week 2 - DP2
- Sophia Schulz
- May 18
- 27 min read
DESN801 // 05/05/2026
Overview of Week 2 Progress
This week, I narrowed down my selection of residual urban spaces to Cruise Lane and The Strand Station through conducting quantitative analysis of each site with respect to certain criteria (a method known as a SMART analysis), conducted site analysis at Cruise Lane, began ideation of potential installation concepts at Cruise Lane, and continued conversations with KiwiRail to potentially gain access to The Strand Station for site analysis. I also conducted further site research situated around The Strand Station, specifically looking at historic artefacts connected to the site.
Table of Contents for this week's blog:
SMART Analysis
Research of Artefacts and Re-Evaluation of Research at The Strand Station
Site Analysis at Cruise Lane
Ideation for Cruise Lane
Reflections on This Week's Methods and Progress
SMART Analysis
After completing site research around 6 potential sites last week, I wanted to further narrow my selection before continuing with more in-depth site analysis. The potential sites are as follows:
Parnell Train Station (empty lots around parking lot)
Parnell Train Station (station building)
Symonds Street Cemetery (under Grafton Bridge)
The Strand Station (disused platforms)
City Works Depot (unused green spaces)
Cruise Lane (alleyway)
Last week in my reflection, I had begun identifying factors that contributed to whether each site would be suitable, or not suitable, for this project, such as its current use or whether the site was accessible. I decided to clarify these different factors into established written criteria that I could use to evaluate the appropriateness of each site for this project so that I could make a well-informed decision when narrowing my site selection.
I chose the following six criteria to evaluate each site against (Figure 1), with my definitions and reasoning explained below for each criteria:
Site Analysis Accessibility
Definition: Ability for me to access the site for analysis, eg. through photos, note-taking, etc.
Reasoning: This criteria is important for me to be able to access the site itself to carry out my planned methods of site analysis, such as note-taking, photography, sound recordings, and creating a scale model. Without access to the site, I'm unable to inhabit the space myself and note down my own observations and behaviours interacting with the site, nor try out the methods I aim to practice in this proof-of-concept project.
Public Accessibility
Definition: Ability for the public to access the space, including the extent to which it is accessed and used by the public on a day-to-day basis.
Reasoning: A key aspect of my method of site analysis is to observe other people's interactions and behaviours negotiating a space, such as how they interact with pathways, obstacles, doorways, etc. or what encounters they have with other people or features of the space. If the public is unable to access the space at all, I'm unable to carry out aspects of observational note-taking in my site analysis methods.
Structural Constraints
Definition: Presence of existing structures that provide physical grounding and constraints for the work.
Reasoning: I observed during my initial site research and visits that I was drawn to sites with pre-established structures (such as The Strand Station platforms and canopies, the walls bordering Cruise Lane, or the underside of Grafton Bridge at Symonds Street Cemetery). Given my research focuses on tangible interaction, I felt these physical structures added an additional element to ground my work in the physical realm, and would help constrain the work by providing a framework to add my own installation elements around. A site with no structural elements at all (in other words, an empty space) would be more difficult to work with for this project because of the lack of physical constraints in the space.
History/Narrative Potential
Definition: Ability to draw from historical, cultural, environmental, social, etc. narratives surrounding the site.
Reasoning: To create a meaningful installation with a place-based narrative in a chosen site, I intend to draw on historical information such as the research I gathered in the previous week of this project. If I'm unable to find much history or other information around a site, then I may struggle to craft a narrative for an installation rooted in this site. My goal with this project is to be able to apply site research in the ideation process, so choosing a site with historical information I can draw from will be important.
Residuality of Space
Definition: Extent to which it the space is residual or underused, taking into consideration its current use as well.
Reasoning: Given my research focus on residual spaces, I intend to choose a site that more appropriately fits this definition of residual. For my research, I am defining residual space as space that is neglected or underused in a public, urban environment; however, this does not immediately exclude places that are still currently used by the public. An ethical implication of interactive installations situated in public spaces is that they will act as interventions in that space. As a result, I must consider the current use case of the space, even if it is underused or neglected, and whether my intervention would negatively impact this use case and the community members who use it.
Feasibility for Technological Integration
Definition: Ability to integrate a technological intervention in the space (eg. sound, lighting, projectors, sculptural elements, etc.).
Reasoning: This is more of a concern for the thesis component of my Master's rather than this proof-of-concept project, as the scope of this project only includes creating a representative prototype installation rather than an installation situated in the site itself. However, in preparation for the thesis component, I still want to give consideration to the feasibility of integrating technology in each site, such as the ability to protect technology from the elements.
With my criteria chosen, I decided to complete a Weighted Rating Method (WRM), specifically a Simple Multi Attribute Rating Technique (SMART) analysis, to evaluate each of my sites against these criteria. This would allow me to quantitatively compare each site and narrow my selection based on the resulting scores (while still incorporating the qualitative element of each criteria). The first step of SMART analysis is to assign weights to each criteria, essentially ranking their relative importance. I completed this by comparing each criteria against each other sequentially and assigning a criterion a value of 0 if it was less important than the criterion it was being compared to, 2 if it was more important, or 1 if they were of equal importance. These values are then summed to give the total weight for each criterion (Figure 2). This assessment was done in consideration of this proof-of-concept project alone.
As a result, I gave the highest weighting to the Residuality of Space criterion, which I felt was more important than all the other criteria because of its importance in my research question and because of the consideration for the current use of each space. I want to be sure my interventions will be appropriate for the space chosen, and part of this comes from the selection of the space itself. The lowest weightings were given to the Public Accessibility and Feasibility for Technological Integration criteria, as I felt these were the least important to consider for this proof-of-concept project given I would be creating a representative prototype rather than placing my work in the site itself, and because I wanted to include the option of sites that may not currently be publicly accessible but could be imagined to be so.
The final step in a SMART analysis is scoring each site against the criteria and multiplying this value by the established weights to give the total score for each site. I used a 5-point scale to score each site, 0 for "does not meet criteria" to 4 for "meets criteria perfectly". The results can be seen in Figure 3 below.
To explain some of my scoring decisions, I gave the Parnell Train Station empty lots the lowest score because it entirely lacked the structural constraints I was looking for in a site (which also impacted the feasibility of technological integrations), and it was difficult for the public to access (with some parts of the lot fenced off or overgrown). Its use as a parking lot also prevented it from gaining a higher score for residuality. In comparison, the Parnell Train Station station building received a higher score for its narrative potential, structural constraints, and technological integration feasibility, but was already being used as an art studio and exhibition space, making it less accessible to both myself and the public and lowering its score for residuality. Symonds Street Cemetery, although more accessible, scored low for residuality solely because of its purpose as a cemetery — any interventions there may be entirely innappropriate given its spiritual significance.
The Strand Station disused platforms, City Works Depot unused green spaces, and Cruise Lane all scored much higher, but City Works Depot lacked structural constraints or stronger narrative potential which pushed its score lower compared to these other two sites. The Strand Station scored higher than Cruise Lane for residuality, but its inaccessibility to both myself and the public ultimately led to it being scored lower overall. However, I am currently in conversation with KiwiRail about accessing the site to conduct site analysis, so I have tentatively left the score at a 2 for Site Analysis Accessibility in case this opportunity comes to fruition. Ultimately, Cruise Lane scored the highest as it was the most accesssible for both myself and the public, had strong narrative potential based on my research, and had suitable structural constraints in the form of the surrounding building walls. The only drawback would be its current use as a throughway between Chancery and Shortland Streets and between the two surrounding buildings, so consideration would need to be given to this current use to ensure any interventions there wouldn't disrupt these activities.
Direction moving forward: Based on the results of the SMART analysis, I will go foward with Cruise Lane for site analysis and ideation of installation concepts. However, considering that I may still gain access to The Strand Station for site analysis, I will keep this site as an option depending on when I am able to undertake a supervised site visit and how this visit goes.
Research of Artefacts and Re-Evaluation of Research at The Strand Station
Before starting site analysis on Cruise Lane, I had done some more research at The Strand Station, focusing specifically on artefacts associated with the site while also uncovering additional photography of the site along the way.
Many artefacts which I found through MOTAT's online collection could not be attributed specifically to the Auckland Railway Station (The Strand Station's previous name) but would likely have been used throughout different time periods in Auckland's railway system. These artefacts included the following (Figure 4):
A ticket issue machine (Museum of Transport and Technology, n.d.-a),
A wall ticket cabinet (MOTAT, n.d.-b), used to store train tickets,
A railway paper ticket nipper/punch (MOTAT, n.d.-c),
A Silver Fern ticket holder and tickets (MOTAT, n.d.-d), used for the Silver Fern train,
A railway coin dispenser (MOTAT, n.d.-e), used to buy paper tickets,
A matchbook (MOTAT, n.d.-f), commissioned by New Zealand Railways (NZR),
A NZR refreshment card (MOTAT, n.d.-g).
Examining these artefacts, I realised many of them were tangible avenues for interaction between passengers and the railway station: the tickets, for example, are a physical means of allowing passengers to interact with the train through granting them permission to board. An exchange also takes place in this transaction: a passenger gives up coins to purchase a ticket which is then punched, thereby giving up a piece of the ticket and permanently transforming it: the interaction has a permanent effect. The ticket is also a form of ephemera, representing how passengers' interactions with the train are ultimately temporary (lasting a certain amount of time), but remain permanent in memory through having happened in the past, just as the ticket is punched and permanently altered. This study of historic artefacts and how they represent passengers' interactions with the station may have implications for my eventual installation ideation through examining how I could bring to light elements of these past tangible interactions and associated themes in my work.
I was also able to find more photographs of the Auckland Railway Station through the Auckland Libraries Heritage Collection, specifically photographs from the 1990 project which documented Auckland as part of its upcoming 150th celebration (Figure 5).
These photos revealed more artefacts and features located in the site itself before its closure, as well as in the nearby Railway Station building, such as clocks, signs, rubbish bins, benches, lights, speaker/announcement systems, telephone boxes and subway passages coming underneath the station and leading to each platform (Figure 6). Two people can also be seen in the Railway Station buildling in these photos, one walking towards an open door at the end, and the other waiting in front of a service counter.
Similarly, these artefacts also presented tangible avenues for interaction between passengers and the station. The signs allow for passengers to orient themselves spatially in the site, and to find which trains are appropriate to travel to their intended destination; similarly, the clocks allow passengers to orient themselves temporally in the site, moving to different locations based on when they need to be there. The rubbish bins are avenues for passengers to discard items (thus leaving something behind, and interact through movement such as throwing). The speakers and telephones enable passengers to interact auditorily with the site, affecting their embodied interactions such as by spurring movement to where they need to be, or even allowing a verbal interaction in response such as the case with the telephone. Passengers may also be encouraged to linger at the station such as by waiting for a speaker to finish announcing the trains, waiting to greet friends or family (as shown in a photo from 1955 in my previous blog post), or waiting to board a train. The benches also facilitate such an interaction through providing a place for passengers to sit while they wait, thus physically interacting with the site itself.
Re-evaluating historic sources of this site through considering these personal interactions and behaviours of passengers at the station has allowed me to address the limitations of my site research methods last week, helping to develop my understanding of the site and how I might bring some of these interactions into my work later on.
Site Analysis at Cruise Lane
To carry out my site analysis at Cruise Lane, I chose to take observational notes at three different points along the alleyway for 20 minutes at each location:
At the Shortland Street entrance to Cruise Lane,
In the centre of the alleyway next to the throughway, outside Citi Flora,
At the Chancery Street entrance to Cruise Lane.
I conducted these observations on Monday morning (May 4th). My notes are as follows:
Shortland Street Entrance - 9:10am — 9:30am
Layout of area and observation point:
Shortland Street slopes downwards towards Queen Street, with Cruise Lane emerging between 41 Shortland Street and a clothes shop called Working Style
I sat down on the street a little west from the entrance, outside Working Style
I had wanted to remain in view of the alleyway itself without disrupting the entrance, and could have possibly done so by observing from across Shortland Street, but parked cars in front of the alleyway ruined this line of sight
Weather:
Overcast conditions, no rain, not much wind, not too cold
Observations of alleyway entrance:
No one was observed emerging from the alleyway entrance
Observations of Shortland Street:
I observed many people walking along the sidewalk past Cruise Lane in both directions on Shortland Street
Many of these people were in business casual or formal dress
Some were holding or carrying bags, such as backpacks, tote bags, shopping bags, and one with a suitcase
Two people were observed walking down with high-vis gear and helmets
One person had a dog
A few people were pushing strollers
One person was observed scootering down instead of walking, otherwise everyone using the street was on foot
This flow of people declined after 9:25am
A pay station outside the alleyway entrance was used by many parking out front on Shortland Street
This caused many people to linger, some waiting to use the station themselves, others waiting for the person they were with to finish using the station; a small line formed at times as a result
Another moment of lingering outside the alleyway entrance was observed with someone on the phone, coming out of Working Style, before re-entering the store
Many people were observed walking in small groups of 2-3
Some groups of 4-5 people observed as well
One group was observed on the sidewalk twice in this session, coming back the opposite way the second time with drinks in hand
Usually the sidewalk was large enough to accommodate all members in a group walking side by side, often engaging in conversation with each other
Sometimes people would use the alleyway entrance to get around other people on the sidewalk, without actually entering the alleyway
Some people were observed entering the nearby building (41 Shortland St)
From the above observations, I concluded that many people who were walking along this street were travelling to and from workplaces, especially when in groups, grabbing morning coffee from nearby places. This led to various negotiating moments where groups would have to get around each other, causing some to step onto the entrance of the alleyway, without actually entering it. The entrance was bordered by a small step up to a sloping part of the sidewalk (part of the entrance to 41 Shortland Street), so people following such a route on the path would have to go out of their way to step up onto this part of the sidewalk. As a result, this was only done by people looking to get around others on the sidewalk, such as with big groups passing each other.
Another key conclusion was the moments of lingering that emerged where people would dwell near the alleyway entrance, either on the phone, waiting for others, or waiting to use the parking pay station. People would carry out this lingering while standing; there were no sitting areas or benches nearby. My observations were carried out while sitting on a tree planter just down from the entrance, the only form of secondary seating by the alleyway which was reasonably out of the way of incoming foot traffic, but far enough from the pay station that those looking to use it likely wouldn't sit down.
Outside Citi Flora, Centre of Cruise Lane — 9:31am - 9:51am:
Layout of area and observation point:
Citi Flora is a florist shop located in General Buildings on the west side of Cruise Lane, immediately beside the sliding doors that open to the alleyway
Next to Citi Flora is an elevator for the building; I made my observations standing across from this elevator
Further west inside the building is another set of sliding doors leading to O'Connell Street, facing Vulcan Lane (which leads to High Street)
Across Cruise Lane is another set of sliding doors leading to 41 Shortland Street, with a set of stairs going upwards immediately after the sliding doors
Observations of throughway in centre of Cruise Lane:
Many people used the throughway to walk from east to west (from 41 Shortland Street through to General Buildings)
Many were observed in business dress, similar to those on Shortland Street
Some were walking alone and some in pairs, in conversation with each other
Some were walking with suitcases, entering out at O'Connell Street
Most people walking to the west seemed to continue towards High Street rather than turning on O’Connell Street
One person walked with a walking stick and had to slowly navigate the stairs coming towards Cruise Lane from 41 Shortland Street
Some also used the throughway from west to east (from General Buildings to 41 Shortland Street)
Most were observed in pairs, in conversation with each other while walking
Some were seen returning (having previously used the throughway to walk from east to west) with hot drinks in hand, implying a routine similar to those observed on Shortland Street
A pair was observed with one carrying a suitcase, coming from west to east
A key observation of those using this throughway was the effect of the sliding doors on either end
This led to almost no pause or slowing down of people's walking pace, nor any lingering or needing to physically engage with the space aside from walking
Only two people were observed using the alleyway itself rather than just the throughway
One person walked down from Chancery Street to enter General Buildings on their left
Another was seen emerging from the elevator inside General Buildings with a trolley of boxes and using the alleyway towards Chancery Street
None were observed coming to or from Shortland Street
A couple people were seen coming to and from O’Connell Street to use the elevator or to visit Citi Flora, without using the throughway or alleyway at all
Sounds:
Music playing by Citi Flora consisted of calm, slow, almost jazzy music
Smells:
Smell of smoke/cigarettes
From these observations, I noted how the most traffic in the alleyway was contained to this small throughway between 41 Shortland Street and General Buildings, and how all movements in this area consisted of steady walking. There was no lingering at all in the area, except for in Citi Flora or by the elevator (which aren't part of Cruise Lane itself). I found it interesting how the sliding doors on either end facilitated this steady pace of walking and did little to slow anyone down moving through the area, almost encouraging such movement since sliding doors would open once they detected someone nearby and thus create an expectation that they were to be walked through. The only moment of slower pace was caused by the stairs leading down towards Cruise Lane in the 41 Shortland Street building.
Chancery Street Entrance — 9:54am - 10:14am:
Walking through the alleyway to Chancery Street:
Graffiti along the walls (observed but not recorded last week)
Poor smell, like a public toilet
Some flies near Chancery Street entrance to Cruise Lane
A van was parked out front, blocking line of sight to the road behind
The sidewalk on Chancery Street was much narrower than Shortland Street's
The poor smell seemed mostly contained to the alleyway, with some smell leaking out to Chancery Street
Layout of area and observation point:
There were loading zones located directly outside of the alleyway entrance, indicated with yellow lines
Some vans were parked out front in this space
Motorcycles and mopeds were parked out front behind this loading zone, further down Chancery Street
Construction was taking place further down Chancery Street, near Fields Street
Chancery Street slopes upwards into a hill past this point, giving the feel of a dead-end
The street was a one-way street towards Freyberg Square (unlike the two-way Shortland Street), perhaps contributing towards the dead-end feel of the street
Observations of Chancery Street:
Lots of changes in vehicles out front with cars coming and going, occupying loading zones
These vehicles mostly consisted of vans unloading foodstuffs at nearby places, such as Krispy Kreme
An exception to this was a car which was being unloaded of food
Some people were observed walking past the alleyway entrance to and from Freyburg Square
Almost all people walking along the sidewalk were alone, walking at a fast pace
One person was observed walking with a stroller across the street
Most were observed in business casual or formal wear
Some were also in contractor uniforms, one carrying a ladder
One large group of 4 people was observed walking past in conversation, as well as a pair of people also in conversation, all walking from Freyberg Square
One person was observed emerging from Cruise Lane, heading towards Freyberg Square, another was seen entering the alleyway from Chancery Street
No one else was observed entering or exiting the alleyway
Sounds:
Loud construction noises heard coming from further down Chancery Street
Sounds of vans pulling in and out of parking spots or driving past
A van was also heard honking at another van, doing so in a friendly manner (seeming to recognise them)
A key observation I made at this location was the sharp contrast between this entrance to Cruise Lane and the Shortland Street entrance. While the Shortland Street entrance featured more groups of people in conversation and less change to the environment (parked cars bordered the sidewalk, helping to protect it from cars constantly passing by on the road), the Chancery Street featured more people walking in isolation, and much more environmental change in the form of vans coming and going every few minutes. This also showcases a difference in activities between the two streets: Shortland Street seemed to be used more as a conversational corporate walking route, while Chancery Street seemed to almost solely afford unloading of goods. Differences between the two areas are also reinforced by their atmospheres: Shortland Street felt lively and warm, with more sun access and well-populated surroundings, while Chancery Street felt narrower and less welcoming, with constant construction noise and poor smell. Thus, Cruise Lane acts as a sort of portal or transition space between these two areas and their respective activities and atmospheres.
Another observation from this site visit was the use, or lack thereof, of the possible routes around the site. These routes, in order of observed use (from highest used to lowest) are as follows:
Walking up and down Shortland Street,
Walking up and down Chancery Street,
Walking along the Cruise Lane centre throughway (between 41 Shortland Street and General Buildings),
Walking between Chancery Street and the middle throughway in Cruise Lane,
Walking between Shortland Street and the middle throughway in Cruise Lane,*
Walking along all of Cruise Lane (between Shortland and Chancery Street).*
*Note that due to my observation locations I'm unsure exactly how 5 and 6 compare to each other in terms of use; they might be equally disused at this time.
The lack of use of Cruise Lane to and from Shortland Street was an observation made at all analysis locations during this site visit. This lack of use compared to the other more highly-used routes essentially creates separate spheres of interaction, despite the interconnectedness that the alleyway would suggest to provide. Thus, other factors may be at play that discourage the alleyway's complete use, such as lack of need (no one from Shortland Street needing to get to Chancery Street at this time of day and vice versa), or other discouraging factors (such as the poor smell or noise at the Chancery Street side). This separate sphere of interaction is also pronounced in the different atmospheres of each end of Cruise Lane. This difference could potentially be a product of this lack of interaction between the two ends, or could be the reason why this lack of interaction exists.
To make observations under different conditions, I returned to Cruise Lane and walked along its length at night:
Returning to Cruise Lane at Night (same day, around 10pm):
Lighting:
I observed lighting at different levels along the alleyway from windows and lamps
These were placed at feet level, eye level, and high up, illuminating the opposite walls at different points
The lights were spread out to illuminate most of the alleyway
Access to throughway:
The large swinging doors that were normally kept open to allow access to General Buildings were closed
This closed off access to the throughway (the sliding doors to 41 Shortland Street also didn't open)
Also closed off visibility to the inside of General Buildings
Observations of people's movements in the alleyway:
I observed a couple people using the alleyway in its entirety, each of them walking alone
An interesting observation at night was the change in possible routes as a result of the centre throughway being closed, leaving only routes 1, 2 and 6 available in the area. This changed the aforementioned "spheres of interaction" in the area and restricting the flow of people to a more direct path with no possible "offshoots". Unrelated to this, I found the different sources and elevations of lights along this path to be visually striking, drawing my gaze to different areas such as down to my feet or high above my head. This lighting also produced a noticeably different atmosphere compared to that of the day, with alternating areas of shadow and light along the alleyway in contrast to the consistent, overcast lighting in the morning.
Photogrammetry Scans of Cruise Lane
Another method I wanted to try for the first time was taking photogrammetry scans of a site. These would help capture the space and allow me to "revisit" it as needed, rather than needing to go back everytime or refer to photos taken from different angles. For this method, I used the iPhone app Polycam which rapidly takes photos and stitches together a photogrammetry scan as you move your phone around a space. Due to the size of the alleyway, I did this scan in two parts (Figure 7 and Figure 8). The scans can be found here:
However, photogrammetry as a site analysis method has limitations, such as the following:
Photogrammetry is typically unable to capture reflective or transparent surfaces well, such as glass and windows (as seen in the above scans where the sliding doors and glass roof failed to be captured).
Photogrammetry captures a site in a specific moment in time:
Because sites are never the exact same every time they are visited, a photogrammetry scan will only capture a site as it exists in a specific moment, and fails to account for any changes in the site before or after the scan.
The scan itself takes time, meaning that the scan gives a false portrayal of a site as being a single captured moment in time, when in fact sections of the site would have been captured at different times.
A benefit of this is that a scan is able to preserve a specific state of the site in time, allowing it to be digitally re-visited in this state again and again.
Photogrammetry takes the site out of its wider context:
Polycam doesn't allow for capturing of the sky, and the size of the scan limits how much of the surroundings can be captured. As a result, aspects of the wider environment are left out, such as the weather, tops of buildings, entrances and exits, etc.
Photogrammetry scans are a digital replica of the site, and don't replace the experience of walking through the site itself:
The scans are unable to capture sounds, smells or other sensory experiences aside from visual ones, and are somewhat limited in capturing textures/details that may aid in the formation of a tactile experience of the site.
Thus, scans should be supplemented with in-person site visits, note-taking and other recording methods such as sound recordings.
However, scans do allow for viewing of the site from different perspectives (low to the ground, higher up, etc.) which can provide interesting angles for analysis that in-person viewing might fail to provide.
In this case, these limitations are important to acknowledge if I plan to refer directly to the photogrammetry scans for site analysis, and show how crucial additional methods of site analysis are for providing a complete evaluation of a site.
Next Steps for Site Analysis
Through reflecting on my site observations and photogrammetry scans, I noticed I've failed to more thoroughly evaluate elements of the site such as sun paths, physical dimensions, time spent travelling through the alleyway, and sounds heard at different points along the alleyway. I plan to fill these gaps in my analysis through researching sun and shadow paths, take measurements on-site, and record sound at various locations in the site next week. These will help analyse sensory elements of the site beyond sight and smell, such as physical sensations of sun and shadow, nearby walls and structures, and auditory experiences of different sounds in the site.
Through these methods as well as my practiced methods of site research, observational note-taking and photogrammetry, I aim to draw on phenomenology to understand first-person perspectives of travelling through a site and how these could be altered by a site-specific interactive installation.
Ideation for Cruise Lane
In the meantime, I wanted to get started on ideation of potential interactive installation concepts situated in Cruise Lane through the method of sketching.
My plan for this ideation was to start by sketching possible inputs to the system (actions people would take to engage with the design) separate from outputs of the system (responses of the design to signify the input given by the user was "understood"). I hoped that by splitting this ideation into these two areas, I could generate more concepts without yet worrying how they might correlate to each other.
My sketches for possible inputs and ouputs are shown below in Figures 9 and 10, respectively.
Similar to the Tactical Urbanism case study done at St Paul's Arcade, I tried to identify several goals or themes which I could aim to address or incorporate in my work. These goals/themes, as well as some of the sketched concepts I came up with, include:
Encouraging passersby to use the entire length of Cruise Lane, rather than sections of it, while trying not to impede movement in the alleyway. This was generally conceptualised to be achieved by spreading inputs and outputs throughout the alleyway and guiding people along its length, focusing on using different aspects of the alleyway structure such as the ground or walls, or by creating an artificial "ceiling".
Building on the idea of running one's hands along nearby walls, I came up with concepts such as touch-responsive panels (Input Concepts 5 and 6) or sliders (Input Concept 12), with the goal of guiding movement along the entirety of the lane.
These same touch points could instead be spread out at different levels along the walls, rather than one long continuous path, which could slow down or speed up movement in different ways as well as connect with the individual bricks that made up the building walls. They could also consist of pushing, sliding or pulling inputs in different configurations (Input Concepts 2-4, 9-11 and 13).
An implement could also be used to trigger these interactions, such as a flashlight or paintbrush (Input Concepts 16 and 17).
Another idea was to build on this continuous, running-hands-along-wall movement with "strings" that you could pull like a harp (Input Concept 7), or, drawing from the material history of the site with the use of raupō, creating moveable sculptures in these forms that you could run your hands along (Input Concept 18).
Similar ideas could be achieved with distributing inputs along the ground (Input Concepts 1 and 14) or overhead (Input Concept 15).
An idea to reward passersby for using the entire length of Cruise Lane was to spread out the response of the system throughout the alleyway, and perhaps change the resulting pattern of response if they do indeed "activate" the entire alleyway. This could also be a layered effect where multiple passersby "add" their interactions onto each other to create the overall effect, ensuring no two visits to the site are alike and rewarding return trips. Such output concepts mostly focused on activating a space above the head, between the neighbouring walls, so that it might be seen from a distance or at either ends of the alleyway (Output Concepts 1, 3, 5-7, and 9-19).
Encouraging passersby to connect with the materiality of the site, through both present and past materials. This was conceptualised as achievable through drawing attention to the neighbouring walls and features such as windows, both highlighting the current materials used there as well as past materials.
As explained above, this could involve interactive sculptures of raupō as inputs (Input Concept 18), spread along the neighbouring walls, representing the past use of raupō as a building material at this site.
Another concept was using interactive brick panels that would draw attention to the current material used on-site through encouraging tangible interaction via touch (Input Concepts 2 and 10-11).
System outputs could draw attention to neighbouring materials, such as by projection mapping onto the bricks (Output Concepts 2 and 4).
The output of the system could also embody material properties, such as the "light box" effect of the windows along the alleyway wherein shapes behind them are presented as shadows, through creating more of these windows and displaying them throughout the space (Output Concepts 8 and 10).
Using Cruise Lane's current existence as a portal-like transitionary space to embody its past life as the transition to the original shoreline. This was envisioned to bring to light the alleyway's past existence as a path leading to the shoreline along Shortland Street before land reclamation in the late 1800s while building on its present existence as a transitionary space between Chancery and Shortland Street, such as by highlighting the transition between land and sea.
Outputs embodying this concept include using water as visuals (both figuratively and literally) in sections of the alleyway, especially closer towards Shortland Street (Output Concepts 3, 9, 14-15 and 19). One such idea in particular was playing with water caustics, an effect caused by light diffracting through moving water (Output Concept 15), creating a response possibly dependent not only on individuals' interactions (such as by adding motion to the water), but also on environmental factors like sunlight.
Drawing passersby's gaze to multiple levels of the site, both upwards and downwards. Inspired by the different levels of lights seen at night, as well as the towering walls of the nearby buildings seen at day, this was conceptualised as using multiple levels of the space, particularly above the head, to draw the gaze upwards and add a multi-dimensional feel to this space.
Outputs of the design conceptualised with this in mind included layers of fabric at different elevations, perhaps projection mapping onto them or casting shadows with the use of sunlight and dark shapes, or otherwise hanging other sculptural elements at different levels (Output Concepts 5 and 9-19).
Outputs incorporating movement above the head were also conceptualised, such as spinning discs or moving fabric (Output Concepts 5, 7, 12 and 16-18), bringing an environmental element into the work through additional movement from wind.
Intputs were also envisioned to occupy multiple levels, such as interactive flags hung above passersby (Input Concept 15) or using camera tracking to track hand motions above one's head (Input Concept 8).
As much as I enjoyed this rapid ideation and brainstorming process and felt I had begun to identify important themes/goals and how I might address them, these concepts felt very disjointed and it was difficult for me to gain a sense of how everything would come together to form a cohesive installation. I felt I was focusing too much on inputs and outputs separately, rather than how the installation could create a cohesive experience for users of the site. I also worried about the feasibility of my solutions, since many of them relied on lighting conditions that wouldn't necessarily be possible. As a result, I felt this method of brainstorming was limited through having too separate of a focus on technical inputs and outputs of the installation system, rather than taking a phenomenological perspective on how people might experience the site and work.
Next week, I will start to physically experiment with some of my ideated concepts to get a feel for what might be feasible under different conditions, while also taking note of which concepts provide more interesting firsthand interaction experiences for me. I will also start to think about The Strand Station as a potential site for ideation, as I am hoping to gain access to the site for site analysis this upcoming week, and trial different ideation methods with this site to see if I'm able to generate ideas that are more in line with my research inquiry.
Reflections on This Week's Methods and Progress
This week, I've engaged with methods such as observational note-taking for site analysis, taking photogrammetry scans, and ideating through sketching different concepts for aspects of an installation system, while also building on my site research from the previous week with a particular focus on artefacts. Many of these methods were new to me as well, helping to grow my skills in conducting thorough site analysis and working towards using these findings to develop an interactive installation concept. I've also reflected on the limitations of these methods and where further steps need to be taken to improve my processes while developing this proof-of-concept project. Although I am currently on track with my initial proposed timeline, I may alter my goals and schedule depending on how my site analysis at The Strand Station goes, as this is occurring a week later than I had hoped but should still prove valuable as a potential site for ideation.
References:
Matthews, C. (1989a). Auckland Railway Station, Beach Road, 1989 [Photograph]. Auckland Libraries Heritage Collections. https://kura.aucklandlibraries.govt.nz/digital/collection/photos/id/107717/rec/1
Matthews, C. (1989b). Auckland Railway Station, Beach Road, 1989 [Photograph]. Auckland Libraries Heritage Collections. https://kura.aucklandlibraries.govt.nz/digital/collection/photos/id/107553/rec/113
Matthews, C. (1989c). Auckland Railway Station, Beach Road, 1989 [Photograph]. Auckland Libraries Heritage Collections. https://kura.aucklandlibraries.govt.nz/digital/collection/photos/id/107894/rec/389
Matthews, C. (1989d). Auckland Railway Station, Beach Road, 1989 [Photograph]. Auckland Libraries Heritage Collections. https://kura.aucklandlibraries.govt.nz/digital/collection/photos/id/107746/rec/120
Matthews, C. (1989e). Auckland Railway Station, Beach Road, 1989 [Photograph]. Auckland Libraries Heritage Collections. https://kura.aucklandlibraries.govt.nz/digital/collection/photos/id/107726/rec/134
Museum of Transport and Technology. (n.d.-a). Ticket issue machine [Museum object]. MOTAT Collection Online. https://collection.motat.nz/objects/65179/ticket-issue-machine
MOTAT. (n.d.-b). Wall ticket cabinet [Museum object]. MOTAT Collection Online. https://collection.motat.nz/objects/65287/wall-ticket-cabinet
MOTAT. (n.d.-c). Railway paper ticket nipper/punch [Museum object]. MOTAT Collection Online. https://collection.motat.nz/objects/93085/railway-paper-ticket-nipperpunch-transdev-auckland
MOTAT. (n.d.-d). Silver Fern ticket holder and tickets [Museum object]. MOTAT Collection Online. https://collection.motat.nz/objects/65970/silver-fern-ticket-holder-and-tickets-nzr
MOTAT. (n.d.-e). Railway coin dispenser [Museum object]. MOTAT Collection Online. https://collection.motat.nz/objects/93075/railway-coin-dispenser-transdev-auckland
MOTAT. (n.d.-f). Matchbook [Museum object]. MOTAT Collection Online. https://collection.motat.nz/objects/95787/matchbook-new-zealand-railways
MOTAT. (n.d.-g). NZR refreshment card [Museum object]. MOTAT Collection Online. https://collection.motat.nz/objects/7156/nzr-refreshment-card
Polycam. (n.d.). Polycam (3D capture app) [Computer software]. https://poly.cam/
Comments