page) – could align image with claim a bit more carefully (see Lines of sight in isolation page) Argument/structure/ideas: – some great ideas emerging! – Introduction: x. public vs. private (in intro) seems to me to be a bit liike a body section. x. may need to re-think the intro with the motive/hook idea in mind. x. really great summary of accountability/publicity x. might need a bit more shared context for Dartmouth outsiders at the very start. – sense of observation shapes behavior….foucault tells us this happens in a way that feels just like our self dictating what to do. x. so, they don’t have to think about it in order to follow the codes… -concluding claim seems to suggest that privacy/publicity changes for users based on who they think they’re private from?
Revision Plan
Final Copy and graph
Website Manuscript (subtitles in italics)
The Top of the Hop
What dictates how you act in a certain space? Are plush couches an automatic invitation to cat nap? If it’s tucked away in an old library, sure! But what if it’s a well stuffed sofa in a highly trafficked space? Obviously you cannot go around sleeping on every soft surface you encounter, but this raises the question: when there are no well-defined rules, how do we know what decorum is socially acceptable or expected? Did you ever consider the interplay between public and private spaces?
The Top of the Hop (TotH) is an in-between space. Visible enough to be considered public, yet isolated enough to allow for a certain degree of privacy. The floor to ceiling windows illuminate every nook and cranny, and the absence of barriers contribute to the openness of the space. Yet, the limited lines of sight and sound disconnect the space from the rest of campus. These design features and the mixed publicity level which define this space, also shape the experience of its users.
Introduction
The Top of the Hop, an undefined space
The Hopkins Arts Center, located on the campus of Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH is locus of the fine arts in the North East. In addition to bringing a wide range of artists to its stage, the Hopkins Center houses spaces important to student life, such as the campus mailroom, several classrooms, study spots, and a popular Grille. The Top of the Hop (TotH), is the uppermost level of this building, hence its name. At night the wide room is converted into a reception hall, yet during the day the purpose of this space is ambiguous. While often utilized as a study location by students, the unspecified design of TotH accommodates many different activities ranging from quick siestas to impromptu musical performances.
Publicity as an analytical lens
In the Top of the Hop the distinction between private and public space blurs. As described by David Fleming in his piece, The Space of Argumentation a public space is one which “generates casual contact” (pg.153). This is true of the Top of the Hop, where although students of all years are brought together there is nothing which forces the users of this space to engage directly with one another. Students merely being occupants of the same room creates a high level of publicity and ‘casual contact’. At the same time, only having indirect or inadvertent interaction between users, in addition to its relatively set apart location from the rest of campus, makes TotH a relatively private space.
Limits on the senses define a space
These notions of publicity and privacy are crafted by the physical features of the room, or more precisely: the influence of physical features on ones’ senses. When applied to visual and auditory inputs, these design concepts are referred to as ‘lines of sight’ and ‘lines of sound’, respectively. Line of sight is the extent of what one can see from a certain location. Similarly, line of sound is the extent of what one can hear. While seemingly trivial details, the limits on a persons’ senses while in a space significantly craft their experience.
Physical form molds behavior
As argued by Fleming, the behavior of individuals is often shaped by the form and characteristics of the places they occupy. The social code of conduct in public spaces is the best evidence of this. In public, ownership of word and deed is inescapable; unlike in the private sphere, one is ‘held accountable’ to an audience (real or imagined). This site explores how the features of Top of the Hop, including lines of sight and sound, make it simultaneously a secluded yet highly public place, and in turn, how these characteristic influence the behavior and actions of those who use it.
Visibility
Expansive design features and lines of sight shape publicity
The most striking feature of the Top of the Hop is the wall entirely composed of floor-to-ceiling windows which flood the room with natural light. This coupled with the 30ft vaulted ceilings makes the room feel expansive and open. In this illuminated setting there is the sense of being exposed to the other occupants of the room.
Additionally, the approximately 70 x 40 ft. room is entirely uninterrupted by partitions. All furniture is positioned around the edges of the room, leaving a gaping amount of undetermined floor space in the center. Unlike other study spaces on campus, TotH has no cubbies or cubicles to separate individuals. The lack of any physical barriers to obstruct one’s view, in addition to the brightness of the space, makes lines of sight within Top of the Hop practically unlimited, meaning that, in theory, an observer standing at nearly any point in the room can see everyone and everything.
The illusion of open lines of sound makes the TotH feel public
Although never explicitly stated, it is well known and accepted that Top of the Hop is a designated quiet zone. This may in part be due to the vastness and openness of the room which create a void where it appears that sound will reverberate. This in turn may make students all the more aware of any sounds that they either purposely, or unintentionally create. Freshman Sydney Kamen echoes the opinions of other surveyed students in her statement that, when she is studying at Top of the Hop she is “afraid that any noise [she] makes will resonate in the silence”. Thus, she is especially careful not to disturb and possibly elicit “sideways glances” from her studious neighbors.
However, due to the acoustics of the room, this is an entirely imagined phenomenon. While shuffling papers and phone calls might still annoy nearby students, most noise is lost upward due to the vaulted ceilings.
This makes sense when one considers that the space is typically used for receptions and small performances. In a reception with a large crowd filling the space the chatter might become overwhelmingly loud if there was not some noise cancelling feature. Similarly, in the case of a performance the acoustics would project the music throughout the room, while still minimizing undesired background noise.
Given students’ perceptions of the space it is difficult to determine whether Top of the Hop is a quiet zone due to its incorrectly assumed open lines of sound or as a result of its strategic design.
Isolation
It’s all about location, location, location
While the visibility and seemingly vast ‘lines of sound’ within Top of the Hop make it a public space, its isolated location gives it privacy. Housed on the second floor and at the very edge of campus, this space is disconnected from the activity of central Dartmouth and of the Hopkins Arts Center. As a result, the traffic flow is minimal; the stair case is a physical boundary which embodies the separateness of TotH, ascending to this space is a purposeful act.
A lookout over the rest of campus
The line of sight looking out from Top of the Hop is vast. Many report the picturesque and expansive view which the floor to ceiling windows offer to be their favorite feature of this space. Although it may seem that this would connect those in Top of the Hop to the outside world, the set apart nature of the top floor makes it an outlook more than anything else. As the line of sight is only one directional (outward), there is a pervasive sense of detachment looking down on the rest of campus. As far as a visible connection to the rest of the Hopkins Center, only the small gaps in the stairwell hint at the activity below.
Limited auditory range emphasizes separateness
*insert sound of commotion*
As the location of numerous student led and visiting shows there is constantly much ado in the Hopkins Center. The student mail service and the grille also contribute to the ceaseless flow of traffic. However, because the Top of the Hop is set well above the commotion of the lower floor it is a space of relative calm. Although there are sometimes trickles of sound which make their way upstairs, they are muffled and distant adding to the feeling of isolation.
Influence on Behavior
Perceived degree of publicity correlates with believed stringency of social code
In order to determine to what extent acceptable behavior at TotH is determined by publicity I conducted a survey of twenty Dartmouth undergraduate students. Those surveyed were asked, “To what extent do you view Top of the Hop as a public space?” answers were recorded on a scale of very private to very public. To gauge influence on behavior I asked “how strongly do you feel that a social code is operating on TotH based on a scale from one to ten?” In general, there was a strong correlation between those who view Top of the Hop as more public and those who suggest that there is a strong social code of conduct in place. The results are displayed below.
Visibility shapes what is thought to be acceptable decorum
I then asked the follow up question, “What are the social norms that you perceive in this space?” Responses from those who saw the space as public included, “no talking”, “no phone calls”, and “don’t sit too close to others”. When asked how these norms were enforced, most agreed that there is an unspoken social pressure which results from ones’ actions being so visible. This mutual pressure, where everyone is either observing or observed by everyone else, was believed to be what keeps behavior in check.
Those who viewed the space as more private, did not claim that there was an absence of a social code, merely a more relaxed standard. This group of students did not find that it disturbed the space to talk quietly to friends, or to make the space more comfortable by rearranging furniture.
Public to whom?
It is important to note that those who viewed TotH as more public spoke in terms of proximate contact and visibility. To them exposure to other occupants of the room is what added publicity and enforced the social code. In contrast, those who viewed ‘the code’ to be more relaxed noted emphasized privacy in terms of the rest of campus.
The Exception
When a passerby decides to play the piano they alter the accepted norms of this space. In this act the occupants of the room are freed from their ‘observer, observed’ relationship, and instead become into fellow audience members to this one highly public act.
Conclusion
Simultaneously public and private
The Top of the Hop is a perfect illustration of how a space can be both public and private. The line of sight within the reception hall is unobstructed and converts all occupants into either observers of nearby students, or subject to observation, and potential scrutiny, by their neighbors. The huge windows and tall ceilings emphasize the openness of the room, making it seem all the more transparent.
Simultaneously the second floor is set both apart from, and above the rest of campus. The lines of sight and sound to TotH are limited, as the view is ‘one-way’ and the noise from the rest of the campus and the Hopkins center are muted, creating a sense of separation and privacy.
Acceptable conduct is in the perception of the user
As survey data has shown, expectations of ‘acceptable conduct’ in a given space depend more on how patrons view the area than on its pure physical features. Additionally, although design does influence certain behaviors in people, it is more conclusive that the casual relationship between physical form and publicity, is what truly crafts the unspoken social rules of engagement. Those who note most prominently the vastness of TotH and connect this with it being public are more likely to follow what they believe to be a strict ‘code of conduct’. Whereas, those who seem to be more aware of the noise cancelling acoustics, even subconsciously, and the separateness of the space may engage in more unguarded activities. Another important facet which needs to be considered is the directionality of publicity. The group to which TotH patrons feel visible to, either immediate strangers or more general campus goers, changes the dynamic of the room.
Applications in design
Considering to whom a space is public and deliberately manipulating lines of sight and sound are strategies which could be useful to anyone designing a space in which they would like to encourage a certain decorum among its users. Understanding and utilizing these principles would allow an architect or interior designer to shape different spaces which strike a fine balance in degrees of publicity. In order to elicit different behaviors they may design spaces which are both spacious but intimate, and crowded yet isolated.
Somewhere on the website, include: a ~200-word reflection on the writing concepts or writing processes that you adapted in order to incorporate multiple media. What writing standards or elements do you think were present across all assignments, and in what ways did they change in this assignment?
Incorporating multi-media elements in this assignment required me to adapt my writing style. Some of the strategies which I kept the same were the structure of my introduction and conclusion paragraphs. In my intro I offered shared context about the Hopkins Arts Center and a strong claim. As with other works this term I tried to craft my conclusion to engage in a broader academic conversation by identifying the larger significance of my analysis. I think that the most drastic change to my writing came in presenting evidence. Instead of developing extensive paragraphs I tried to make my project body accessible to online readers my partitioning information into easily digested sections. Additionally, a lot of the evidence for my claim came from the visual aspects which I included, such as graphs or photos. For this to be effective I had to be more concise in my analysis and allow the images to make the argument. Writing in this style was a challenge for me, but I think that learning to adapt to a more tech compatible format is very necessary.
Reflection
Incorporating multi-media elements in this assignment required me to adapt my writing style.
Some of the strategies which I kept the same were the structure of my introduction and conclusion paragraphs. In my intro I offered shared context about the Hopkins Arts Center and a strong claim. As with other works this term I tried to craft my conclusion to engage in a broader academic conversation by identifying the larger significance of my analysis.
I think that the most drastic change to my writing came in presenting evidence. Instead of developing extensive paragraphs I tried to make my project body accessible to online readers my partitioning information into easily digested sections. Additionally, a lot of the evidence for my claim came from the visual aspects which I included, such as graphs or photos. For this to be effective I had to be more concise in my analysis and allow the images to make the argument.
Writing in this style was a challenge for me, but I think that learning to adapt to a more tech compatible format is very necessary.