Week 10.2: Designing a Park: Making a Map Activity - NGUYEN KIM CHI (응웬김찌)


1. Summary of the Park Map Design Activity

As a follow-up to our exploration of physical space and its influence on human behavior, we were tasked with designing a park from scratch. This wasn’t just a creative drawing exercise it was an analytical challenge. We were asked to consider how specific spatial choices would shape human interaction, accessibility, comfort, and social inclusion. The assignment was inspired by the “Making a Map” video, which emphasized that maps reflect our values and priorities. In designing public space, we aren’t just arranging paths and benches we’re shaping behavior, identity, and power.

To complete the assignment, I drew a park layout on graph paper, labeling key areas and thinking critically about user flow, visibility, accessibility, and how people of different ages and backgrounds would use the space. My goal was to create a park that felt inclusive, safe, flexible, and community-oriented.

Key features in my park included:

  • A central circular plaza surrounded by trees and seating, designed for informal gathering and performances.

  • A playground zone with equipment for various ages, separated slightly from walking paths by greenery for safety and noise management.

  • A multi-use lawn for sports, picnics, or free play, placed adjacent to the plaza to invite spontaneous interaction.

  • A quiet garden area with walking paths, shaded benches, and sensory plants for seniors, introverts, or anyone seeking calm.

  • A teen zone with seating nooks, a basketball half-court, and a small skate area—spaces often left out in typical park planning.

  • Water fountains, bathrooms, and bike racks at every major entrance for convenience.

  • ADA-compliant ramps and paths connecting all zones.

Rather than design a park for a specific purpose, I designed one that could adapt to the community’s needs and change over time.

2. Interesting and Unusual Discoveries

What surprised me most while doing this project was how many small design decisions carry big social consequences. Something as seemingly simple as the placement of a bench can determine whether a space feels private, public, or even intimidating. For example, if benches face each other, they invite conversation. If they face away, they offer solitude. If they’re placed under harsh lighting or surveillance cameras, people may feel watched. I hadn’t realized how much psychology goes into spatial planning.

Another interesting insight was how diverse public needs are - and how often they go unmet in real-world parks. We often think of parks as primarily for kids or joggers, but what about teens who want to socialize, older adults who need flat walking paths and rest areas, or people with disabilities who may not be able to navigate gravel or stairs? Designing for inclusivity meant thinking beyond my own habits and imagining how others would experience the same space.

I also became more aware of the tension between activity and rest. For instance, having a basketball court too close to the quiet garden might create noise conflicts. To solve this, I used trees and landscaping as “soft barriers” to create separation without erecting hard walls. Similarly, I designed winding walking paths that connected all parts of the park but subtly guided foot traffic away from zones meant for rest or stillness.

An unexpected but important consideration was how people create their own uses of space, regardless of the original plan. For example, open grassy areas might host yoga classes, dog walkers, or impromptu dance practices. So instead of tightly scripting every section, I built in a few flexible zones empty spaces where the community could define the use over time. This echoes what we learned in class about “third spaces” public places that belong to no one and everyone, offering room for spontaneous, creative interaction.

Finally, I added interactive design elements, like a community message board, a small mural wall for public art, and moveable chairs in the central plaza. These little touches give people a sense of ownership and participation, which I believe are essential for a space to feel truly public.

3. Questions and Areas for Further Discussion

One question this activity raised for me is: How do designers balance competing needs in a shared space? For example, how do we create a park that’s lively but not noisy? Safe but not over-policed? Open but still respectful of privacy? It seems like every design choice involves trade-offs, and I wonder how much community feedback urban planners typically receive (or ignore) when making these decisions.

Another concern is the relationship between design and social power. Who gets to decide what kind of park gets built? Whose needs are prioritized, and whose are ignored? For example, adding a skate area might invite teens to use the space. but some community members might view that as disruptive or undesirable. On the flip side, removing spaces for young people can lead to exclusion or displacement. How do we prevent design from becoming a tool of subtle segregation?

I’m also curious about maintenance and long-term sustainability. A beautifully designed park is only as good as its upkeep. Trash management, lighting repair, and landscape maintenance affect how people perceive and use a space over time. Should designers plan with resource limitations in mind? Should community volunteers be part of the long-term vision?

Lastly, I’d love to discuss the politics of "neutrality" in space. As we learned in class, there’s no such thing as a neutral design. Every path, fence, and bench reflects a set of assumptions about how people should behave. Even something like the height of a water fountain sends a message about who is “expected” to use it. So how do we build parks and cities that truly reflect the full diversity of the people who inhabit them?

Final Thoughts

Designing this park made me realize that space is never just physical it’s emotional, political, and deeply human. What looks like a patch of grass is really a stage for connection, identity, power, and play. I gained a new appreciation for the invisible decisions that shape our everyday environments, and I now see public spaces with more critical, curious eyes. If I ever find myself in a role where I help shape a community whether as a citizen or a creator I’ll carry this lesson with me: space speaks, and we should all have a voice in what it says.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Introduction to the blog

This blog is a digital forum where students from Collective Intelligence in Practice: Understanding Wikipedia at the Hanyang University in Korea (2025) will discuss their weekly readings and activities. Each week you are expected to post a blog post on our blog and make a comment on another student's post. You can do so on one of the following three topics: a) You can blog about the readings for the next week. As you are expected to do the assigned readings FOR the lectures they are assigned to, you are expected to post your blog and comments BEFORE that lecture. An ideal commentary should be about half a page in length (~200 words), divided into three clearly labeled sections in which you: 1) summarize in your own words of materials you read; 2) mention any new, interesting, or unusual items learned; 3) identify at least one question, concern, or discussion angle that is either problematic in some respect or could have been elaborated more. This question is likely to be incor...
Read more

Week 1. My Recent Wikipedia Edits - Jeong seolah (정설아)

I made several edits to the Wikipedia page for 'Daegu'.  Daegu, located in the southeastern part of South Korea, is the third-largest urban area in the country, following Seoul and Busan. With a population exceeding 2.3 million, it is the fourth-largest metropolitan city in South Korea and the second-largest in the Yeongnam region after Busan. Often referred to together with the surrounding North Gyeongsang Province as Daegu-Gyeongbuk, this region is home to over 5 million residents. Known for its rich history and vibrant economy, Daegu stands as a key player in South Korea's cultural and industrial landscape. Below is a summary of the changes I contributed. 1) Summarize and link Sights Section:  - Improved clarity by changing “mountains keep many traditional temples” to “the mountains keep many traditional temples.” Mosque Controversy Section:  - Simplified a sentence by removing “and of the authorities.” Festivals Section:  - Made phrasing smoother by changing “tho...
Read more

Week4 - Review about the readings for the next week. - Jo HyeonSeong (조현성)

 1. Summarize in my own words of materials. The book is primarily about the openness of Wikipedia. Openness means that anyone can participate in the creation and editing of articles without any qualifications. Openness can be a double-edged sword. While it means that you can edit without having expert knowledge of a topic, it also means that you can participate even if you have expert knowledge. For experts, articles written by non-experts can come across as inaccurate knowledge, which can anger experts. This anger can also be a catalyst for Wikipedia to continue to improve. However, articles edited only by non-experts can cause misunderstandings and convey incorrect information, so openness can be considered a double-edged sword. In fact, it sometimes causes some conflict, such as Wales' negative stance. Openness also means freedom from copyright, which means anyone can take it and use it anywhere. That is why the knowledge of non-experts can have greater impact. That is why appro...
Read more