Interview

    You chose as your site New York’s Bryant Park, but it wasn’t just that space you had in mind… 

David Schwarz: Yes, we were looking at designing a system that could scale up or down. So, we chose a public space in maybe its simplest, rectilinear form. It represents a very precious rectangle of space, in a very dense area, so it’s an archetype. 

It’s really interesting how those kinds of public spaces in New York and globally have become sort of commandeered by brands, and the programming of them feels a lot more like entertainment than pure amenity – they’re very food-and-beverage-driven, or entertainment-driven. And, you start thinking about what those spaces were intended for originally and what they have become. And Bryant Park is a very visible, very iconic location that’s at the intersection of all those challenges.

    So, in some way you wanted to ‘reset’ the park as a public amenity, space just to occupy. 

DS: Right.

    Then how did you go about approaching the space, or breaking it down?

Elliott Lavi: We were generally interested in looking at a space that has a large open, unobstructed field so that we could manipulate it as we wanted – as opposed to a space that had the distinct trajectory or hierarchy, like the High Line.

DS: Our starting point was to think about what public spaces were originally for – for example, community organisation, which is highly relevant right now, self-expression, to meet other people and commune and, in dense urban spaces, as an amenity of some additional space that you don’t have in private. 

We were inspired by Barbara Kruger and Jenny Holzer in terms of these big messages, public spaces that can express big ideas: ideas of conflict, things that are germane to the populace who knows that public space. And then we were looking at graphic and installation art pieces that looked at micro spaces in beautiful ways.

And then, of course, we are approaching it graphically as well: how would that space be activated when it's in use or when interventions come to life? 

We ultimately ended up in a place where we wanted a bunch of these playful elements that feel fun to engage with. And, they could have a functional value, but you can use them in ways to express yourself, and when looked at as an aggregate set, as a grid, they have an additional meaning.

Through technology, we’re actually registering interactions, and so we're doing a count. At night, after everyone's gone, we activate the space and it becomes essentially a data visualisation on the public sentiment around these two topics. We imagine that you would programme this dichotomy of ideas on potentially a daily basis or monthly basis – and that that kind of feedback would be played back for the whole city to see over time. 

    It seems there’s a lot of playfulness, even in an attempt to digest quite heavy subject matter – or, on one hand playful, and on the other as a means of giving the public a voice. But, can you talk about the forms a bit more? 

EL: There are nine different forms in total. It started off as seating, then we were looking at the way that people may interact with the space, and giving a platform for how people will not only sit, but stand next to, take a photo, have conversations around, or just sit in the shade of them. So, the forms lend themselves to different types of interactions – and in some places they just to serve as folly, something sculptural to attract people. For that, I was inspired by Parc de La Villette in Paris. 

And perhaps that’s something that’s not achieved by caution tape – we don’t just want function from public spaces and inserting something sculptural seems to accomplish that. 

DS: We do a lot of work in a lot of other non-purely physical ways, but we're always trying to figure out how you get people to do the thing that maybe they don't want to do, or they don't naturally do. I think the tension of opposites we have in the change-driven ideas, that have gravitas to them, feels very heavy. Play and interaction become important, in the digital sense and technical sense, as well as physical, where you want to explore, where it doesn't feel intimidating. People may be briefed in some way, it'll become known that this space is like space about affinity, but they don't have to work hard, there’s no rulebook – it is about how you facilitate a way in, and then have it mean something more. When I think back about a lot of our of other work, we do that almost all the time. 

    And how do you imagine this concept adapting to different spaces?

DS: The idea is that there’s a set, and based on the space, you assemble these forms at the density you want. But they are all intelligent forms, in that they are registering 24/7 the use around them. That kind of scalability of thinking, of the physical structure and the technical response, is super interesting to us. 

And you don’t have to take on giant societal issues, you could also take on simple ideas that are pertinent to ten thousand people, not ten million. 

Plus, the execution is simple, it’s a kit of parts.

EL: And if you start to look at different spaces, perhaps it’s not between two polar options, but it could be a triangle or radial – so it doesn’t need to be a perfect rectangle, it can morph into the landscape. 

    And, also, to indoor spaces? 

DS: I actually think something like this would be a wonderful intervention in a space like in airports, where there's a lot of time for nothing, but it could become time for something – if everyone's got to sit and wait anyway, you might as well wait with purpose.

But I'm also conscious that in those kinds of spaces there is a sort of narrative that's driving people's actions that trumps everything – and could we get the purity of thought and intention about where people sit when you have this overlying force which is, you know ‘I have my bags, I’m late,’ whatever? I would say yes.

We created a field of sculptural, functional objects that activates the heavily trafficked Bryant Park and creates gravitational centre points for social distancing. The grid of objects is positioned between two large, typographic "ideas" that are meaningful to the local public. People express their affinity with their bodies by occupying the objects closest to their most important idea. The public space becomes a heat map that visualises public sentiment around these big ideas through night-time illumination. The big ideas are changed on a regular basis and continue to be tuned to what is pertinent to the public interest.

Interview

    You chose as your site New York’s Bryant Park, but it wasn’t just that space you had in mind… 

David Schwarz: Yes, we were looking at designing a system that could scale up or down. So, we chose a public space in maybe its simplest, rectilinear form. It represents a very precious rectangle of space, in a very dense area, so it’s an archetype. 

It’s really interesting how those kinds of public spaces in New York and globally have become sort of commandeered by brands, and the programming of them feels a lot more like entertainment than pure amenity – they’re very food-and-beverage-driven, or entertainment-driven. And, you start thinking about what those spaces were intended for originally and what they have become. And Bryant Park is a very visible, very iconic location that’s at the intersection of all those challenges.

    So, in some way you wanted to ‘reset’ the park as a public amenity, space just to occupy. 

DS: Right.

    Then how did you go about approaching the space, or breaking it down?

Elliott Lavi: We were generally interested in looking at a space that has a large open, unobstructed field so that we could manipulate it as we wanted – as opposed to a space that had the distinct trajectory or hierarchy, like the High Line.

DS: Our starting point was to think about what public spaces were originally for – for example, community organisation, which is highly relevant right now, self-expression, to meet other people and commune and, in dense urban spaces, as an amenity of some additional space that you don’t have in private. 

We were inspired by Barbara Kruger and Jenny Holzer in terms of these big messages, public spaces that can express big ideas: ideas of conflict, things that are germane to the populace who knows that public space. And then we were looking at graphic and installation art pieces that looked at micro spaces in beautiful ways.

And then, of course, we are approaching it graphically as well: how would that space be activated when it's in use or when interventions come to life? 

We ultimately ended up in a place where we wanted a bunch of these playful elements that feel fun to engage with. And, they could have a functional value, but you can use them in ways to express yourself, and when looked at as an aggregate set, as a grid, they have an additional meaning.

Through technology, we’re actually registering interactions, and so we're doing a count. At night, after everyone's gone, we activate the space and it becomes essentially a data visualisation on the public sentiment around these two topics. We imagine that you would programme this dichotomy of ideas on potentially a daily basis or monthly basis – and that that kind of feedback would be played back for the whole city to see over time. 

    It seems there’s a lot of playfulness, even in an attempt to digest quite heavy subject matter – or, on one hand playful, and on the other as a means of giving the public a voice. But, can you talk about the forms a bit more? 

EL: There are nine different forms in total. It started off as seating, then we were looking at the way that people may interact with the space, and giving a platform for how people will not only sit, but stand next to, take a photo, have conversations around, or just sit in the shade of them. So, the forms lend themselves to different types of interactions – and in some places they just to serve as folly, something sculptural to attract people. For that, I was inspired by Parc de La Villette in Paris. 

And perhaps that’s something that’s not achieved by caution tape – we don’t just want function from public spaces and inserting something sculptural seems to accomplish that. 

DS: We do a lot of work in a lot of other non-purely physical ways, but we're always trying to figure out how you get people to do the thing that maybe they don't want to do, or they don't naturally do. I think the tension of opposites we have in the change-driven ideas, that have gravitas to them, feels very heavy. Play and interaction become important, in the digital sense and technical sense, as well as physical, where you want to explore, where it doesn't feel intimidating. People may be briefed in some way, it'll become known that this space is like space about affinity, but they don't have to work hard, there’s no rulebook – it is about how you facilitate a way in, and then have it mean something more. When I think back about a lot of our of other work, we do that almost all the time. 

    And how do you imagine this concept adapting to different spaces?

DS: The idea is that there’s a set, and based on the space, you assemble these forms at the density you want. But they are all intelligent forms, in that they are registering 24/7 the use around them. That kind of scalability of thinking, of the physical structure and the technical response, is super interesting to us. 

And you don’t have to take on giant societal issues, you could also take on simple ideas that are pertinent to ten thousand people, not ten million. 

Plus, the execution is simple, it’s a kit of parts.

EL: And if you start to look at different spaces, perhaps it’s not between two polar options, but it could be a triangle or radial – so it doesn’t need to be a perfect rectangle, it can morph into the landscape. 

    And, also, to indoor spaces? 

DS: I actually think something like this would be a wonderful intervention in a space like in airports, where there's a lot of time for nothing, but it could become time for something – if everyone's got to sit and wait anyway, you might as well wait with purpose.

But I'm also conscious that in those kinds of spaces there is a sort of narrative that's driving people's actions that trumps everything – and could we get the purity of thought and intention about where people sit when you have this overlying force which is, you know ‘I have my bags, I’m late,’ whatever? I would say yes.