The process of Advanced Product Design Studio in METU ID 2011-2012 Spring

2. 2011-2012 Spring Semester
Faculty of Architecture ID 501 Advanced Project Development
Department Of Industrial Design In Industrial Design
Erasmus IP Project Partnership with TU/Eindhoven & Hogeschool Sint-Lukas Brussel:
Cultural Differences in Practice
Inst. Figen IŞIK, Part-Time Inst. Burcu DERER OMAY, Res. Asst. Yekta BAKIRLIOĞLU
Hande IŞIK
Selma KADİROĞLU
Ceren KÖKTÜRK
Hande ÖZTAŞ
Zeliha UYURCA
Nur YILDIRIM

3. CONTENTS
• Creative Methods
• Observation
• Intervention to Space
• Questionnaires
• Design Ideas

4. Observation
• 15-20 minutes rest
• Waiting for someone else
• Eating/Drinking/Smoking/
Making,answering a call…
• Chatting with friends
• Waiting for an unknown
reason
– Watching the people passing
by, making comments about
them,
– killing time…

5. Loitering as an economic and social activity…
– Free as you sit, hang around there
– You create your “own space”
• Bring along seeds to crack, drink tea, eat food, ………..
– An easy way to vanish in the crowd
• Hidden behind the mobile phones, cigarettes,
eating/drinking
– As a social control mechanism to monitorize
individuals
• Ottoman district control

9. Hopscotch cardboard
• Created a new behavior of skirting
over the cardboard at Kızılay.
• Created no change in seniors at
Tunalı
– They ignored, walked over the
cardboard.
– Was only used by children at Tunalı.
• But, then it turned into a loitering
area for seniors.
• At “Park Cad” loitering was not
similar to what we observe at Kızılay
and Tunalı. It was more in forms of
leisure and social activities.

10. • Availiability of a person on the top of cardboard
increases the attention of other people.
• Children kept company with the cardboard easier
than seniors.
• Seniors exercised self control
– Not to be seen as weird, childlike, crazy
– Felt tired? Lazy?
– Because it is not a senior game?
– Refraining him/herself?
– Do another one for only seniors!?

13. The Impressions of Ours
• When we loitered, we felt nervous because we were
unsafe.
• Man are more active in responding to the intervention
in the public space.
• Shopkeepers
– Some people responded aggressively to the intervention
created by us.
– When we told about the experiment to others, they were
benevolent.
• Municipal workers and the cardboard collector
– They tried to understand why the cardboard was there.
– They were cooperative.

14. • Appropriation increases the response of
people who spend most of their time in the
intervened space.
• Exaggerated activities draw more attention
• If the action is subject to the individuals’
shining out in the public, response decreases
– Being part of the mass in public? Not to take
attention as an individual?

15. Survey
Time: Morning, Afternoon, Evening, After midnight
Reasons: Boredom, Nothing to do; Waiting someone/something, Resting need,
Motivation and fun
Space: Infront of shops or shopping malls, Seaside, Streets
Spacious, clean, designed, attractive, convenient to pass time, wide, open,
crowded, chaos
Objects or urban equipments: Shop windows
Practices done while loitering: Talking with cellphone, Watching people, Listening
music, Reading
Personal loitering- Group Loitering: Harmony with group
Loitering in Turkey&loitering in other countries
Highschoolers, people who have to kill time, environment, dirtiness

16. Survey

17. Design Ideas