Proctor Terrace: The Old and the New Marty Schnure Planning with Maps Prof. Jeff Howarth October 7, 2009 Word Count: 1489
- Introduction - Following any implementation of a design ought to be an evaluation of whether or not the design meets the goals defined during the planning stage and why (Lang & Burnette 1974, 43). Given the increasing disconnect today between designers and users, a post-construction evaluation of a site allows the designer to step back and observe emergent behavior patterns as users begin to colonize the space (Lang & Burnette 1974, 48). Such an evaluation also allows the architect to learn from successes and failures and modify the space to correct any faults in design (Lang & Burnette 1974, 45). This study seeks to evaluate the new Proctor terrace, finished in May 2009, in comparison to the old in terms of how the spatial configuration of each space affects its utility to users, users experience of the terrace, and its contribution to the broader goals of the campus (Figure 1). In use by the academic year student body for just over one month now, the new terrace is due for an evaluation of how well it functions as the main entrance to the dining hall and an effective social sitting and dining space. In this report I will first describe the methods and criteria I used to evaluate the two spaces and the results I found, focusing on the three main topics that surfaced from my research: (1) accessibility to the terrace and to the dining hall, (2) the quantity, quality, and adaptability of sittable space, and (3) the relationship between the terrace and its surroundings. I will then discuss how these results relate to the Master Plan and the goals of the campus, and conclude with recommendations for future modifications to the terrace. Figure 1. Proctor terrace prior to the renovation (top) and the recently renovated terrace (bottom). The two primary goals that guided the renovation of the terrace were to improve drainage of the terrace and to comply with current ADA accessibility standards (MiddPoints 2009, 1). (Top photo courtesy of Middlebury College Special Collections. Bottom photo by author.)
- Methods - Methods for this study include photography, semi-structured interviews, participatory mapping, and observation. I collected photos of the old terrace through the Middlebury College Special Collections and several Kaleidoscopes. I used six of these images for repeat photography to help visualize change on the terrace. I also asked seven people to draw a mental map of each terrace and mark where they usually sit/sat as well as any additional information they deemed important. When each person was finished, I asked them to explain why they drew what they did, what they liked and disliked about each terrace, and anything else that came to their minds while doing the exercise. I observed the new terrace three times, each for an hour, each at a different meal time during the week, and sketched it once. For observations of the old terrace, I relied on my own memories from eating at Proctor for three semesters, as well as those of friends. - Results & Discussion - :: Accessibility One of the primary goals of the Proctor terrace renovation was to increase the handicapped accessibility of the entrance to the terrace from Hepburn Road and the walking paths (Figures 2-3). The configuration of the entrance from the terrace to the dining hall, however, remains unchanged and includes a set of steps and a ramp which leads from the right side of the terrace to the door of the dining hall. Figure 2. Prior to the renovation, entrances to the terrace included two sets of steps (right) and a carpeted wooden ramp that was oriented in the opposite direction of the majority of traffic to the terrace, had tight angles, and became slippery in the winter (left). (Left photo courtesy of Middlebury College Special Collections. Right photo courtesy of Middlebury College Kaleidoscope 1989, p. 200-201. )
This raises a question about handicapped accessibility; a handicapped person will travel up the sloping path to the center of the terrace and then must travel all the way to the right side of the terrace in order to access the ramp that leads to the door to the dining hall (Figure 4). I noticed this for the first time while observing two students on crutches choose to take Figure 3. The new terrace includes just one entrance, a set of steps accompanied on either side by gentle slopes that connect the walking paths from both directions to the elevation of the terrace. (Photo by author.) Figure 4. Path that a handicapped person must take. Path that an able-bodied person can take. Path that a handicapped person could take with the addition of a second entrance. (Photo by author.) the stairs up to the dining hall rather than use the ramp. The ramp would not be so inconvenient if there were a second handicapped-accessible entrance to the terrace to the right of the main entrance. Including a second entrance to the right of the main entrance would make sense not just for handicapped accessibility, but also because the majority of traffic to the terrace comes from the direction of College Street (Figure 5). The new design has improved the accessibility of the main entrance to the Figure 5. Caught in the act: Many students currently take a shortcut through the new shrubbery where the second entrance used to be. (Photos by author.)
terrace, but the site could be improved with the addition of a second entrance. :: Sittable Space The second main idea that came up is change in the quantity, quality, and adaptability of sittable space on the terrace (Figures 6-8). Several people mentioned that it is more difficult to find a place to sit on the new terrace if one is alone, the ledges on the old terrace accommodated a large number of one or two-person parties as well as much larger groups (Figure 9). Without the ledges, the tables seem more exclusive and people Figure 6. Photos of the old terrace show most people to be sitting along the stone ledges that lined the perimeter of the space. The dimensions of the ledges were such that students could sit back to back on either side, straddle a ledge, sit on the floor and lean against the ledge, or even lie down; corners were particularly good spots for groups. (Left photo courtesy of Middlebury College Special Collections. Right photo courtesy of Middlebury College Kaleidoscope 1964, p. 16.) feel pressured not to sit down at a table if they do not have anyone to sit with or wish to enjoy a meal alone (Figure 10). The combination of ledges and tables created adaptable sittable spaces that accommodated a wide variety of party sizes and sociable seating arrangements (Figure 11). The removal of these ledges has reduced the quantity, quality, and adaptability of sittable space on the terrace. Figure 7. During the renovation, the ledges were removed and partially replaced with benches with fences as backs. During my observations I did not see anyone sit on these benches. (Photos by author.)
Figure 8. All seven mental maps indicate that the ledges were the preferred sitting spaces on the old terrace; in fact, one person did not remember that there were tables in addition to the ledges. In contrast, only three people included the new benches in their mental maps of the new terrace. When I asked one person about the benches, she asked, What benches? Figure 9. Perfect strangers will sit shoulder to shoulder on a ledge, but will not sit at the same table. This phenomenon makes a perimeter of ledges not only a highly sociable space, but also a highly efficient use of space for increasing seating capacity. This year, as winter nears and the tables and chairs are taken away, there will be very little sittable space left on the new terrace. (Left photo courtesy of Middlebury College Special Collections. Right photo courtesy of Middlebury College Kaleidoscope 1989, p. 48.)
Figure 10. Tables on the new terrace tend to better serve large groups of friends rather than one or two-person parties. (Photo by author.) The removal of the ledges has also changed patterns of flow within the terrace. Several people said that they liked the way the ledges that paralleled the entrance to the terrace slowed traffic and created eddies of social interaction between those entering the terrace and those already sitting (Figure 12). Figure 11. A mixture of tables and ledges accommodates a variety of group sizes. (Photo courtesy of Middlebury College Special Collections.) Figure 12. The interior ledges acted as an element of friction, creating a sort of friendly congestion that contributed to the sense of community on the terrace (Whyte 1988). One person even included this phenomenon on his mental map of the old terrace, illustrating how the flow of people entering the terrace slows as it passes the interior ledges, and even curves around the ledge like an eddy. The removal of these interior ledges has streamlined traffic between the entrance to the terrace and the door to the dining hall, reducing friction and sociability. (Photo courtesy of Middlebury College Special Collections.)
:: The Larger Configuration of the Terrace The third main idea is change in the relationship between the terrace and its surroundings, specifically Hepburn Road and the walking paths. While the removal of the ledges has in some ways connected the terrace to the adjacent paths, the addition of the shrubbery as a border has created a disconnect, discouraging the kinds of interactions that used to happen between those sitting on the ledges and those below on the path (Figure 13). The shedding of the walls has also altered the terrace s sense of place. With ledges lining the perimeter and people sitting on those ledges, the old terrace had a sense of enclosure; most people faced the interior, conversations tended inward, people-watching was focused within the terrace, and there was a sense of distinct arrival upon entering the space. Like Paley Park in Manhattan, the enclosed terrace was an intensely urban space within what is the most urban neighborhood on campus; yet it was a place where life slowed down, tight shoulders relaxed, and people engaged (Whyte 1988). Its enclosure fostered an intriguing sense of occupied space that attracted people to look in and enter (Cullen, 23). Without any barriers on one side, the terrace is a less defined space; people generally sit facing Hepburn Road, people-watching is focused outward, and there is little sense of distinction between being on the terrace and being next to it. Figure 13. Students outside the terrace interact with students on the terrace. While the removal of the ledges has in some ways connected the terrace to the adjacent paths, the addition of the shrubbery as a border has created a disconnect, discouraging the kinds of social interactions that used to happen between those sitting on the ledges and those standing below on the path. (Left photo courtesy of Middlebury College Special Collections. Right photo courtesy of Middlebury College Kaleidoscope 1975, p. 15.)
:: Proctor Terrace in the Context of the Campus According to the Middlebury College Master Plan, the campus currently lacks an adequate number of sittable spaces and small, paved gathering and meeting spaces that support social interaction (Campus Master Planning Committee 2008, 62). The Plan, published in May 2008, cites (the old) Proctor terrace as a poorly structured plaza that remains popular only because of its location and orientation (CMPC 2008, 62). It is true that the old terrace was not a beautiful place; its cracked, poorly drained concrete floor likely did not win the hearts of any prospective students. However, contrary to what the Master Plan suggests, it was well suited to the physical actions that further the abstract goals of students, such as relaxing with friends, taking a break from class and work, recharging one s energy, and socializing in a fun, lively environment (Lynch 1982, 5) (Figure 14). The adaptability and sociability of the old terrace made it a node of the surrounding district, and the new terrace has inherited some of this legacy (Lynch 1960, 47). It is a convergence of paths, a central gathering place, a place that is experienced internally, and its influence radiates over a vast neighborhood. In fact, as two of my subjects pointed out, Proctor terrace is the core of the only area on campus that feels like a neighborhood, and it is the terrace that cultivates that sense of community. - Conclusion - Lang and Burnette define the intelligence phase of building as the identification of the needs, value systems, goals, and activity patterns of users in order to design an effective space (Lang and Burnette 1974, 46). In evaluating the function of the new terrace in comparison to the old, it appears that the design of the new terrace was based on solving the technical problems of drain- Figure 14. Regardless of whether the old terrace was designed to accommodate concerts, dances, impromptu performances, advocacy actions, or advertising events, students took possession of the terrace and adapted the space for their needs (Cullen, 21).
age and ADA accessibility standards, with little consideration of the activity patterns and goals of the users or the qualities of the old terrace that worked and ought to be preserved. While the general design of the space remains the same, changes that may seem minor, such as the removal of the ledges, have fundamentally changed the utility of the space and the ways in which students can use it. This discrepancy in the intelligence phase reflects the distance between the designers and users of Proctor terrace (Lang & Burnette 1974, 48). Based on this evaluation, I recommend that sittable ledges be added around the perimeter of the new terrace and a second handicapped-accessible entrance be installed to the right of the main entrance. The Master Plan states that the newly renovated Proctor will be in use for only 10-15 years before being replaced in an effort to create the new Hillcrest Residential area (CMPC 2008, 127). It behooves the College planners to invest heavily in the intelligence phase of this and all future building projects, and to conduct critical evaluations of the utility of existing spaces to users. Viewsheds of specified perspective photos Figure 1 Figure 10 (left) Figure 3 Figure 10 (right) Figure 4
Works Cited 1. Campus Master Planning Committee (2008). Campus Master Plan 2008: Middlebury College. Accessible online at <http://www.middlebury.edu/administration/fs/planning/master_plan/pdf_files.htm> 2. Cullen, Gordon. Townscape. (Planning with Maps E-Res). 3. Lang, Jon, and Charles Burnette (1974). A Model of the Designing Process. Designing for Human Behavior. Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc. 4. Lynch, Kevin (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 5. Lynch, Kevin (1982). Site Planning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 6. MiddPoints (2009). Upgraded Proctor Awaits Students Return. Vol. 28, No. 5, September 4. 7. Whyte, William (1988). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (film). Produced by the Municipal Art Society of New York.