This document summarizes an Erasmus project between universities in Turkey and Europe exploring cultural differences in design practice. It describes creative methods used, including observing public spaces, interventions like placing a hopscotch board, and distributing questionnaires. Observations found that loitering serves economic and social functions, but responses to interventions varied by age and location. The impressions were that people felt unsafe loitering alone but interventions drew more attention. The survey asked about reasons for and practices of loitering. Overall the document studied loitering behaviors to inform future design ideas.

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