Strategy One - Physically and visually engaging spaces (maybe "engaging" should be "interactive" instead? - a focus on experience through actions
So, Tactic One - create physically engaging spaces through use of different scales, levels, and forms (Figure 1)
Program spaces are constant - as per rules established in previous post... play opportunities happen in the pink spaces
Strategy Two - create social spaces by establish a play-rhythm that engages/interacts with people inside/outside; Tactic Two - increase connection to outside, architecture invites occupants to play (working on this now...)
Strategy Three - open-ended non-linear spaces; Tactic Three - more than two ways to get to each space (choice and options)
SITE:
A successful public park in downtown Toronto. Trinity Bellwoods Park has underdesigned spaces which are open to interpretation and use. Activity spaces emerge based on user engagement - house as an extension of the park. Park as open-ended play; house as game (structured play)
The "playfulness" issue comes across but it is now getting a bit divorced from the initial idea that "play" is a critical dimension to contemporary design on account of various social and engagement facets. Though at this point in time it is difficult to change a design, at the very least it would be worthwhile to reassess your terms. In particular, as you have already indicated, terms such as interactive and engaging are rather ambiguous in your work. Worse still, I do not believe you really mean to speak about game theory (i.e. the economic model drawn about from the prisoner's dilemma and Nash equilibrium...).
ReplyDeleteAside from terminology, please make it clear that these design strategies all validate some position you have set for yourself. Based on the points you have outlined here, it is open to interpretation that the design issue pertains to problems with spatial organization, circulation, or even wayfinding which I do not believe has come about in the desk reviews.