Parklet Observations

Time: 1:00pm-2:00pm on a Thursday afternoon

Place: Times Square (Broadway from 42nd-47th Streets)

Weather: Unseasonably warm & windy

Observations: Approaching the parklet from the south, one of the first things I notice is that while a large portion of the street is now delegated for foot traffic, people still seem to prefer walking on the sidewalks.

Even though the blue area is separated from traffic by barriers, people seem to stay on the sidewalk even when there was far more room at street level. There are lots of tourists and families in this area, so getting somewhere quickly might not be as much of a concern. It's also lunchtime, and I'm a bit surprised that several tables are unoccupied as I pass - and various tables remain empty throughout the hour even though it's a lovely warm day. I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that sitting at these tables might make one feel on display?

Even in areas where there is no neighboring car traffic, people still prefer to walk on the "curbs" and far fewer (though more than further south) walk along the painted blue areas. Few people cross the areas with tables, unless they are using them. I note that younger people tend to congregate in groups, sitting 6-8 people around a small table if that's all that is available. People seem to sit here for longer periods of time -- perhaps this is a result of it being lunch hour?

One thing that becomes quite evident as I watch people come and go is that while men spread themselves out evenly around a table, women tend to sit closer together even when there is plenty of room. I also notice that people seem rather willing and able to bus their own tables -- there is not a lot of garbage left lying around, possibly due to the fact that there are ample garbage bins available, although I only notice one uniformed custodian throughout the entire hour. I also do not notice any police, homeless persons or many people in business attire.

In Father Duffy square, up on the stairs above the TKTS booth, it is quite evident that people congregate around the edges of the amphitheater seating and only sit in the middle if there is nowhere else to go. One the center is breached, however, it becomes more likely that others will sit in the center as well -- again, likely having to do with feeling on display.

Another thing I notice is that even though this is the middle of Times Square, few people seem to be looking up at the billboards that surround them. The makers of Tic Tacs seem to have seized upon this fact, as their signage somewhat proudly announces the fact that "over one million people will ignore this billboard every day." Not sure how successful an advertising strategy this is, but it's certainly an interesting approach.

Gene Weingarten's "Pearls Before Breakfast": A Handy Guide to My Outrage

Although in class I was unable to summarize my feelings of rage towards this article, in speaking with Stefanie afterwards while waiting to talk to Nora I came up with this: because the authors of the study were so worried that they were going to create some sort of mob scene, they limited the parameters in such a way as to all but guarantee the result. This isn't research, imho -- it's stacking the deck. Here is the list of things I wrote out after finishing reading it:

Time of day: ensured that most people would be on their way to work, and less likely or able to stop to listen even if they'd wanted to

Location: somewhat remote Metro stop ensured that most people would be passing through on their way to somewhere else, less likely to loiter

Choice of music: while Bell may be extraordinary musician, classical music is not a particularly popular style of music in 21st century

Culture: the appeal of classical music can be seen as largely cultural, further limiting the number of passersby who might be interested

Class: additionally, the appeal of classical music is also class-based to the extent that attending the opera or symphony can be incredibly expensive

Song selection: by not choosing recognizable selections, they were making it less likely that a crowd would gather and listen together

Children: of course the children were interested -- anything out of the ordinary on an otherwise dull commute would be a welcome diversion

Busking: there is a distinct difference between a musician performing for performance sake & one who is playing in order to get paid by passersby

I could probably write a paragraph about each point, but I think you get my drift. I found a very interesting graph, for instance, which shows that last year classical music albums sold approximately 10 million copies compared to 105 million for rock, 55 million for R&B, 55 million for alternative, 42 million for country and on down the line. The only genre that sold less than classical was new age. From my rough estimate, there are 400 million albums reflected in the graph, which puts classical at 2.5% of the total.

As far as I'm concerned, this rather aptly illustrates the pretty incredible bias that these so-called researchers were working under. Joshua Bell is a talented musician, so went the logic, therefore people will obviously stop to listen to him. If it were Mos Def rapping, or Bruce Springsteen singing, then most certainly yes. But your average person does not listen to classical radio stations or go to the symphony. The class bias here is incredibly obvious and, sadly, laughable.

For me, it wasn't so much a "we're obviously better than you" attitude that Larry mentioned in class, but one of "we can't understand why you're not like us." To which I would reply, "Well, duh." If someone is tuning out a street musician, for whatever reason, at the end of the day it doesn't matter how talented that musician is or how much their instrument is worth. If you don't hear something, you don't hear it -- whether it's extraordinary or downright terrible.

Taking on the meaning of "Green" design

In what seems to have become the theme of the day, here's MoMA curator and critic Paola Antonelli on the state of green design at Domus:

However annoying and ideologised, the green cliché has served its purpose, driving into the public consciousness an awareness of the need to change behaviour. It is now time for designers to get rid of the last vestiges of sanctimony and do what they do best: help society's next step towards a new normalcy that incorporates an environmentally responsible attitude in everyday life. It is time for environmentally responsible, fair trade-based, ecological, sustainable, ethical, reduced-footprint, energy-efficient, zero-waste, bioregional, biodegradable, recyclable design to be less ascetic and more human and vulnerable. If outrageousness, especially of the badass kind, is still hard to find (except perhaps in gaudy, speedy, expensive big boys' toys like the Tesla Roadster or the Czeers MK1 solar-powered speedboat...), the real world needs a dose of that kind of thing, too.

There are so many other fantastic quotes -- like "environmentally responsible design should be like dark chocolate: delicious and sensual, yet still good for the health of body and soul" -- that you should really just go ahead and read the whole thing.

Is the word "sustainable" unsustainable?

So here's a humorous yet troubling graph from xkcd.com which sums up greenwashing quite nicely and also illustrates the incredible hurdles that we will have to overcome in order to appropriately define sustainability. Grazyna & I briefly discussed this in our pre-term meeting -- the idea that we might want to consider avoiding use of the term "sustainability" entirely, since it has been co-opted to such an incredible extent. What do you think? Can we salvage the word and make it mean something again, or should we search for an alternate way to describe what encompasses a sustainable future?