I've been mulling over an idea from Space Syntax research (think Architecture and Urban Planning) that people tend toward spaces from which the rest of a building is more easily accessible (Peponis, Zimring, Choi, 1990). This, some suggest, is a reason why even during a fire, people tend to exit a movie theater the same way they came in rather than the clearly marked exits on either side of the screen.
Here are two examples of techniques for visualizing "more integrated" spaces.
Our mental maps give a higher priority to spaces that are "more integrated." It is also pretty well established that people don't like to backtrack, so tapping the main traffic flow would presumably give a person more options for either finding their way to a desired location or simply finding an interesting next location.
I've been thinking about this as an analogy for the role of popular media outlets in an era of mass choice.
Back when there were only three TV networks, you had three main flows of information to the masses (in that medium). With the proliferation of choices introduced by Cable and now the Internet, one would think that there would be a flattening of the distribution curve as people migrate toward only the media that suits their interests and beliefs. We know that is not presently the nature of things, however. Some sites are vastly more popular than others, and the patterns of consumption are probably more Pareto than Normal.
But people are taking advantage of choice, right? I certainly can find more quirky shows on television now that I have Cable; every now and then i'll actually record and/or watch them. But I still also gravitate toward 'popular' programs and channels.
Turow referred to "segment-making" vs. "society-making" media in a recent talk at Northwestern. In some ways, can't "society-making" media be thought of as the "more-integrated spaces" in our modern media world. How do we find out what the popular programs are? Isn't the system sort of self-fulfilling?
Is there perhaps another explanation than the ratings system is "broken" and that perhaps we like being told what other people are watching, listening to, doing -- even if it's unscientific and we know that "popularity" is sold to the highest bidder.
Perhaps we just like knowing where everyone's going to be "hanging out," so we at least have the option of indulging in community.
Perhaps we're just drawn to more integrated spaces even as we head our separate ways.
Comments (1)
This integrated space study that you've written about reminds me of the film 'Kitchen Stories' here is a plot synopsis of the film:
In post war Sweden it was discovered that every year, an average housewife walks the equivalent number of miles as the distance between Stockholm and Congo, while preparing her family meals. So the Home Research Institute sent out eighteen observers to a rural district of Norway to map out the kitchen routines of single men. The researchers were on twenty-four-hour call, and sat in special strategically placed chairs in each kitchen. Furthermore, under no circumstances were the researchers to be spoken to, or included in the kitchen activities.
The information that the observers were supposed to provide was a hand drawn version of your color coded charts, showing the daily movements in the kitchen so it could be redesigned to be more efficient. It was an extremely charming film. I highly reccomend it
Posted by Michael | October 14, 2007 2:06 PM
Posted on October 14, 2007 14:06