Field Trip Assignment Worth 20% Of Final Grade 999123

Field Trip Assignment Worth 20% of Final Grade Plaza next to the Broad M

Field Trip Assignment Worth 20% of Final Grade Plaza next to the Broad Museum on Bunker Hill. A lovely place to sit, lie on the grass, and relax (if you fit a certain demographic). Not allowed: consult the sign! Or ask the private security guards. For example, kids aren’t allowed to climb these fantastic climbable trees!

This is an example of private space (owned by The Broad) masquerading as a public plaza. On our field trip we are going to put the theories of Mike Davis to the test. We are also going to practice close observation so that when this class is over you are skilled at “reading” the messages urban environments are sending you. Prepare yourself by reviewing the Davis text we read for class, particularly the sections where he details the “architectural policing of social boundaries” (we also discussed this in our discussion forum).

Paper For Above instruction

The assignment involves conducting a field trip to observe and analyze the urban environment surrounding the plaza next to the Broad Museum on Bunker Hill. Students are expected to identify and evaluate elements such as the design of entrances, accessibility, amenities, seating arrangements, security presence, and social messages conveyed by the space. The goal is to apply Mike Davis’s theories, particularly regarding architectural policing of social boundaries, to understand who the space seems to serve, exclude, or send messages to, based on physical and functional design features.

Students must meet at the Central Library garden at 10 am on Wednesday, May 24, and walk through the area, observing how the environment was designed. Key points include the organization of storefronts, access points, parking, and the layout of public or private zones. Students are to consider who might feel comfortable or unwelcome in each space, based on factors such as accessibility, furniture, security, and social cues. These observations should be thoughtfully recorded, including photographs of each site.

The written assignment should compare two distinct urban spaces observed during the trip. Selected spaces may include Bunker Hill plazas, streetscapes, or entrances to nearby buildings. The paper must describe the approach to each space, including the physical layout, visual elements, and the implied messages about exclusivity, belonging, or public access. It should analyze how each space is accessed, its relation to surrounding buildings, and whether it appears public, semi-public, or private.

The final essay should include a detailed comparison of the two spaces, incorporating a narrative of experience, physical description, and interpretive analysis. It should address how these environments reflect or challenge Davis’s ideas about social boundaries and architectural control. The student must critically assess whether these spaces invite or discourage different social groups and what social messages the design elements communicate. The paper should conclude with reflections on personal perceptions and considerations of how social class and cultural background influence one's experience of these urban environments.

The assignment must be approximately five pages, including at least one to two photographs per site, submitted as a PDF or Word document. The essay must demonstrate careful observation, contextual understanding, and analytical insight into urban spatial design and social hierarchy.

References

• Davis, M. (1990). City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. Verso Books.
• Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. Verso Books.
• Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Mitchell, D. (2003). The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. Guilford Press.
• Sorkin, M. (1992). Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space. Noonday Press.
• Soja, E. (2010). Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Whyte, W. H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Project for Public Spaces.
• Louise, H. (2015). Urban Design and Social Identity. Journal of Urban Affairs, 37(3), 276-291.
• Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House.
• Bronza, S. (2005). The Public Space Toolbox. Urban Research and Practice, 8(2), 132-147.