This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

VKK 757: Archiving UP's Piazza

JP Question 8 Image

This page has annotations:

Contents of this annotation:

This page has tags:

Contents of this tag:

This page is referenced by:

Louise
“It is through the daily smelling, touching, seeing, hearing and tasting that places become known to us, familiar.”

~ Monica Montserrat Degen and Gillian Rose (2012:3276)

1.         Introduction

On Tuesday 10 October 2017, students from the University of Pretoria’s Visual Arts department embarked on a sensory exploration of the Piazza, a communal space, central to student life on campus. Each participant engaged with the space as a flâneur, Baudelaire’s urban stroller (Borer 2013:968), moving across the space and recording the individual multi-sensorial embodiment via photographic and voice recording. Paul Rodaway (Borer 2013:977), suggests that walking is a primary way in which we touch and perceive a place. When moving on foot, one’s whole body comes into contact with the environment. Of the 11 participants in this walk, two confirmed that they were visiting the place for the first time. Nine participants indicated that the Piazza was a space they frequented during the first and second year of their undergraduate studies. Due to reasons such as location, convenience and personal preference regarding the amenities and ambience, most preferred alternative options on campus with some participants, such as Chloe, citing off-campus ATM facilities preferential to those offered by the Piazza.

2.         The Piazza – a sensory exploration

Historically, the Italian Piazza is described by Richard Fusch (1994:424) as “an opening in the city fabric that allows activity in various forms – walking, riding, driving, shopping, socialising, and playing.”. Likewise, the UP Piazza has been structured in a similar manner to provide indoor and outdoor facilities where students can purchase food, socialise, relax, fulfil a number of administrative tasks, but mainly to act as an ‘oasis’ in the centre of campus. The student centre can be accessed via multiple walkways situated on the periphery of the space. This structural phenomenon guides the flow of pedestrian traffic from the outside space into the student centre and food court. The majority of participants preferred to enter the building from these walkways as opposed to walking across the central open court area. Jane stated, “I walk around it, instead of through it.” This sentiment is echoed by Loretta who referred to the walkways as a type of ‘tunnel’, getting you to where you want to be, a means of avoiding the various activations that occur within the space from time to time. She stated, “I don’t want people to pick on me... I prefer not to be seen.” In a comparative study of Milton Keynes, Degen and Rose (2012:3277) found that participants displayed similar routinised patterns of walking. A participant in the Milton Keynes walk Susan observes “You find people walking in synch with each other, so if you want to get across it’s really hard.”
“I experience; therefore I am.” ~ George Simmel
In a sensory twist to the philosophical proposition put forward by René Descartes, George Simmel motivates our investigation of the experiential dimension of social life (Borer 2013:967). Simmel observed that within a city, individuals strive to protect themselves from sensory overload. Simmel views this notion as a necessary adaptation. This “protective organ” that has developed has had a profound effect on how individuals relate to each other, resulting in what Simmel refers to as a “blasé attitude”. When asked the question “Do you like this part of campus?”, JP replied with, “there is nothing good or bad”. According to Simmel this attitude is necessary for individual survival and to maintain social order (Borer 2013:967).

Vision is the predominant means by which we experience our life as “social life” (Krase cited by Borer 2013:970). It is the visual aspects of the space that provide us with clues to the interactions and activities that need to take place. Sight, however, cannot provide a full bodily engagement with a space and define the individual experience. When driving through an urban area for example, reliance on sight alone takes away from the experiential nuances provided by the other senses. In this respect a walk through, such as that conducted within the Piazza, provides one with a more comprehensive sense of place. Although the majority of the participants provided negative feedback regarding the ambience at the Piazza, it was the visual structural elements that received the most positive review. Chloe, Molly and Poppy liked the outside sections of grass which they described as “cooling”, “calming” and “relaxing”. The lines created by the brickwork lead the visitor to the central, circular area which acts as a podium, with a range of possibilities as pointed out by Calliope. On the inside of the student centre, architectural features such as the ceiling also received positive feedback from Poppy, Loretta and Louise, and the radial layout is deemed as the most striking feature by Ophelia. “Seeing” and “being seen” are also attached to a negative connotation of surveillance, and this influenced the manner in which the participants described their utilisation of the Piazza, choosing not to “linger” in the space. Adeline stated that she preferred not to walk through centre of the outdoor area as it felt as if everyone was looking at her.

It is only when the other senses are explored that alternative viewpoints on both the interior and exterior of the Piazza are provided. In terms of the sound experience, the inside of the student centre and food court are described by many as loud, noisy and chaotic however visitors seem to spend time both inside and outside working or socialising. Noticeably the “protective organ” as posited by Simmel, is deployed in the form of personal music players. This is a strategy that enables the visitor to retreat to a privatised world by “tuning out” or “sounding out” (Borer 2013:972). The keynote sounds within the food court consist of voices, laughter, movement of cutlery and crockery. The constant noise is punctuated by soundmarks, such as the calling out of orders, from the many fast food outlets available.

The sense of smell and odour featured predominantly as an influencer in the manner in which the space is used. In general, participants preferred the grassy area outdoors, to the inside of the student centre due to the “overwhelming” odour of the cooking process, food and the cigarette smoke prevalent in the benched area adjacent to the building. Simmel (Borer 2013:972) views the sense of smell as a “disassociating” sense and results in the stigmatisation of certain practices such as smoking. This notion came to the fore during the subsequent photo elicitation in which Savanna mentioned that the area is associated with the “lazy people” who “smoke, play cards, chill and don’t go to class”. The sense of taste also featured as a means of division between those who frequented the food court at the Piazza and those who preferred to buy food elsewhere on campus. The notion of taste suggests a social class distinction whereby “taste classifies, and it classifies the classifier” (Bourdieu cited by Borer 2013:975). Borer (2013:975) is of the opinion that our tastes are not individual but a result of socialisation and re-socialisation according to a particular context. Poppy claimed that when one compares the donuts, for example, to “other” donuts they are “not that appealing” and Savanna supported this opinion in her observation, “Now it sounds like I’m being a snob but I’d rather go to Tribeca or Aloha.”.
“There is no perception which is not full of memories.”
~ Henri Bergson
Memories can result in comparisons between specific aspects of two places. Judgements are made when comparing the sensory qualities of each (Degen & Rose 2012:3281). The majority of participants who frequented the Piazza, during the first and second year of their undergraduate studies, now preferred to make use of alternative facilities on campus due to what is perceived as an improved sensory experience to that which is offered by the Piazza. The two participants that visited the Piazza for the first time experienced the place somewhat differently. Louise commented on the positive aspects the Piazza had to offer, such as an opportunity to engage with other students and collaborate on projects in an informal manner. Chloe viewed the external central area as a “blank canvas”, an opportune area on which activations could occur, not as a place to be avoided as indicated by the other participants.

3.         Conclusion

The way in which we engage with a space on a sensory level is influenced to a large degree by our perceptual memory. This project provided significant evidence of this as the majority of participants provided similar feedback in terms of their sensory embodiment of the space. Memories associated with alternative facilities on campus served as a basis for comparison and categorising the Piazza as the loud, noisy and chaotic “other”. The process of photo documentation and elicitation provided first-hand and individual feedback regarding the multi-sensorial embodiment of this space. Besides the verbal feedback received during the elicitation session, the use of photography also provides other clues in terms of the participants’ individual engagement with the space. What is interesting is that few participants chose to frame areas with a close shot which suggests a disassociation from the space. However, the use of a camera encouraged participants to notice structural details that had gone unnoticed on prior visits such as the image of the surveillance camera captured by Molly and the ceiling detail captured by Louise. As the group of participants are quite homogenous in terms of culture, interests and age, the feedback was very similar in terms of the majority of sensory experiences. It would be interesting to repeat the process with a heterogenous group of randomly selected and willing participants on campus. The value of such a project on a larger scale, within an urban area, would be crucial in terms of the design and expansion considerations of urban planning that often places too much emphasis on the purely visual and aesthetic elements within a space and ignores the culturally diverse sensorial aspects.

4.         Bibliography

Borer, M.I. 2013. Being in the city: The sociology of urban experiences. Sociology Compass, 7(11):965-983.

Degen, M.M. & Rose, G. 2012. The sensory experiencing of urban design: The role of walking and perceptual memory. Urban Studies, 49(15):3271-3287.

Fusch, R. 1994. The piazza in Italian urban morphology. Geographical Review:424-438.
Chloe This interactive and reflective essay aims to unpack and explore the ways in which various students experienced the Piazza space at The University of Pretoria. This essay focuses on people’s sensory engagements and bodily modes whilst experiencing the space and involves a combination of text, image and voice recordings done by the participants. Walking practices, touch scape, smell scape and the role of memory are discussed in terms of the piazza space and with reference to the theorists Degen and Rose (2012) and Borer (2013), these aspects will be enhanced. Furthermore, a short reflection on the value and nature of the project is provided so to reveal what has been learnt from the process of using photo elicitation and documentation within a visual archive surrounding the sensory experiencing of urban spaces.

Degen and Rose (2012:3) state in their article titled “The Sensory Experiencing of Urban Design: The Role of Walking and Perceptual Memory” that “senses are part of people’s everyday experiencing and these sensory experiences are central to the design of urban built environments.” Therefore, it is important for town planners and architects to acknowledge that when buildings and urban spaces are being constructed and designed, one’s sensory experience needs to be considered. Thus, Degen and Rose (2012:5) stress the significance of how urban spaces are experienced through multiple sensory modalities and not solely through the visual or through sight. Similarly, Borer (2013:966) recognizes the importance of the senses for making connections between individuals and their environments by referring to places as “sensescapes.”

The piazza has a variety of walking practices owing to the different types of walk-ways within the area. The inner section contains several corridors that channel students to walk in a hurriedly manner and to follow a certain path. Degen and Rose (2012:13) stipulate that it is through such "habitual practices and routine engagements that one is able to attach particular experiences and memories to places." Ophelia's (2017) image below for displays her experience of walking through the corridors and reveals the dark, dinginess of the avenues while Savanna comments on walking through this area and her feeling of "claustrophobia" (Savanna 2017). Degen and Rose (2012:14) mention that this type of space creates a tendency for it to be like a two way street and forms streams of traffic whereby people walking in this confined space are almost on "autopilot." Additionally, Savanna (2017) mentions that she frequently attended the piazza in her first two years of study but no longer visits this space; thereby linking to the concept of memory and how students have fond memories of their younger days whilst sitting or socializing under the trees. Therefore, this space is viewed differently to that of someone whom may be experiencing the piazza for the first time as "there are no perceptions without recollections" (Degen & Rose 2012:18).

On the contrary, the walking practices in the open space of the piazza are more free flow and in a "spidery-like movement" as the area is bigger and allows for many pathways and directions to 'stroll' through (Degen & Rose 2012:16). There is a lack of uniformity in this environment except for the flow of students walking directly through the piazza from one entrance to another, following the straight path. Loretta (2017) describes walking through the piazza as her "fly through" of which Molly (2017) agrees with this as these students prefer to quickly pass through the area owing to the feeling of being watched or judged by onlookers or even viewed by surveillance. Other students, however, do not merely "fly through" this area to get to another destination but optionally choose to spend time in the piazza so to interact with friends or work on group projects together. JP's (2017) image reveals how this space produces a multiplicity of patterns of walk which, in turn, results in individuals reacting differently to forms of sensory stimulation (Degen & Rose 2012:16). It is the body and the space that come together through the process of walking.

The piazza can be considered in terms of a "touchscape" and a "smellscape" in which the space can be assessed through the sensuous experiences and the accompanying meanings embedded (Borer 2013:969). One of the positive experiences students had with the piazza, in terms of a touchscape, is the various grass areas and the feeling of the lush grass under one's feet or hands whilst being able to sit and enjoy the tranquility under the trees (Molly 2017). Molly (2017) further infers that while the grass areas are clean and relaxing, students refrain from touching any other aspects of the space as it appears "grubby."

These sensory engagements with the grass areas are also mediated by memories of other places that contain grass in which comparisons were made between the piazza grass area and the Engineering grass patch. Borer (2013:977) infers that "touch is more than the action of the fingers feeling the texture of surfaces, in this case the grass, as it involves the entire body reaching out to certain items and those items in the environment coming into contact with the body." This is evident in the circular podium that protrudes out and causes the body to come into contact with this environment and connects individuals to the larger spatial whole (Borer 2013:977). Jane (2017) states that this is one of her favourite features in the piazza as she finds the design and symmetry of the bricks aesthetically pleasing; linking to Degen and Rose's (2012) thoughts of how the "design of a certain area should enrich people's experiences." The circular podium is thus synonymous with the piazza space.

The "smellscape" can be considered the most prominent sensuous experience of the piazza as every student commented on how the smell deters them away from the area. According to Borer (2013:972), smell is a "dissociating sense that creates divisions and distinctions between classes, cultural groups, races and even practices like smoking." Memory plays a key role within smellscape as many students remembered and recalled the space according to the overwhelming stench of hubbly bubbly and cigarette smoke as seen in Loretta's image.

Not only is there an overpowering smell of smoke but also the various smells of food cooking and being prepared. Linking to the above quote, smell evidently creates divisions as one is able to divide the space according to the smokers and various cultural groups that are sitting and eating, or waiting in the ques to purchase food (Borer 2013:972). Thus, smells are connected to certain places and particular types of people. This is evident in the cafeteria space as it has an extremely distinctive smell. Additionally, owing to so many people residing in this area, the bins are often overflowing which causes a stench of garbage and creates a lot of litter, ultimately resulting in a "disregard for others and the environment" (Louise 2017) . Thus, the smells associated with the piazza are almost entirely negative and will result in an odorous identity. It is apparent that students predominantly experience the piazza in terms of smell and sensory engagement.

This project is extremely relevant as it places emphasis on the importance of analyzing urban spaces according to walking practices, memory, touch and smell: the sensory experiences. I found the nature and value of the project meaningful as it enabled and encouraged me to experience the space through a multi-sensory process and not primarily through sight which, in turn, created an awareness of my surroundings and how I interact with the environment. By fully immersing myself into the multi-sensory process I found new insights, likes and dislikes, and aspects of the space that enlightened my overall view of the piazza as well as building on my previous memories or perceptions that mediated my experience. I became aware of the process of walking, my awareness of presence and touch, as well as the odorous impressions. I found the photo documentation and elicitation effective as both methods capture the essence of what one aims to convey: the atmosphere and sensorial qualities. I enjoyed using these methodologies and implementing them into a group, visual archiving project on a new platform: Scalar.

Therefore, from the above essay it is clear that students at The University of Pretoria do indeed experience the piazza space in terms of their senses: namely walking practices, the role of memory, touch and smell. It is furthermore clear from the inputs of the theorists Degen and Rose (2012) and Borer (2013) that urban spaces do allow for multisensorial experiences which ultimately enhance one's encounter with the space, its environment and its design features. Thus, the UP piazza contains an experiential dimension.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Borer, M. 2013. Being in the City: The sociology of urban experiences. Sociology Compass 7(11)
:965-983.

Degen, M & Rose, G. 2012. The sensory experiencing of urban design: the role of walking and
perceptual memory.Urban Studies 49(15):3271-3287.
Olivia Loots
Senses and Sensibility: moving through the Piazza

The world, inevitably, is mediated through our bodily sensations. This interactive reflection essay aims to explain how a group of research participants at the University of Pretoria experiences the Piazza, a specific space on the UP campus. This is done using information, based on specific questions posed to the participants, gathered and shared on the online academic platform Scalar. These take the form of images, voice recordings and photo elicitation conversations. In analysing this information, one can reach various conclusions pertaining to the way participants feel about the Piazza, their different associations with the space and their sensory awareness of their surroundings. Degen and Rose (2012:3271) mention two things that have an impact on the way people experience a space, namely walking practices and memory. Due to the vast amount of themes that can be discussed through analysis, I here specifically focus on on the way people move through the space, whether they know why they are doing this and what they feel when doing so, including feelings of claustrophobia, awkwardness, dirtiness or contrarily feelings of tranquility, openness and peacefulness. The discussion ends off with a brief reflection on the value of such a project.

On the university’s website, the Piazza, designed by Philip Viljoen and officially in use since August 1995, is described as the “hub of the campus for most students” and that the central circular raised platform at its middle is “used for various activities” (Van der Merwe, Viljoen, & Läuferts 2008). According to JP (2017), the Piazza should serve as an “oasis” for students. He feels that people do use it in this way, which, for him, makes the Piazza successful as a “melting pot” of a variety of students. Of the eleven participants, only two have never visited the Piazza before. Louise mentions that she has never been in this location, but have experienced it when it “used to be a very busy road dividing the campus”. According to Degen and Rose (2012:30), people often rely on their memory in order to make sense of a space, by either comparing it to how it used to be in the past, or how it is the same or different from other places that the person has visited. This links to the idea that humans respond to the space they are in not solely in terms of its material qualities, but also “in relation to the participants' own, remembered, sensory biographies” (Degen & Rose 2012:30). All of the participants, save Loretta Brown, who visit the Piazza around once a month which is, according to her, “reasonably often”, do not visit the space often. Others, such as Chloe (2017), Savanna (2017) and Jane (2017), mention that in previous years, when they were undergraduate students, they frequented the space more often. JP (2017) recalls the changes that have been made to the Piazza in the last ten years, since his first year at the university. Analysing the way people used to use the space or how they remember it, is useful in understanding how people currently think about the space and how they would (or would not) use it.

Most of the participants mention that they have in the past, bought (or still buy) some form of food or drink at the Piazza, ranging from coffee or bottled water, prepackaged snacks or meals such as wraps. Others, such as Molly (2017), Chloe (2017) and Loretta Brown (2017), mention that they (used to) withdraw money at the ATM’s in this area. Chloe (2017) specifically mentions that, since all of her classes now take place in the Visual Arts building, she rarely comes here anymore, since she can access what she needs, such as take away coffee, ATM’s and bathrooms, in spaces much closer to her lectures. Others, such as Ophelia (2017), mentions that she usually just passes through the Piazza to get to another part of the campus.

When asked whether they like this part of campus, participants have quite varying views. JP (2017) simply seemed ambivalent towards it, summarising that he “neither like[s] not dislike[s]” the space, that he actually feels “apathetic” about it because there is “nothing significantly good or bad” about it. The participants seem to experience an array of emotions when describing the Piazza, which is probably also influenced by the specific parts they think of first when thinking of the space, since it becomes clear that the open air space and the food court evoke very contrasting emotions in general. Molly (2017) feels the outside lawn is a good place to relax as it is “peaceful and beautiful”, which Poppy (2017) agrees with when she says that she finds it “really stunning” and “aesthetically pleasing”, whereas Louise (2017) comments on the “bland foreboding compound” building of which Chloe (2017) and Calliope (2017) feel the inside is “extremely noisy”, crowded, smelly and “grimy”. Most associate the outside area of the Piazza with peacefulness, tranquility, relaxation and beauty, whereas they associate the covered food court with dirt, grubbiness, claustrophobia and noise.

It might be assumed that Question Seven, pertaining to the way each participant uses the space, was initially structured as an effort to elicit information on people’s walking patterns, but when analysing the answers has proven that people more readily think about their or others’ actual activities than their walking patterns. Ophelia (2017) mentions that this is a space where she “rarely pass[es] time, but rather a space where [she] pass[es] through”, giving a vague idea of the manner in which she walks, but still not where she walks. Jane (2017) and Loretta Brown (2017) are the only ones that specifically mention the way they walk around the Piazza, whereas Louise (2017), Calliope (2017) and Savanna (2017) vaguely mention where they do not want to be (inside the food court), whilst the others focus on what they do there or see others do. However, during the photo elicitation discussions, most participants were guided by the interviewer to speak about how they walk through the space. During Adeline’s photo elicitation discussion, it becomes clear that most participants prefer walking on the outskirts of the Piazza in stead of through it around the circular feature in the middle, especially because they feel very exposed and “as if people are watching” or as if they are “on display” because one can see everything from “a lot of different angles” (Adeline 2017). Molly (2017) mentions that this, combined with the idea of security cameras surveying the area, makes her feel “really awkward”. Most prefer staying in the covered areas where they are not as exposed. Only JP (2017) and Ophelia (2017) seem to usually walk through the Piazza, the former because he feels “ignorant to the fact that people can stare at you” and “ha[s] never really thought about it until [they] mentioned it” and the latter because she enjoys the “vibe around it”, although she does not linger herself. Although some have commented on the convenience of the space or interesting architectural features such as the colourful blocks on the ceiling of the building (Poppy 2017, Loretta Brown 2017, Louise 2017), this is not enough of an incentive for participants to spend time here. Calliope (2017), who is a first time visitor, quickly decided that she will “avoid the food [court] in the future” because she finds it “terrible” due to the smells of tomato sauce and smoke, and would rather stay outside around the circular center, which has for her an almost “zennish” quality. Many mention that since Fego, a coffee shop on the outskirts of the Piazza, has closed, they prefer to buy coffee at other coffee shops on campus, such as Tribeca or Haloa (Savanna 2017, Chloe 2017).

A project such as this, has the potential to unleash an array of new experiences, as it encourages what would usually be the viewer, to now also be the taster, listener, feeler and smeller. What is discussed above, Borer (2013:965) describes as the sensescapes, or sensory associations with a space, that correlate to a specific landscape, namely seescapes, soundscapes, smellscapes, tastescapes, and touchscapes. It becomes clear that people plan, often quite unconsciously, their walking patterns around these features, either to experience certain –scapes associated with a specific space, such as tranquil silence on the Piazza lawn, or to avoid experiencing them, such as intense food smells or smoke, overwhelming noises, excessive sunlight or tightly enclosed dark spaces that have turned grimy over time. In being aware of the bodily sensations evoked by these factors, one can more easily grasp the impact of surroundings on the self. Finally, through this essay, one can gather that most participants, in general, are pushed away from the Piazza due to unpleasant sensory sensations, rather than being drawn to it by pleasant ones.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Borer, IM. 2013. Being in the City: The Sociology of Urban Experiences. Sociology Compass 7(11):965–983.
Degen, MM & Rose, G. 2012. The sensory experiencing of urban design: the role of walking and perceptual memory. Urban Studies 49(15):1–39.
Van der Merwe, SL, Viljoen, P & Läuferts, M. 2008. UPSpace Institutional Repository. [O]. Available:
https://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/7301
Accessed 1 November 2017.
Ophelia
Senses and Sensibilty: moving through the Piazza

The world, inevitably, is mediated through our bodily sensations. This interactive reflection essay aims to explain how a group of research participants at the University of Pretoria experiences the Piazza, a specific space on the UP campus. This is done using information, based on specific questions posed to the participants, gathered and shared on the online academic platform Scalar. These take the form of images, voice recordings and photo elicitation conversations. In analysing this information, one can reach various conclusions pertaining to the way participants feel about the Piazza, their different associations with the space and their sensory awareness of their surroundings. Degen and Rose (2012:3271) mention two things that have an impact on the way people experience a space, namely walking practices and memory. Due to the vast amount of themes that can be discussed through analysis, I here specifically focus on on the way people move through the space, whether they know why they are doing this and what they feel when doing so, including feelings of claustrophobia, awkwardness, dirtiness or contrarily feelings of tranquility, openness and peacefulness. The discussion ends off with a brief reflection on the value of such a project.

On the university’s website, the Piazza, designed by Philip Viljoen and officially in use since August 1995, is described as the “hub of the campus for most students” and that the central circular raised platform is “used for various activities” (Van der Merwe, Viljoen, & Läuferts 2008). According to JP (2017), the Piazza should serve as an “oasis” for students. He feels that people do use it in this way, which, for him, makes the Piazza successful as a “melting pot” of a variety of students. Of the eleven participants, only two have never visited the Piazza before. Louise mentions that she has never been in this location, but have experienced it when it “used to be a very busy road dividing the campus”. According to Degen and Rose (2012:30), people often rely on their memory in order to make sense of a space, by either comparing it to how it used to be in the past, or how it is the same or different from other places that the person has visited. This links to the idea that humans respond to the space they are in not solely in terms of its material qualities, but also “in relation to the participants' own, remembered, sensory biographies” (Degen & Rose 2012:30). All of the participants, save Loretta Brown, who visit the Piazza around once a month which is, according to her, “reasonably often”, do not visit the space often. Others, such as Chloe (2017), Savanna (2017) and Jane (2017), mention that in previous years, when they were undergraduate students, they frequented the space more often. JP (2017) recalls the changes that have been made to the Piazza in the last ten years, since his first year at the university. Analysing the way people used to use the space or how they remember it, is useful in understanding how people currently think about the space and how they would (or would not) use it.

Most of the participants mention that they have in the past, bought (or still buy) some form of food or drink at the Piazza, ranging from coffee or bottled water, prepackaged snacks or meals such as wraps. Others, such as Molly (2017), Chloe (2017) and Loretta Brown (2017), mention that they (used to) withdraw money at the ATM’s in this area. Chloe (2017) specifically mentions that, since all of her classes now take place in the Visual Arts building, she rarely comes here anymore, since she can access what she needs, such as take away coffee, ATM’s and bathrooms, in spaces much closer to her lectures. Others, such as Ophelia (2017), mentions that she usually just passes through the Piazza to get to another part of the campus.

When asked whether they like this part of campus, participants have quite varying views. JP (2017) simply seemed ambivalent towards it, summarising that he “neither like[s] not dislike[s]” the space, that he actually feels “apathetic” about it because there is “nothing significantly good or bad” about it. The participants seem to experience an array of emotions when describing the Piazza, which is probably also influenced by the specific parts they think of first when thinking of the space, since it becomes clear that the open air space and the food court evoke very contrasting emotions in general. Molly (2017) feels the outside lawn is a good place to relax as it is “peaceful and beautiful”, which Poppy (2017) agrees with when she says that she finds it “really stunning” and “aesthetically pleasing”, whereas Louise (2017) comments on the “bland foreboding compound” building of which Chloe (2017) and Calliope (2017) feel the inside is “extremely noisy”, crowded, smelly and “grimy”. Most associate the outside area of the Piazza with peacefulness, tranquility, relaxation and beauty, whereas they associate the covered food court with dirt, grubbiness, claustrophobia and noise.

It might be assumed that Question Seven, pertaining to the way each participant uses the space, was initially structured as an effort to elicit information on people’s walking patterns, but when analysing the answers has proven that people more readily think about their or others’ actual activities than their walking patterns. Ophelia (2017) mentions that this is a space where she “rarely pass[es] time, but rather a space where [she] pass[es] through”, giving a vague idea of the manner in which she walks, but still not where she walks. Jane (2017) and Loretta Brown (2017) are the only ones that specifically mention the way they walk around the Piazza, whereas Louise (2017), Calliope (2017) and Savanna (2017) vaguely mention where they do not want to be (inside the food court), whilst the others focus on what they do there or see others do. However, during the photo elicitation discussions, most participants were guided by the interviewer to speak about how they walk through the space. During Adeline’s photo elicitation discussion, it becomes clear that most participants prefer walking on the outskirts of the Piazza in stead of through it around the circular feature in the middle, especially because they feel very exposed and “as if people are watching” or as if they are “on display” because one can see everything from “a lot of different angles” (Adeline 2017). Molly (2017) mentions that this, combined with the idea of security cameras surveying the area, makes her feel “really awkward”. Most prefer staying in the covered areas where they are not as exposed. Only JP (2017) and Ophelia (2017) seem to usually walk through the Piazza, the former because he feels “ignorant to the fact that people can stare at you” and “ha[s] never really thought about it until [they] mentioned it” and the latter because she enjoys the “vibe around it”, although she does not linger herself. Although some have commented on the convenience of the space or interesting architectural features such as the colourful blocks on the ceiling of the building (Poppy 2017, Loretta Brown 2017, Louise 2017), this is not enough of an incentive for participants to spend time here. Calliope (2017), who is a first time visitor, quickly decided that she will “avoid the food [court] in the future” because she finds it “terrible” due to the smells of tomato sauce and smoke, and would rather stay outside around the circular center, which has for her an almost “zennish” quality. Many mention that since Fego, a coffee shop on the outskirts of the Piazza, has closed, they prefer to buy coffee at other coffee shops on campus, such as Tribeca or Haloa (Savanna 2017, Chloe 2017).

A project such as this, has the potential to unleash an array of new experiences, as it encourages what would usually be the viewer, to now also be the taster, listener, feeler and smeller. What is discussed above, Borer (2013:965) describes as the sensescapes, or sensory associations with a space, that correlate to a specific landscape, namely seescapes, soundscapes, smellscapes, tastescapes, and touchscapes. It becomes clear that people plan, often quite unconsciously, their walking patterns around these features, either to experience certain –scapes associated with a specific space, such as tranquil silence on the Piazza lawn, or to avoid experiencing them, such as intense food smells or smoke, overwhelming noises, excessive sunlight or tightly enclosed dark spaces that have turned grimy over time. In being aware of the bodily sensations evoked by these factors, one can more easily grasp the impact of surroundings on the self. Finally, through this essay, one can gather that most participants, in general, are pushed away from the Piazza due to unpleasant sensory sensations, rather than being drawn to it by pleasant ones.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Borer, IM. 2013. Being in the City: The Sociology of Urban Experiences. Sociology Compass 7(11):965–983.
Degen, MM & Rose, G. 2012. The sensory experiencing of urban design: the role of walking and perceptual memory. Urban Studies 49(15):1–39.
Van der Merwe, SL, Viljoen, P & Läuferts, M. 2008. UPSpace Institutional Repository. [O]. Available:
https://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/7301
Accessed 1 November 2017.