Urban Play through Interactive Design | Vaibhav Saini by Vaibhav Saini

Let us play! Urban play through interactive design Vaibhav Saini | 5-A Submitted on 2nd December 2020 Word Count: 10,200 words

School of planning and architecture, Delhi 2020-21

Dissertation Guide: Ar. Abhishek Sorampuri Coordinator: Prof. Prabhjot Singh Sugga

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 6

Acknowledgments

This dissertation would not have been possible without the guidance and support of several individuals who contributed to the completion of this study. Firstly, I would like to thank my guide Ar. Abhishek Sorampuri for his valuable inputs which gave me direction and motivation to complete this research. I would like to thank Prof. Prabhjot Singh Sugga, dissertation coordinator, for his constant encouragement and helpful critique of my work. A special thanks to Dr. Mattia Thibault and Dr. Valerio Perna for all the help and insights provided on the topic, and also to all the respondents of my online survey which helped me answer my research question.

Vaibhav Saini (A/xxxx/xxxx)

Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 7

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 8

Abstract This dissertation attempts to study the various parameters related to play and urban gamification1 to better understand how play can be architected in urban spaces. This study is important to understand how can architects and designers create opportunities for play and shared encounters for people in transit through the city, promoting play for all. Some important questions like spatial requirements, the efficacy of the various ludic2 design interventions, inclusivity, and the relevance of gamification were critically examined. The research involved case studies to understand the spatial parameters and dynamics of play, and a survey to understand the general perception of people about ludic design interventions. Semi-structured interviews of researchers in the field were also conducted to understand the relationship between play, the player, and space. It was found that users from all age groups and gender actively interact or are interested in ludic design interventions, thereby disproving the notion that play is only for children. The spatial characteristics of a place can directly affect the nature of play it can afford and user-space dynamics. The degree of user engagement is a measure to assess the efficacy of playful design intervention and it depends on the legibility of play, ability of the design to foster the flow of the player, the possibility of multiple narrations, and spatial characteristics of the context. Play should always be voluntary and forced interactions between non-players and the design ruins the play for the players and discomforts others. A ludic design should effectively address the player, the observer, the system, and their interactions with/in the physical space.

Keywords: Urban play, Playable cities, Ludic design, Interactive architecture, Urban gamification

1 Urban gamification: the addition of playfulness to urban context/ systems to improve user engagement with urban spaces 2 Ludic: showing spontaneous and undirected playfulness.

Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 9

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 10

Table of contents Declaration Certificate Acknowledgments Abstract List of Figures List of Tables 1. Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1.

Background to the research

1.2.

Need for the study

1.3.

Aim and Objectives

1.4.

Scope

1.5.

Limitations

1.6.

Research methodology

2. Chapter 2: Play, Architecture, and Urban Gamification 2.1.

Introduction

2.2.

The concept of play

2.2.1. Play and the player 2.2.2. Urban Gamification 2.3.

Play and urban semiotics

2.4.

Play, space, and architecture

2.4.1. Playable cities and its stakeholders 2.4.2. Play and Interactive architecture 2.5.

Secondary case examples

3. Chapter 3: Methodology 3.1.

Research Procedures

3.1.1. Data collection 3.1.2. Analysis of data Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 11

3.1.3. Identification of case studies 3.2.

Limitations

3.3.

Ethical Considerations

4. Chapter 4: Analysis of Data and Findings 4.1.

Case studies

4.1.1. Tetris, Tel Aviv City Hall 4.1.2. Pong, Harpa Concert Hall 4.1.3. Piano Staircase, Stockholm 4.1.4. Piano Staircase, Gare Montparnasse 4.1.5. Shadowing 4.2.

Comparative Analysis

4.2.1. Tetris, Tel Aviv and Pong-Harpa Concert Hall, Reykjavik 4.2.2. The Piano staircase, Odenplan Subway, and Gare Montparnasse 4.2.3. Inferences from the case studies 4.3.

Survey: Findings and inferences

4.4.

Thematic analysis of expert interviews

4.4.1. How is play architected and spatial requirements for ludic design? 4.4.2. The factors that affect the efficacy of a ludic design. 4.4.3. Who are the players and how inclusive are these ludic interventions? 5. Chapter 5: Conclusion & Way forward 5.1.

Conclusion

5.2.

Limitations

5.3.

Scope for further research

Citations/ References Bibliography Appendices Originality Report

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 12

List of Figures Figure 1: Research Framework ............................................................................................................ 18 Figure 2: Types of spaces; Source:(Fischer and Hornecker, 2012) ........................................................ 25 Figure 3: Relationship between architecture and interactive design................................................... 28 Figure 4: SMSlingshot, Interface device (Right) and activity (Left), Source: (Fischer and Hornecker, 2012) ......................................................................................................................................................29 Figure 5: Interaction with SMSlingshot, Source:(Fischer and Hornecker, 2012) ...................................... 29 Figure 6: Interactive Fountain Weimar, Source: (Hornecker and Fischer, 2017) ..................................... 30 Figure 7: PIPE Installation, Source: (Hornecker and Fischer, 2017) ........................................................ 31 Figure 8: PIPE Urban HCI space type model, Source: (Hornecker and Fischer, 2017) ........................... 32 Figure 9: Classification of case studies ................................................................................................ 34 Figure 10: Identification of case studies ...............................................................................................35 Figure 11: Tel Aviv city hall façade, Source: (Tel Aviv Global, 2016) ...................................................... 37 Figure 12: Interactive Zone in Rabin’s square; Source: (Tel Aviv Global, 2016) ..................................... 38 Figure 13: Tetris, Tel Aviv City hall- Space type model, Base map source: Snazzymaps .................. 39 Figure 14: Interactive Zone in Rabin’s square; Source: (Tel Aviv Global, 2016) ..................................... 40 Figure 15: Harpa Concert Hall-Image A, Source: (Bollason and Hindley, 2014) ..................................... 41 Figure 16: Pong, Harpa Concert Hall-Space type model, Base map source: Snazzymaps ................ 42 Figure 17: Harpa Concert Hall-Image B, Source: (Bollason and Hindley, 2014) ..................................... 43 Figure 18: The Piano staircase, Oden Subway; Source: (Volkswagen, 2009) ....................................... 44 Figure 19: Piano staircase, Oden, Stockholm-Space type model ........................................................ 45 Figure 20: The Piano staircase, Oden Subway; Source: (Volkswagen, 2009) ....................................... 46 Figure 21: The piano stairs, Gare Montparnasse, Source: (Touati, 2014) .........................................47 Figure 22: Piano staircase-Gare Montparnasse, Space type model.................................................... 48 Figure 23: The Piano stairs, Gare Montparnasse; Source: (Touati, 2014) ............................................ 49 Figure 24: The Piano stairs, Gare Montparnasse; Source: (Touati, 2014) ............................................ 50 Figure 25: Shadowing-B; Source: (Chomko and Rosier, 2014) ............................................................... 51 Figure 26: Shadowing Urban HCI space type model ........................................................................... 52 Figure 27: Shadowing-A; Source: (Chomko and Rosier, 2014) ................................................................53 Figure 28: Tetris, Tel Aviv (Left) and Pong, Harpa, Reykjavik (Right) ................................................. 54 Figure 29: The Piano Staircase- Oden plan (Left)), Montparnasse (Right) ......................................... 55 Figure 30: Thoughts on playable design interventions ........................................................................ 58 Figure 31: Thoughts on playable design interventions, Gender-wise distribution ...............................58 Figure 32: Frequency of desired participation ...................................................................................... 59 Figure 33: Gender wise breakup of the frequency of desired participation ......................................... 59 Figure 34: If these were to happen at a particular place once a week in your city, would you: ........... 60 Figure 35: If these were to happen at a particular place once a week in your city, would you: ........... 60 Figure 36: Do you think such activities will be a success in your city? ................................................ 60

List of Tables Table 1: Classification of players, Source: (Walz, 2010, p. 73) ............................................................21 Table 2: An elementary first-order scheme for play rhythm agency (Walz, 2010, p. 55). ....................24 Table 3: Comparative analysis of Tetris, Tel Aviv and Pong, Harpa .................................................... 54 Table 4: Comparative analysis of the piano staircase at Odenplan and Montparnasse stations ......... 55

Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 13

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 14

Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1.

Background for Research

Imagine if cities were a place where play was central to daily life and where citizens were in an ongoing conversation with their built environment. Such playable cities could reinforce our relationship with urban spaces by drawing on an eclectic blend of urban design, public art, play, and creative technologies. Since long before games like PokémonGo which augmented the city gaming reality, artists, architects, NPOs, and city planners have been exploring ways to create playful interactions between city dwellers and the urban built environment by transforming the public places into shared participatory forums and playgrounds through the use of interactive design. Various initiatives promoting the concept of playable cities have become more active over the past couple of years. Cities are becoming smarter and more complex with the introduction of sensors, actuators, networks, other smart technologies, and ubiquitous computing which provides opportunities for designers to hack the city and add playfulness to existing built with minimum interventions. Interactive design helps reinvent the built and urban elements through developing activities different from their original purpose. It starts a conversation about the possible uses, thus implying the need for a second interpretation of urban built, and helps turn, what for so long was seen as a monotonous and static architectural element, into an interactive entity or a narrative to be explored over time, thereby, making the built environment more playful and dynamic. This gamification through interactive design can make public spaces more social, inclusive, enjoyable, and allow for shared encounters with others thereby strengthening the sense of community. This can also help citizens and designers in realizing the full potential of the urban built and spaces and make cities more socially sustainable and the residents healthier, and happier.

Therefore, the question arises: How can play be architected in urban spaces? How do urban play and space relate to each other?

Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 15

1.2.

Need for study

Various studies over the years have shown the many physical and mental health benefits of play across the age groups, from kids to adults. Still in the life of an adult, play is often seen as a privilege available only to those with the time and money to afford it (Thibault, 2019a). One of the reasons for this is that play is often perceived as a physical activity associated majorly with parks and playgrounds, specific parts of the city which many people might find hard to access because of their busy schedules. This study is important to investigate how can architects, designers, and media artists’ design plug-in interventions in the urban built environment, therefore, providing opportunities for play and shared encounters when in transit through the city thereby rendering the whole city playable and promoting play for all.

1.3.

Aim and Objectives:

To investigate how a building, urban element, or space can become playable. Objectives of the research are: a. To understand the concept of play w.r.t. the player (User). b. To study spatial requirements/ parameters for ludic design. c. To understand the factors that affect the efficacy of a ludic design. d. To understand who the players are and how inclusive are these ludic design interventions.

1.4.

Scope of research

The scope of the study is limited to interactive designs and shall not talk about static ludic designs. It shall cover case studies of projects that happened in various cities around the world.

1.5.

Limitations

Because of the non-permanent nature and different locations of the case studies, it is beyond the scope of this study to draw any conclusions based on a primary case study, Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 16

interviews, or personal experience and hence shall rely on secondary sources only. The lack of examples in the Indian context may affect the findings.

1.6. Research methodology The various research methods used for data collection include Semi-structured interviews of the experts, an online survey, and user observation through videos. The data collected through these methods was then analyzed through various quantitative and qualitative methods. Through the course of the research different objectives were studied as mentioned below: a. Objective 1: (To understand the concept of play w.r.t. the player) It was studied through expert interviews and literature study. b. Objective 2: (To study spatial requirements/ parameters for ludic design) It was studied through case studies, expert interviews, and literature studies. c. Objective 3: (To understand the factors that affect the efficacy of ludic design interventions) It was studied through secondary case studies and expert interviews. d. Objective 4: (To understand who the players are and how inclusive are these ludic interventions) It was studied through a survey, expert interviews, and literature studies.

Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 17

Figure 1: Research Framework

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 18

Chapter 2: Play, Architecture, and Urban Gamification 2.1.

Introduction

This section defines and elaborates upon the key concepts that are relevant to the research based on previously published literature, which further helped in the deeper understanding and analysis of the topic. The key concepts and themes include: 1. The concept of play 2. Play and the player 3. Urban Gamification 4. Play and urban semiotics 5. Play and space 6. Playable cities and its stakeholders

2.2.

The concept of play

According to Roger Caillois, a theorist of play and games, there exist two play attitudes. One is Paidia which refers to play and the other is Ludus which corresponds to games. He describes Paidia (Play) to be joyous, impulsive, free, spontaneous, and carefree whereas Ludus (Games) to be rule-governed, absorbing, and involving skill and mastery. This concept of two play attitudes by Caillois is flawed, as games and play aren’t two polarities for the simple fact that games are played, therefore, games are a subset of play (Thibault, 2019a). So it is better to understand what playfulness is than trying to define play and games separately. Playfulness, to put it simply, is the quality of being light-hearted or full of fun and is the experiential condition necessary to games (Huotari and Hamari, Thibault, 2019a). Therefore, urban play can be described as an activity that requires immersion and lighthearted engagement and can build communities around a shared experience (Thibault, 2019a). In their study, Sutton-Smith claims that “practically anything can become an agency for some kind of play” and to support this argument, they list activities that represent forms of play, ranging from private to very public (Sutton and Smith, 1997, Walz, 2010): a. Mind or subjective play; b. Solitary play; Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 19

c. Playful behaviors; d. Informal social play; e. Vicarious audience play; f. Performance play; g. Celebrations and festivals; h. Contests, i.e. games and sports; i. Risky or deep play All the above-mentioned activities manifest themselves in the physical space and therefore have a direct relationship to the built environment. In his book, “Towards a ludic architecture”, Walz states that play is kinetic in nature and, be it physical or virtual, play is executed through movement and this kinesis bridges a player with other players, play objects, and/or play environments. Therefore, play itself defines the playground by marking out the boundaries in space-time (Walz, 2010). Play increases social capital, social connection, and community relationships, all important components for improving and maintaining mental health (Mahdjoubi & Spencer, Donoff and Bridgman, 2017). Different studios and designers across the globe approach the same topic differently. Some use games to promote playfulness, some promote civic engagement, and some use it to foster collaboration to strengthen the sense of community. Games help citizens feel empowered and take an active part in city-making. Urban play and games also make people aware of the environment and urban spaces, stimulate social interaction and, induces urban connectedness and shared encounters.

2.2.1. Play and the player The players are the users for whom interventions are designed. They can be classified into the below-mentioned categories based on their interests (Fullerton, 2008, Walz, 2010): a) The Competitor strives to be the best player among all the other participants (Walz, 2010). b) The Achiever plays for a sense of achievement, and feels motivated and incentivized by level-ups and rewards (Walz, 2010). Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 20

c) The Explorer is curious about the world and loves to go adventuring (Walz, 2010). d) The Collector enjoys acquiring items, trophies, or knowledge (Walz, 2010). e) The Joker doesn’t take the game seriously, plays for the fun of playing, and can potentially annoy serious players (Walz, 2010). f) The Artist is driven by creativity, creation, design (Walz, 2010). g) The Director loves to be in charge and directs the play (Walz, 2010). h) The Storyteller loves to create or live in worlds of fantasy and imagination (Walz, 2010). i) The Performer loves to put on a show for others (Walz, 2010). j) The Craftsman wants to build, craft, engineer, or puzzle things out (Walz, 2010).

Table 1: Classification of players, Source: (Walz, 2010, p. 73)

In an urban space, the same design intervention tends to cater to all the different types of players, hence it becomes imperative to understand the types of players to design effectively. The players can further be differentiated according to gender, age, and physical abilities/limitations which can affect the nature of design interventions.

Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 21

2.2.2. Urban Gamification In gamification literature, it is fairly common to come across a sentence along the lines “gamification aims at influencing behavior”, and play and playfulness have often been relegated outside gamification, confined to the domains of “playful design” or “meaningful play”, which is a wrong approach (Thibault, 2019a). The important elements of gamification are goals, rules, feedback, rewards, motivation (Intrinsic and extrinsic), freedom of choice, and freedom to fail. Keeping these in mind, Huotari and Hamari proposed a definition of gamification that is meant to improve motivation and value creation without aiming directly at a behavioral change (Huotari and Hamari, Thibault, 2019a), and they even warn about the fact that gamification designed exclusively to affect behavior instead of focusing on creating gameful experiences might lead to conflict between the goal of changing people’s behavior and that of creating valuable experiences (Huotari and Hamari, Thibault, 2019a). Therefore, the more suitable definition of urban gamification is as follows: “Urban gamification involves the introduction of playfulness to urban contexts that are, traditionally, considered “serious”. When hosting playful activities, urban spaces are gamified, that is, they are (briefly) transformed to playgrounds that systematically change the perceptions, actions, and interactions of the citizens involved in the activities with the city.” -(Thibault, 2019b) Typology of ludic design interventions It is hard to classify ludic design interventions under typologies as various proposed typologies can be used as tags to categorize the same intervention. One of the most relevant typologies encountered during the research is based on the issue or application of games (Lange, 2015): i.

Interventions that forge relationships between players and the urban environment (Lange, 2015).

ii.

Interventions that forge relations between players themselves (Lange, 2015).

iii.

Interventions that forge a connection between players and some concrete urban issue (Lange, 2015). Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 22

iv.

Interventions that instill a renewed sense of self and are transformative (Lange, 2015).

The research deals with interventions that fall under typology (i) as given by Lange.

2.3.

Play and Urban Semiotics

Semiotics deals with how we make sense of the world and therefore provides us with many tools to understand how we "read" the cities and how we can "rewrite" them (Thibault, 2019b). In a social environment, everything becomes a sign of its possible use and many objects are used differently by different individuals or at different times, and the selection of a specific use from the many possibilities is guided by an urban semiotic competence, i.e. the ability to correctly interpret what the city tells us (Thibault, 2019c). It is majorly made up of our expectations based on past experiences and the experiential aspect of the city then becomes even more important if we want to focus on the relationship between playfulness and urban spaces (Thibault, 2019c). Countless minor elements such as streets, signs, street furniture, graffiti, buildings, neighborhoods, etc. are parts of a whole, which is the city. It is possible that the objects of smaller size but having a greater symbolic efficacy can become the context for a larger object similar to how iconic buildings and monuments can lessen the meaning of all that is around them, creating a semiotic void that allows them to “shine”(Thibault, 2019c). This ability of smaller objects to re-contextualize their environment allows for several kinds of gamified activities to take place in the city and as cities are rarely hosting playful interactions, citizens are often surprised by the sudden presence of playfulness in places normally devoted to everyday-life activities (Thibault, 2019c).

2.4.

Play, Space, and Architecture

Games and play are human practices in physical space. The spatial setup and setting influence how people congregate in a space, where they position themselves for activities, and how the playful/playable interventions are experienced (Nijholt, 2017). The simplest distinction of settings can be made between a plaza and a walkway, which create different situations. At plazas (city squares and civic places) people tend to meet with others, relax, and often spend time and this means that plazas are suited Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 23

for narrative structures that extend over time (Nijholt, 2017). A walkway on the other hand is characterized by a continuous flow of people as often it is not possible to stop for an extended period of time, as one would become a hindrance for others and thus, it lends itself more to brief interactions (Nijholt, 2017). Therefore the spatial characteristics like primary activity, accessibility, centrality, scale, etc. to a great extent dictates what type of playful interventions and play activities are possible in a particular context. The conceptual play-space can be differentiated into the following dimensions (Walz, 2010): a. Ambiguity dimension, i.e. the concept play is open to interpretation. b. A player dimension (subjective experience): Without the player, there is no play in space (Walz, 2010). c. Modality dimension: Beyond the subjective experience, the play takes place either in a physical, imaginary, virtual, or hybrid setting (Walz, 2010). d. Kinetic dimension e. An enjoyment dimension f. A culture and context dimension. The above dimensions when overlaid on the spatial characteristics of the physical realm then can define the nature of possible play interventions. Player, Space, Object, physical, virtual, and kinesis (movement) are the keywords that define a playable intervention. Player, space, and objects are the components of play. Physical, virtual, and hybrid are the characteristics defining space and kinesis denotes the action, i.e. movement and rhythm.

Table 2: An elementary first-order scheme for play rhythm agency (Walz, 2010, p. 55).

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 24

The Urban HCI space type model as described by Fischer and Hornecker (2012), defines imaginary zones of activities related to play which are formed due to the interaction of player and the intervention. They are as follows (Fischer and Hornecker, 2012): a. Activation Space (AS): It encompasses all areas from where the activity of a player interacting with the system can be seen, resulting in an awareness of what is going on, but where one cannot yet interact. b. Interaction Space (IS): Players actively interact with the intervention. c. Potential Interaction Space (PIS): It comprises of all potential positions from where players can interact. d. Social Interaction Space (SIS): It develops in spaces where people tend to congregate which creates opportunities for shared encounters. These can be created between the players, players, and observers, and among the observers. e. Gap spaces: These are spaces that create distance, either between the player and the intervention or between the players and observers. f. Comfort Spaces: These provide a sense of physical and psychological ease and comprise of elements like walls, pillars, trees, etc. People/ observers are subconsciously drawn towards such spaces.

Figure 2: Types of spaces; Source:(Fischer and Hornecker, 2012)

2.4.1. Playable City and its stakeholders Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 25

Playable cities rest on the idea that cities are not only about efficiently delivering services to citizens, but also about interactions (Lange, 2015). It refers to a variety of interactions that shape urban life: interacting with places, with other people, with technologies, and with one’s own experience of the city (Lange, 2015). The concept of playable cities was first introduced in Bristol (UK) and through various projects, citizens have been able to participate in funny events made possible by sensor and actuator technology (Walz, 2010). Playable cities aim to evolve the city's entirety into “Third places” for people. Sociologist Ray Oldenburg (2011) distinguishes between First Places (our home environment), Second Places (our work environment), and Third Places, in which people gather and meet each other in a playful mood and can establish bonds with the others. It is possible to see the city itself as a canvas for play. The only requirement is that spaces themselves should be able to afford play and allow for interaction and inclusivity. The concept of “pervasive play” indicates a set of play activities that blend with ordinary life, escaping their traditionally perceived boundaries related to space, time, and participants (Montola et al., 2009). The use of smart technologies like sensors and actuators, AI, and digital media allows users to enhance urban public spaces and make the city more playful and attractive (Perna, 2019). Often these are plug-in designs that help designers appropriate an urban space by the introduction of playfulness which, in turn, is re-appropriated by the users or players, giving rise to all sorts of possibilities in the physical realm and transforming the whole city into a playground (Perna, 2019). The various stakeholders of a Playable City are: For the most part, Anton Nijholt’s list very well summarizes the various stakeholders of a playable city, but it fails to talk in detail about the users and identify who exactly are the people that participate in such playful activities. The list of stakeholders is as follows (Nijholt, 2020): a) Civic authorities, who are interested in issues that are related to efficiency (management of traffic, energy, waste, and safety) and in promoting cultural and entertainment activities that may be of interest to their citizens (Nijholt, 2020). b) Large corporations that promise comprehensive technological solutions (Nijholt, 2020).

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 26

c) Small companies (typically media design studios and start-ups) that propose and promote playful multimedia applications in urban environments (Nijholt, 2020). d) Interactive media artists who are interested in showing their art and playful installations in public spaces (Nijholt, 2020). e) City planners, urban designers, and architects of urban and pervasive games, namely, games that make use of the natural and built environments (Nijholt, 2020). f) Computer scientists, in particular, those who focus on human-computer interaction (HCI) (Nijholt, 2020). g) The general city dweller, who feels attracted to playful experiences in his urban environment (Nijholt, 2020). h) Individuals, groups of individuals, and community members who are familiar with digital technology or who receive support from researchers, makers, and tinkerers to come up with their own interventions (Nijholt, 2020).

2.4.2. Play and Interactive architecture Interactivity in architecture essentially means reciprocity of actions by both the user and the built, enabling conversations between the two in real-time, therefore, interactive architecture distinguishes itself from responsive environments through its ability to create real-time, personalized conversations with its visitors (Krakowsky, 2008). The users can initiate conversations with the built environment either through digital interfaces or through smart sensors. Such architecture requires four elements: data storage (memory), a series of data collectors (sensors, cameras, etc.), data processing units for computing, and an output medium to give response or feedback. In modern times, we may assume that every city will use sensors, actuators, and other digital technologies to increase its efficiency and sustainability (Nijholt, 2020). This in addition to the ownership of smartphones that can identify our location, connect to the internet, and observe the surrounding environment through the lens of a camera gives rise to multiple new ways of reading urban spaces (Thibault, 2019c). Such smart technologies provide the necessary infrastructure for ubiquitous computing making

Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 27

interactive design possible, more economical, and can help transform non-playful situations into playful ones. Urban play/ games are designed in such a way that we have a game narrative in the real world (with its sensors, actuators, smart mobile devices) that usually involves some exploration of an urban environment, in this way, a game or game-like engine becomes embedded in the real world and this embedding of smartness makes it possible to visualize play, making it possible in the physical realm or the virtual realm with observable effects on the physical world (Perna, 2019). These technologies should then be developed with the idea of providing new ways to experience the city and stimulate serious play (Perna, 2019).

Figure 3: Relationship between architecture and interactive design

2.5.

Secondary case examples

This section includes the secondary case examples, which were carried out as experimental projects by P.T. Fischer and E. Hornecker to study the spatial dynamics of media façades and other ludic installations. 2.5.1. SMSlingshot (Fischer and Hornecker, 2012) This intervention used a handheld device as an input medium on which messages could be typed as shown in Fig.4 and were aimed at a spot on the Media Façade. A laser beam shows the aim if the rubber band is pulled and once the band is let loose, the virtual message was shot on the façade, rendered as a colored splat displaying the

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 28

message as shown in Fig.5 (Fischer and Hornecker, 2012). Then, it was handed to another person who wanted to play.

Figure 4: SMSlingshot, Interface device (Right) and activity (Left), Source: (Fischer and Hornecker, 2012)

As mentioned by Hornecker and Fischer, the SMSlingshot was shown in varied architectural settings namely: outdoors at an art festival (Riga), in an indoor exhibition (Berlin), a conference and demo context (Boston), Museum of Art (Mallorca), during a theatre award ceremony (São Paulo), at a pedestrian walkway (São Paulo, Eindhoven) and a plaza (Madrid, Liverpool, and Berlin).

Figure 5: Interaction with SMSlingshot, Source:(Fischer and Hornecker, 2012)

Through the study of this installation along with a couple more, the Urban HCI space type model was developed which is explained in the sub-section 2.4 of Play, space, and architecture above. The obstructions between the DS and IS can hinder or reduce the effective PIS (Fischer and Hornecker, 2012). SIS is formed when people suggest messages to the users thereby leading to shared encounters. In the case of media facades, the gap spaces are created by the position of the screen in addition to the presence of other separators in the context like trees, street furniture, roads, signs, etc (Fischer and Hornecker, 2012). It is important to soften the huge gap spaces to improve the visual salience of the intervention but at the same time individual gap spaces between the observers and participants should be there, that is overcrowding should Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 29

be avoided (Fischer and Hornecker, 2012). Comfort spaces are created by the built environment and are suitable for observing, providing a line of sight and giving observers the feeling of being out of the way (Fischer and Hornecker, 2012). These are necessary and promote playfulness in the observers who don’t have intentions of participating. Virtual, social, and physical blocks and barriers should be avoided, so that IS can attract social interaction (Fischer and Hornecker, 2012).

2.5.2. Interactive Fountain, Weimar (Hornecker and Fischer, 2017)

Figure 6: Interactive Fountain Weimar, Source: (Hornecker and Fischer, 2017)

This interactive fountain installation shown in Figure 4 is located in a large square in Herderplatz, Weimar, a partially pedestrian zone with high foot traffic, but also used as a throughway for inner-city traffic (Nijholt, 2017). The principle of working is simple, one jumps on the smallest block of stone as shown in Fig. 4 to release a water jet (Nijholt, 2017). The height to which the water jets releases water is dependent on the pressure exerted. This installation was studied by the authors Hornecker and Fischer (2017) to be used as a benchmark for further experiments. The installation was observed for 9h and 40min in total, counting a total of 3586 people (Nijholt, 2017). It was observed that more people interacted in the afternoon when school closes and many finish work and return home or go shopping (Hornecker and Fischer, 2017). This indicated that once people got free off their schedule they took part in leisure activities. Many passerby’s, 81% didn’t stop. Around 6% became performers and around 11% gathered around mildly engaged. Around 1% of the performers experienced shared encounters with strangers. This indicated that low interaction rates are normal in public spaces. The interaction per minute ipm as mentioned by Hornecker and Fischer was Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 30

found to be 1.08. It was observed that 55% of interacting individuals were adults, 32% were children, 9% were older adults and 4% were categorized as teenagers indicating that an activity which could be labeled as childish at first glance was able to involve users from all age groups, especially adults, thereby shattering the preconceived notion that play is for children. It was also found that 84% of those who interacted were in groups indicating that being in a group increases the possibility of interaction, therefore, designing for multiuser interaction seems like a good strategy. For this, the activity should spatially be competent to allow for congregation and gathering.

2.5.3. PIPE (Hornecker and Fischer, 2017) A custom made display of LEDs was designed to fit in a parasitic manner to rainwater pipes and three pneumatic pressure mats resembling Dance Dance Revolution mats with noticeable air pressure mechanism were used as inputs (Nijholt, 2017). The interactive space IS of each pressure beam was 1.3m to allow for at least two people to stand on them at a time allowing for multi-user interaction. It was similar to a color mixing game. The fixture on the rainwater downpipe was filled up with respective colored light each time a person steps on one or multiple beams (Nijholt, 2017). Steeping on beam indicates the elements of color, simultaneous activation of various beams leads to color mixing. The separation of DS and IS leads to a greater AS (Activation Space).

Figure 7: PIPE Installation, Source: (Hornecker and Fischer, 2017)

The pipes attracted considerable curiosity and pressure mats made it easier for people to comprehend the mechanism. The system was observed for 4h in total. It was Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 31

counted that a total of 302 people passed through AS, 84 engaged with the system (=0.53 ipm), and 216 passed by. Of the passers-by 50% at least glanced at PIPE, 48% didn’t seem to notice and 2% stopped but then went on without interacting. Around 21% of passers-by became performers, 4% stopped to observe the performers. 15% of the total performers were categorized as elderly, indicating the diverse audience. Similar to what was found earlier, 92 % of engaged people were in groups. Individuals were also far more likely to pass by without glancing at the installation than people in groups (Nijholt, 2017).

Figure 8: PIPE Urban HCI space type model, Source: (Hornecker and Fischer, 2017)

2.5.4. Conclusion from secondary case examples Observations proved that players of all ages participate and give the interactive systems a try which is against the stereotype that games are only for children. The spatial setting influences how people congregate in these spaces and where they position themselves for activities like playing or observing. According to Whyte what people like to do most in public space is watching other people. Thus, we should always consider designing for the observer (Hornecker and Fischer, 2017). Therefore to increase the interactions per minute, visibility, discoverability, and creating an interesting player display for observers is advised. Sturdy, less high-tech appearing input elements and also seem to lower hesitations to participate (Nijholt, 2017). The impulse to play is strongest in groups. Psychologically, being in a group provides some feeling of strength, and when the group ‘authorizes’ playful behavior this provides permission to play (Nijholt, 2017).

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 32

Chapter 3: Methodology 3.1.

Research Procedures This section includes the research methods used for data collection and analysis.

3.1.1. Data Collection 1. Semi-structured interviews of experts: Semi-structured interviews were conducted of gamification scholars and architects to understand the concept of play w.r.t. space, city, and users. 2. Survey: The survey was conducted from 10 to 19 October 2020 and shared through online messaging and social media platforms. The aim was to assess the perception of participants about the ludic design interventions. A video was shown with clippings from three of the case studies, namely: Tetris façade; Shadowing, and the piano staircase after which the respondents were shown the questions. It consisted of three multiple-choice questions with an option for descriptive answers and three yes or no questions. 3. Participant observation: It was done through videos of the case studies available online showing the installations being used by the users to map out the various spatial zones, technologies used, and player-space dynamics. 3.1.2. Analysis of data 1. Quantitative analysis: Google sheets was used to visualize the data from the survey and get the numbers. Inferences were made after correlating the findings with the semi-structured interviews conducted. 2. Correlational analysis: Survey data was analyzed to further look at the various relations between the different variables of likeability of design w.r.t. age and gender of the respondents. 3. Spatial Analysis: Case studies were analyzed to understand the various spatial traits of designs based on the videos of the respective design being used by the people. Comparative analysis of case studies was done for similar interventions.

Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 33

4. Thematic Analysis: Expert interviews were analyzed to draw out common themes for the research. 3.1.3. Identification of case studies Initially, keywords like gamification, playable design, interactive installation, ludic intervention, etc. were used for the identification of a list of case examples. The case examples were then checked against the following parameters for the selection of the case studies for the research: 1. The design should make use of public spaces or architectural elements by using interactive technologies with minimal intervention. 2. The design shouldn’t be a standalone installation. 3. The videos of the intervention being used by the people should be available. 4. The interventions should allow for a flexible number of players i.e. both individual and multi-player participation possible. 5. Checked for the availability of similar case studies to do a comparative spatial analysis.

Figure 9: Classification of case studies

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 34

Figure 10: Identification of case studies

List of case studies selected for further analysis: 1. Tetris, Tel Aviv City hall (Playable building Facades) 2. Pong, Harpa Reykjavik Concert Hall (Playable building Facades) 3. The piano staircase, Stockholm (Playful architectural elements) 4. The piano staircase, Gare Montparnasse, Paris (Playful architectural elements) 5. Shadowing (Playful streets and urban elements) Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 35

3.2.

Limitations

Because of the non-permanent nature and different locations of the case studies, it is not possible to collect primary data through onsite observation of case study, interviews of users, or personal experience and hence shall rely on secondary sources only. Most of the respondents of the survey lie in the age group of 18-30 years and the lack of examples in the Indian context may affect the findings.

3.3.

Ethical Considerations

Prior consent was taken from interviewees before recording the interview session for transcript purposes and reproduction of their views and statements in the research. Also, all the other sources of data and information have been duly acknowledged and cited.

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 36

Chapter 4: Analysis of Data This section will include the analysis and inferences drawn out of the case studies, survey, and semi-structured interviews conducted as part of the research. 4.1. Case Studies 4.1.1. Tetris, Tel Aviv City hall About: The project took place to mark the DLD Tel Aviv Innovation Festival, which took place in Sept 2016. Initially, the Giant Tetris Tournament was conducted every night throughout the first week and then the game of Tetris along with snake and pong was made available to play for the public every Thursday after the dark from the following week till the festival ended.

Figure 11: Tel Aviv city hall façade, Source: (Tel Aviv Global, 2016)

Mode and medium of interaction: Two huge movable joysticks (1.5m*1.5m) as shown in Fig.12 placed in Rabin’s square enabled the nearby residents and visitors to play against each other on the façade of Tel Avis-Yafo Municipality building which served as a huge screen of 3,000 sq. m made up of 480 LED lights (Dormehl, 2016). Along with Tetris players could play Pong and snakes as well. The interface requires physical movement which involves the whole body to use the huge joysticks to play on the façade. Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 37

Figure 12: Interactive Zone in Rabin’s square; Source: (Tel Aviv Global, 2016)

ii.

Space type: All of the Rabin’s square turns into an Activation Space (AS) due to visibility of the façade from far away making it possible for the passersby to discover the installation and approach it to play. The nature, openness, and primary function of the plaza promotes people to collect. Comfort spaces (CS) are spread all across the plaza appearing at the nearby seating areas and a local comfort space is also formed at the base of the joysticks as shown in fig. 12. Social Interaction Space (SIS) spaces are formed near the joysticks where people collect, watch, and often wait for their turns to play. Interaction Space (IS) is separated from the Display space (DS), i.e. the active façade by a gap space of roughly 70m which is necessary for proper visibility of the game from the square. Gap Space is relatively free from visual noise and allows for the focus of the player on the game. The presence of activity in a plaza lets observers and large groups collect, relax, sit around and observe the play. Sufficient space and accessibility to the IS is observed and many observers including cyclist and other passers-by can be seen watching and playing the game. The scale of the Active Façade makes collective observation easier and allows for interaction based on common interests.

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 38

Figure 13: Tetris, Tel Aviv City hall- Space type model, Base map source: Snazzymaps

iii.

Nature of the activity: a. Discoverability: The installation can be seen from roads and cross junctions from far away. The huge activation space brings curious players to the design. As can be seen from varied user groups in the images and videos of the intervention. b. Legibility of play: Joysticks are toys that directly relate to games and this together with the selection of classic games makes play legible, as many Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 39

users can relate and understand the game and rules from past experiences. The games selected have simple rules and controls which can be grasped in minutes even if the player hasn’t played it before. c. Multiplayer or not: At a time maximum two people can play together. d. Optional or not: Play isn’t forced nor does it hinders the activities of nonplayers. It is introduced in a space meant for relaxation and gathering. e. The flow of activity: The game fosters the flow of the player as it is unpredictable what move will happen next but the results are predictable and controllable which keeps the players engaged. iv.

Appropriation and resemantization of space: The design leads to the appropriation of the façade of the municipality building into a public play screen giving the citizens control to a government building and reevaluating their relationship with the built. The plaza becomes a playground promoting recreation and fostering social interactions for the visitors and nearby residents.

Figure 14: Interactive Zone in Rabin’s square; Source: (Tel Aviv Global, 2016)

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 40

4.1.2. Pong, Harpa Reykjavik Concert Hall About: The project was executed by Harpa concert hall and Vodafone, and designed by Atli Bollason and Owen Hindley. It was an interactive multimedia art piece accessible from 23-31 August to the people of Iceland’s capital Reykjavík to play the classic arcade game ‘Pong’ on the south facade of Harpa concert hall (fraumorena, 2015).

Figure 15: Harpa Concert Hall-Image A, Source: (Bollason and Hindley, 2014)

Mode and medium of interaction: Anyone with a smartphone could connect to the Wi-Fi that was set up, and then play by tilting their phones to access the facade. The game itself was then rendered in real-time on Harpa’s facade using the 714 LED lights installed in the steel frame. A special zone was set up to connect to the servers to play the game.

ii.

Space type: A huge Activation Space due to the visibility of the façade from far away is formed. Comfort spaces are absent and the players are observed gathering on the road but not sitting and watching the game. SIS spaces are formed behind and around the players, but often the observers are seen waiting for their Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 41

turns to play and disengaged both from the play and the player. IS is separated from the Display space, i.e. the active façade by a gap space of roughly 100m which is necessary for proper visibility of the game but has visual noise, due to the presence of road and traffic. No new behavior is observed among the players in the IS.

Figure 16: Pong, Harpa Concert Hall-Space type model, Base map source: Snazzymaps

iii.

Nature of the activity: a. Discoverability: The game can be observed from far away but it isn’t obvious from where is it being controlled, therefore, it is easily visible but not easily discoverable. b. Legibility of play: The games selected have simple rules and controls which can be grasped in minutes even if the player hasn’t played it before. The Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 42

installation doesn’t make it obvious how the game is supposed to be played, i.e. by connecting one’s smartphone to the server. Only if someone who already knows the system is present, then only the game can proceed. c. Multiplayer or not: At a time maximum two people can play together. d. Optional or not: Play is optional. e. The flow of activity: It doesn’t foster the flow of the observer as they have no relationship with the players, they can observe the screens but due to the nature of the controller, player's movements go unnoticed thereby disengaging the observers.

iv.

Appropriation and resemantization of space: The installation lets the citizens control the concert halls façade but doesn’t lead to re-semantization of space and no new behaviors are observed due to the introduction of the design intervention in the context.

Figure 17: Harpa Concert Hall-Image B, Source: (Bollason and Hindley, 2014)

Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 43

4.1.3. The Piano Staircase, Odenplan, Stockholm About: The piano staircase is a project executed by The Fun Theory, an initiative by Volkswagen Sweden and ad agency DDB Stockholm. The project took place at Odenplan subway station in Stockholm in October 2009. The project involved the conversion of steps into piano keys that played specific audio files whenever the sensors installed are triggered. The short-term project was aimed to promote the use of stairs and it was reported that 66% more people used stairs but the overall statistics were never revealed.

Figure 18: The Piano staircase, Oden Subway; Source: (Volkswagen, 2009)

Mode and medium of interaction: Physical movement is converted to auditory sensations. Independent sensors are installed at each step which results in auditory feedback whenever sensors are activated. Each step was programmed to play a different note such that melodies can be played and user interaction can be converted into playful feedback.

ii.

Space type: The project was a temporary installation at the subway exit. Both the stair and escalator lead directly up to the street level with no mid-landing, therefore, there is no place to stop and observe except for the landings and the escalator. As Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 44

shown in Fig. 18 due to the restricted nature of space, the Activation Space is thus limited. The comfort spaces that are formed at the street level near railings don’t allow for play to be observed easily and its linear nature restricts social interaction. Interactive space covers the whole staircase which results in absence of PIS, thereby forcing play on the user. It was observed that due to the compact nature of stairs the movement of both the players and non-players was restricted or hindered as seen in Fig. 20. Also due to this conflict, in place of melodies noise was generated when multiple non-players used the staircase.

Figure 19: Piano staircase, Oden, Stockholm-Space type model

iii.

Nature of the activity: a. Discoverability: The project has low visibility, and can only be observed by people entering or exiting the subway. The auditory activation zone is dependent on the speaker output and locations, which can attract passersby or observers but the lack of visual stimulus, i.e. the hidden nature of the setup restricts observers. b. Legibility of play: The overall setup is simple and the appearance of piano keys makes it easier to relate that the act of stepping on a step would lead to the generation of sound. No cue is present as to what note a particular step will play therefore making it hard to play melodies. Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 45

c. Optional or not: Play is forced on the users as it doesn’t account for users who want to use the staircase but not the piano staircase. d. The flow of play: It fails to engage the general audience for a longer time as random notes don’t foster the flow of activity or collaboration. Due to the compactness of steps and absence of information about the notes even a piano player would find it very less engaging due to the inability of playing melodies.

iv.

Appropriation and resemantization of space: It doesn’t support the possibility of multiple narrations due to the restrictive nature of design and low legibility of the activity. Neither does it resemantize the space as even after the introduction of the activity the primary function of the staircase overpowered the design intervention and the design was unable to bring any new behaviors among the users. Even the players who tried playing with the stairs initially, gave up soon as the design couldn’t foster their flow.

Figure 20: The Piano staircase, Oden Subway; Source: (Volkswagen, 2009)

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 46

4.1.4. The piano staircase, Gare Montparnasse About: The project was executed by the SNCF group and, designed and produced by bOOum BoUUm at Gare Montparnasse railway terminal, Paris. The project aim was to make the station playful and took place from 18 February- 2 March 2014. The project involved the conversion of steps into piano keys that played specific audio files whenever the sensors installed are triggered. Each step was programmed to play a different note such that melodies can be played and user interaction can be converted into playful feedback.

Figure 21: The piano stairs, Gare Montparnasse, Source: (Touati, 2014)

Mode and medium of interaction: Physical movement is converted to auditory sensations. Independent sensors are installed at each step which results in auditory feedback whenever sensors are activated. A controller was also set up to allow the players to choose the sound of the instrument for the same notes which were marked on the steps. The players could choose from: Piano; Marimba; Vibraphone; Synthetiseur and Piano Electrique.

Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 47

ii.

Space type: As shown in Fig. 21 due to the open nature and scale of space the Activation Space is huge with possibilities of observing the activity from afar. The comfort spaces that are formed on the first level near railings are spacious and allow for play to be observed easily. Interactive space covers one-fourth of the stairs which allows for the formation of a connected PIS from where the observers can watch and interact with the players. The PIS doubles up as spaces fostering social interactions and shared encounters. This also makes play optional, i.e. only those who want to play can play and aren’t interrupted by non-players. Notes marked on the steps allowed the users to understand the relationship between the step and the sound produced, enabling players to play melodies and guide others to play together.

Figure 22: Piano staircase-Gare Montparnasse, Space type model

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 48

iii.

Nature of the activity: a. Discoverability: The project can be observed by a large number of people using the station. The auditory activation zone further expands the activation space, which can attract passersby or observers. The presence of retail in the vicinity adds to the discoverability of the activity. b. Legibility of play: The overall setup is simple and the appearance of piano keys makes it easier to relate that the act of stepping on a step would lead to the generation of sound. Notes marked on the steps allow the user to understand the relationship between the step and the sound produced. c. Multiplayer or not: Multiple players or groups can play together. d. Optional or not: The nature of the design makes play optional. e. The flow of play: The legibility of the design fosters the flow of players by enabling them to play meaningful melodies. The option to change the sound of the instrument gives the player some freedom to choose. Due to the voluntary nature of play, players aren’t interrupted due to non-players which lets them play without any disturbance.

Figure 23: The Piano stairs, Gare Montparnasse; Source: (Touati, 2014)

Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 49

iv.

Appropriation and resemantization of space: The design is able to resemantize the space and bring out new behaviors among the players. The nature of stairs itself changes as people could be seeing jumping around, going back and forth and many stopped on the steps even though there was no mid landing to watch and observe people playing.

Figure 24: The Piano stairs, Gare Montparnasse; Source: (Touati, 2014)

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 50

4.1.5. Shadowing About: Shadowing made its debut in the city of Bristol and continued for over six weeks in autumn 2014, and won the 2014 playable city award. Since then the project has appeared in York, Tel Aviv, London, Tokyo, Austin and was live in Paris in January 2020. It involved the projection of recorded shadows of the users to create shared encounters over time. Cameras and projection lights were installed in street lights to record and project shadows with a delayed projection time to allow the user to interact with it. Earlier recorded shadows can also be played. People can be seen playing, dancing, and shaping their shadows. In fig. 27 a couple can be seen dancing and in fig. 25 the user is shadowboxing.

Figure 25: Shadowing-B; Source: (Chomko and Rosier, 2014)

Mode and medium of interaction: The camera installed in the street light captures the silhouette which is then projected. The projection doesn’t happen in real-time and is delayed which allows the players to interact with their silhouettes and provides users with various possibilities to create their own games.

Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 51

ii.

Space type: In this case, the IS and SIS overlap with each other and allows for shared encounters. The PIS is limited to the projection space on the ground and IS is a subset of PIS. The rest of the space around PIS becomes Activation Space with the visual stimulus reducing as we go farther away. Depending on the context there can be a varied presence of Comfort Spaces. Gap spaces are absent which encourages the closeness and interaction between the player and shadows projected.

Figure 26: Shadowing Urban HCI space type model

iii.

Nature of the activity: a. Discoverability: The installation is often discovered by surprise as there are no indications marking the location or the nature of the installation. It blends in with the cityscape and sometimes users pass by without noticing it, but those who notice sure do stay a while exploring the installation. b. Legibility of play: Play is very simple and easily understood by all. Players adapt to it very fast and design their own play. c. Multiplayer or not: It allows for both individual and group play. Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 52

d. Optional or not: Play is optional. e. The flow of play: The flow of play in this scenario depends on the player’s imagination. Play designed is dynamic and adaptable, and gives players the freedom to choose how to engage with intervention. The possibility of multiple narrations to the play activity is one of the reasons for the success and long-run time of the installation.

iv.

Appropriation and re-semantization of space: The intervention is successful in re-semantizing the urban space converting footpaths and alleys into play and performance spaces. The possibility of multiple narrations, the simple nature of the activity, and the freedom to make one’s own rules encourage the appropriation of space. Engagement with intervention varies depending on whether the player is playing alone or has company.

Figure 27: Shadowing-A; Source: (Chomko and Rosier, 2014)

Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 53

4.2. Comparative analysis of case studies 4.2.1. Tetris, Tel Aviv and Pong-Harpa Concert Hall, Reykjavik In case study 1 play space that is the IS is located in a plaza whereas in case study 2 the IS is formed on the road across with a relatively larger Gap Space separating the display space from IS. The inherent characteristics of the space i.e. plaza and roads (passageways) present players with different opportunities which is a potential reason why players can collect, sit, relax and play in case study 1 but tend to rigidly use the space in case study 2.

Figure 28: Tetris, Tel Aviv (Left) and Pong, Harpa, Reykjavik (Right)

S.no

Criteria

Space type

The nature,

and primary

Comfort spaces are absent. SIS

implications

function of the plaza promotes people to

spaces are formed behind and around

collect. Comfort spaces are spread all

the players, but often the observers are

across the plaza. SIS spaces overlap with

seen waiting for their turns to play and

PIS. Gap Space is relatively free from

disengaged both from the play and the

visual noise and bringing the focus of the

player. Gap Space has visual noise,

player to the game.

due to the presence of road and traffic.

Legibility of

Joysticks are toys that directly relate to

The installation doesn’t make it obvious

play

games and this together with the selection

how the game is supposed to be played,

of classic games makes play legible as

i.e. by connecting one’s smartphone to

many users can relate and understand the

the server.

Tetris, Tel Aviv(CS-1) openness,

Pong, Reykjavik(CS-2)

game and rules from past experiences. 3

Comments

New behaviors are observed and the

The design fails to bring out new

players are able to re-appropriate the

behaviors among the majority of the

space.

users.

Table 3: Comparative analysis of Tetris, Tel Aviv and Pong, Harpa

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 54

4.2.2. The Piano staircase, Odenplan Subway, and Gare Montparnasse Case study 3 is situated immediately at the entry/exit of the subway whereas case study 4 is between the entry and the platform and the scale of space is also bigger which presented players with opportunities to slow down and stop in these places which is a potential reason why people stopped and played in case study 4 but tend to quickly move in case study 3.

Figure 29: The Piano Staircase- Oden plan (Left)), Montparnasse (Right)

S.no

Criteria

Odenplan, Stockholm (CS-3)

Montparnasse, Paris(CS-4)

Space type

Play is forced the entire staircase is

Only one-fourth of the stair was

implications

made into a piano staircase and the

converted into piano stairs which

absence of PIS leads to overlapping of

leads to separation of the player and

the player and non-player movement

non-player

which disrupts the magic circle of play.

maintaining the magic circle at all

activities

thus

times. 2

Legibility of play

Low levels of legibility hinder the

Simply marking out the notes that

player’s ability to engage for longer

each step will play improves the

periods and reduce the possibility of

legibility greatly as now players

shared experiences and multiplayer

could understand the setup better

involvement at the same time.

and can collaborate or individually play melodies.

Comments

The design fails to bring out new

New behaviors are observed and the

behaviors among the majority of the

players are able to re-appropriate

users.

the space.

Table 4: Comparative analysis of the piano staircase at Odenplan and Montparnasse stations

Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 55

4.2.3. The following inferences were drawn from the case studies: 1. The design intervention should be easily discoverable, and should ideally be in places that see a large footfall for improved interaction rate. 2. The designed interventions should be in open spaces where observers and potential players can collect and watch the play. 3. Better visibility and bigger activation space improves the discoverability of the design and attract a wider audience. 4. Legibility of both the play and the system, i.e. the design intervention, helps foster the flow of the player. 5. Simpler input elements and controllers lower the hesitation of potential players and encourage participation. 6. Comfort spaces are potential social interactive spaces and allow the observers to engage without interrupting the play. 7. The overlap between the movements of players and non-players disrupts the magic circle of play. 8. Designing for multi-player interaction is better as people in groups are pairs tend to actively participate in such interventions. 9. Player- Observer interactions are very important as observers not only act as the audience but are also potential players. 10. Designs involving external devices and mechanism (Sensors and game exclusive play devices like huge joysticks) which promotes physical movements are more effective in engaging the players than mobile devices like smartphones.

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 56

4.3. Survey A total of 118 responses were received with 94.9% respondents being in the age group of 18-30 years and 2.5% each of 30-40 and above 40 age groups. Around 50.8% of the respondents identified themselves as female, 48.3% as male and 0.8% preferred not to say. The survey was conducted from 10 to 19 October 2020 and shared through online messaging platforms, social media, and Discord groups. Around 92.3% of the respondents were Indians and the rest were from abroad. The list of questions is given in Appendix 2. The findings from the survey are given below: 1. As shown in fig. 30 around 81.1% of respondents felt that these are great interventions to participate in, 9.4% would like to stay and just watch but not participate and the rest had some apprehensions about these interventions and had varied comments as mentioned below: a. Distraction and would ignore b. Bad c. Waste of time, money, and effort d. Not a good idea for Indian cities considering the maintenance required and population density. 2. As shown fig. 32, 36.4% respondents said they would like to participate on weekends, 25.4% once a week on any day, 11.9% daily, 16.1% once a week, 6.8% once and 3.4% says never. Fig. 33 shows the gender-wise distribution of the frequency of participation. 3. As shown in fig. 34, 42.4% of the respondents would like to participate only when they are in the vicinity, 8.5% would travel irrespective of the distance, 42.5% would travel only if the activity is nearby, 3.4% wouldn’t participate and others would either like to come across these interventions by surprise or would travel only if it is paired up with another function or activity.

4. Around 93.2% of the respondents said that they would recommend these interventions to their friends and family to participate. Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 57

5. A total of 97.5% responded that they would like to live in such playable cities. 6. Around 44.9% feel that these would be a success in their cities, around 44.1% are unsure of the success or failure and the left 11% see them as a failure.

Figure 30: Thoughts on playable design interventions

Figure 31: Thoughts on playable design interventions, Gender-wise distribution

The inferences from the survey are given below: 1. The likeability of ludic interventions is independent of the gender of the user. 2. A majority responded that they would like to participate in such activities on a weekly or monthly basis thereby showing potential for such activities to be

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 58

successful if they are made available to the public periodically instead of something available daily. 3. The ludic interventions show more potential if they are introduced in public spaces having a higher footfall and such that no extra travel is involved. 4. Such interventions would be a success among the users from the age group of 18-30 yrs. 5. More females when compared to males in the same category prefer watching others participate than participating themselves. 6. The success of such interventions at a city level in the Indian context is unclear as issues of investment involved, management, and maintenance came up during the survey but the majority were unsure.

Figure 32: Frequency of desired participation

Figure 33: Gender wise breakup of the frequency of desired participation

Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 59

Figure 34: If these were to happen at a particular place once a week in your city, would you:

Figure 35: If these were to happen at a particular place once a week in your city, would you:

Figure 36: Do you think such activities will be a success in your city?

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 60

4.4. Thematic analysis of the Interviews To get a better understanding of the topic the below-mentioned researchers were interviewed: 1. Dr. Mattia Thibault (Semiotician and Gamification researcher)

2. Dr. Valerio Perna (Architect and Gamification researcher) 4.4.1. How is play architected? According to Dr. Thibault, an architect’s aim shouldn’t be to design playful activities but to design spaces that can afford play because the essence of gamification lies in temporality as permanent activities tend to become boring over time. Therefore, spaces and architecture should be designed such that other architects, designers, and many times residents of a city can access these public spaces and design their own temporary play activities. He emphasizes that the adaptability of spaces, materiality, colors, and textures which can bring out playful behaviors among the users, play a major role in the case of playable designs. According to Dr. Perna, certain characteristics of play which are necessary to design playable interventions are legibility of play, simplicity, and flow of activity, the possibility of multiple narrations, voluntary (optional) nature of play, and openness of space, i.e. spaces should be like what if systems and should be open to the interpretation of the user. Dr. Thibault also emphasizes on play being voluntary and that it should be able to resemantize a space and allow for the possibility of appropriation. Also, play should ideally be independent of the number of players. It is observed that most of the people who engage with such interactive design installations are in groups and pairs. On being asked about the potential of smart cities as playable ones, Dr. Perna commented that even though smart cities seem to have more potential to be gamified due to the abundance of smart technologies which include cameras, sensors, actuators, and display screens but in reality, it is not so. It isn’t the city being smart that fosters playfulness, but rather the city being accessible and accepting to change does. And this isn’t the case with smart cities because investors, both the government and private stakeholders tend to keep smart cities as closed systems.

Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 61

4.4.2. The factors that affect the efficacy of a ludic design? The interactions per minute (ipm), the average time of interaction, and player engagement to an extent dictate the efficacy of a ludic design intervention but there is no existing metric or absolute measure, as quantifying and collection of user data is often challenged by various ethical concerns in the field as per Dr. Thibault. According to him, instead, there are certain dos and don'ts which one should be aware of to effectively design play. He advises that play should always be optional, and people should never be forced to play. Also, designers should never have a top-down and paternalistic approach all the time. It is better to ask people what they want and understand their problems, needs, and interests to come up with better solutions. It is even better if the design allows for flexibility such that users can alter the games to suit their interests. Dr. Perna seconded these viewpoints. According to him, a design is effective only when the player feels empowered. Therefore, if through the designed intervention players can appropriate the public spaces, are able to socialize, and feel motivated only then can the game be considered effective.

4.4.3. Who are the players and how inclusive are these ludic interventions? Our cities themselves aren't inclusive and often present citizens with situations that exclude someone or the other. In some cases, gamification can make cities more inclusive but in most, it isn’t possible as physical abilities/ limitations, culture, societal norms, and individual interests are also determining factors that dictate the inclusivity of a ludic intervention. Dr. Mattia has a critical take on inclusivity and emphasizes that games might not be inclusive at a local level, but can be inclusive at a city level if there are multiple activities which cater to people with different interests and abilities. According to Dr. Perna games don’t differentiate, they are always voluntary and open for all. It is the social contract and agreement between the players which makes them inclusive. Through the survey conducted it was found that most of the respondents irrespective of gender were keen on participating in these ludic interventions. And from the secondary case studies which were conducted by P.T. Fischer and E. Hornecker it was clear that the players are from all age groups.

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 62

Chapter 5: Conclusion & Way forward This section includes the conclusion of the research, the limitations, and the way forward. 5.1.

Conclusion

This research aimed at understanding how play can be architected in urban spaces through interactive design. It extends the Urban HCI space type model for media facades to interactive ludic interventions to show how play relates to space and how it produces space. Based on the analysis of case studies, expert interviews, and literature study it can be concluded that discoverability of the design intervention, legibility of play activity, and nature of space, i.e. the context are important factors. Based on these conclusions while designing for play in urban space a designer should consider spaces that are open and allow for player’s movements and lets the observers collect and watch. The design intervention should be easily discoverable, and should ideally be in places that see a large footfall, as it was found through the survey that only about one-tenth of the respondents were willing to travel to specific locations to be a part of these ludic design interventions. Most of the examples and case studies were executed in public spaces like plazas, streets, and subway stations, and were often clubbed with special events to ensure footfall and increase the interactions per minute (ipm), as it was observed in secondary case studies that around 80% of the people just pass by the installations without interacting. The design setup and rules should be simple and legible so that a wider audience can comprehend the activity. It is a good idea to design for multiplayer participation. Designing Comfort spaces for the observers and potential players is equally important. A clear distinction should be made between Interactive play spaces and the movement area of non-players such that they don’t hinder the activity of each other and the magic circle of play isn’t disrupted. Potential interactive spaces (PIS) should be limited even if mobile devices are used to foster social interaction between the observers and the players. The legibility of responsive systems involved and designing the mode and nature of interactions between the player, system and the observer is of utmost importance. Therefore, it can be concluded the designing urban play is equivalent to designing interactions between the players, the observer, the system, and the urban space. Only when all the aspects are addressed can a design be effective. Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 63

5.2.

Limitations

Due to the current COVID pandemic, it wasn’t possible to conduct experimental projects and get user feedback. Also, user feedback for the case studies is unavailable which makes it difficult to assess and talk about the quality of play and user experience.

5.3.

Scope for further research

To better understand these results future research should focus on users and their experiences with play activities and interactive installations. It should ideally be done through experimental projects to assess the quality of play and user needs and aspirations in the Indian context.

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 64

!.! •• •EL ••• EE�: Ii::

What is play?

Need for study

Play is a range of intrinsically motivated activi ties done for recreational pleasure and enjoy ment. Play is commonly associated with children and juvenile-level activities, but play occurs at any life stage.

In the life of an adult, play is often seen as frivoli ty, a privilege for those with the time and money to afford it. One of the reasons for this is that play is often perceived as a physical activity associated majorly with parks and playgrounds, specific parts of the city which many people might find hard to access because of their busy schedules.

•I:

••il••••11 �:;.·- ••••• ..ii_•• ·i:E ·-:. �r·· == = .-=! !!··Ii

Urban play through interactive design

Conclusion Research topic and Research question

Literature review and identify gaps in research

Defining aim, objectives Need and scope of research �

... ------- ... Objective 3 & 4 � ----- - - ,,.

Coordinator: Prabhjot Singh Sugga Dissertation Guide: Abhishek Sorampuri

::::====::: Play and the player

The concept of play

Urban Gamification

This study is important to investigate how can cities be made playable and promote play for

-J

,,. ------- ... Objective 1

Methodology \

... - - - - - - - .,

1. Semi- Structured Interviews 2. Online Survey 3. Case Study

Play and urban semiotics

�====:'.'' Playable Cities

(Play and Space

)

Play, space, architecture

,,. - - - - - - - ... \

Objective 2

... ------- - - - - - .;

,,.-

Benifits of play

Urban HCI space type model

Research question ,-0--

6/�'), ''

+Physical Health

··-·--o---/

+Mental Health

tr-@

,QJ J

A.....� ® '-11 I

+Social Health

How can play be architected in urban spaces? How do play and space relate to each other?

...

Objectives a. To understand the concept of play w.r.t. the player (User). b. To study spatial requirements/ parameters for ludic design. c. To understand the factors that affect the efficacy of a ludic design. d. To understand who the players are and how inclusive are these ludic interventions.

I space and how does it \ \ produce space? /1

_______ ...

1. User Observation 2. Spatial configuration 3. Use of technology for plugin design

..cu

()

Cl)

Design intervention should be easily discoverable

Legibility

Legibility of design of the play is important

Identify parameters to study +-+

Secondary case studies

1. User Observation

2. Spatial configuration a. NMurc of space, c:,,ntr�lity aocesibility, primary function b. Interactivity Zones and relation between nature of space c. Nalur8 of play activity

3. Use of technology for plugin design

Identification

of case studies

Identify parameters to study i.-----'

.2-f�o

Context

Nature of space, centrality, location and footfall

•

I I Voluntary

Play should always be optional

Designing urban play is equivalent to designing interactions between the players, the observer, the system, and the urban space. Data Collection and Analysis + Findings

Multiplayer Literature Review

•

Recommendations

Conclusions

�

Discoverability

Case study

all.

Various studies over the years have shown the many physical and mental health benefits of play across the age groups, from kids to adults.

.'O = � ffi?

....

I How does play relate to'

Research by Vaibhav Saini (A/xxxx/xxxx)

Based on the analysis of case studies, expert interviews, and literature study it can be concluded that discoverability of the design intervention, legibility of play activity, and nature of space, i.e. the context are important factors.

Future scope of work

Flexibility in number of players

L•••• ••I

··-··

Coupling Addition of interventions to spaces with high footfall

Observers They are also potential players and an important part of the system

Various Interactions Player - Plilyer Player - Svs1ern Player - Space Player - Obser.er Observer - Observer Observer - Syslern Observer - Space

Citations Bollason, A., Hindley, O., 2014. HARPA PONG by Atli Bollason & Owen Hindley. Chomko, Rosier, 2014. Shadowing. Donoff, G., Bridgman, R., 2017. The playful city: constructing a typology for urban design interventions. Int. J. Play 6, 294–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2017.1382995 Dormehl, L., 2016. Tel Aviv Transforms City Hall Into A Giant Tetris Game [WWW Document]. Digit. Trends. URL https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/tetris-tel-aviv/ (accessed 10.20.20). Fischer, P.T., Hornecker, E., 2012. Urban HCI: spatial aspects in the design of shared encounters for media facades, in: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’12. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207719 fraumorena, 2015. Reykjavik’s impressive architecture – Part 01: Harpa. Rooftop Melod. URL https://rooftopmelodies.com/reykjavik-architecture-harpa/ (accessed 11.29.20). Hornecker, E., Fischer, P.T., 2017. Creating Shared Encounters Through Fixed and Movable Interfaces, in: Nijholt, A. (Ed.), Playable Cities: The City as a Digital Playground. Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. Krakowsky, T., 2008. Interactive Architecture. Interact. Archit. Age Knowl. Archit. Storytell. URL https://segd.org/interactive-architecture (accessed 11.11.20). Landers, R.N., Auer, E.M., Collmus, A.B., Armstrong, M.B., 2018. Gamification Science, Its History and Future: Definitions and a Research Agenda. Simul. Gaming 49, 315–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878118774385 Lange, M., 2015. The Playful City: play and games for citizen participation in the smart city. COST TU1306 STSM Rep. Montola, M., Stenros, J., Waern, A., 2009. Pervasive Games: Theory and Design. Nijholt, A. (Ed.), 2020. Making Smart Cities More Playable, Gaming Media and Social Effects. Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. Nijholt, A. (Ed.), 2017. Playable Cities: The City as a Digital Playground. Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. Perna, V., 2019. From Smart Cities To Playable Cities. Archi-DOCT E-J. Dr. Res. Archit. Tel Aviv Global, 2016. A giant tetris tournamet on the city hall. Thibault, M., 2019a. Punk gamification - Tampere University of Technology, in: GamiFIN 2019, CEUR Workshop Proceedings. Presented at the International GamiFIN Conference, CEUR-WS, Levi, Finland, pp. 58–69. Thibault, M., 2019b. Re-interpreting Cities with Play Urban Semiotics and Gamification, in: Brooks, A.L., Brooks, E., Sylla, C. (Eds.), Interactivity, Game Creation, Design, Learning, and Innovation, Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06134-0_32 Thibault, M., 2019c. Towards a Typology of Urban Gamification, in: HICSS. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2019.179

Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 67

Thibault, M., n.d. Play and meaning, the semiotic features of playing practices. Touati, F., 2014. la SNCF transforme des escaliers en piano. Volkswagen, 2009. The Fun Theory 1 – Piano Staircase Initiative, The Fun Theory. Walz, S.P., 2010. Toward a Ludic Architecture. ETC Press.

Bibliography Adlakha, D., n.d. Quantifying the Modern City: Emerging Technologies and Big Data for Active Living Research, in: ResearchGate. Bollason, A., n.d. PONG — Atli Bollason [WWW Document]. URL https://atlibollason.com/PONG (accessed 11.29.20). Bollason, A., Hindley, O., 2014. HARPA PONG by Atli Bollason & Owen Hindley. Cakaric, J., 2017. Paradigm of the urban space semiotics. ResearchGate, Facta universitatis - series: Architecture and Civil Engineering 15, 167–178. https://doi.org/10.2298/FUACE160517012C Cermak-Sassenrath, D. (Ed.), 2018. Playful Disruption of Digital Media, Gaming Media and Social Effects. Springer Singapore, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1891-6 Chillón, P.S., 2012. IF (URBAN) LIFE IS A GAME, (SMART) CITIES ARE THE PLAYGROUNDS. GAMIFICATION, CIVIC REWARDS AND CROWDSOURCING STRATEGIES FOR CONNECTED CITIES. Pablo Sanchez Chill. URL https://urban360.me/2012/08/24/if-urbanlife-is-a-game-smart-cities-are-the-playgrounds/ (accessed 8.7.20). Chomko, Rosier, 2014. Shadowing. Donoff, G., Bridgman, R., 2017. The playful city: constructing a typology for urban design interventions. Int. J. Play 6, 294–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2017.1382995 Don’t make me have fun: Can playable cities manage the tension between allowing games and imposing them? | CityMetric [WWW Document], n.d. URL https://www.citymetric.com/horizons/don-t-make-me-have-fun-can-playable-cities-managetension-between-allowing-games-and (accessed 8.7.20). Fischer, P.T., Hornecker, E., 2012. Urban HCI: spatial aspects in the design of shared encounters for media facades, in: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’12. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207719 fraumorena, 2015. Reykjavik’s impressive architecture – Part 01: Harpa. Rooftop Melod. URL https://rooftopmelodies.com/reykjavik-architecture-harpa/ (accessed 11.29.20). From Smart City to Smart Engagement: Exploring Digital and Physical Interactions for Playful CityMaking, n.d. Gamification as Motivation to Engage in Location-Based Public Participation?, n.d. Giant Tetris, Snake and Pong on Tel Aviv’s City Hall, 2012. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., Sarsa, H., 2014. Does Gamification Work? — A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification, in: System Science. Presented at the 47th Hawaii International Conference.

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 68

Hansen, P.G., 2012. The Piano Stairs – Short Run Fun And Not A Nudge! iNudgeyou. URL https://inudgeyou.com/en/the-piano-stairs-short-run-fun-and-not-a-nudge/ (accessed 10.14.20). How gamification can help nudge citizens to be more participatory [WWW Document], 2019. . Econ. Times Blog. URL https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/et-commentary/howgamification-can-help-nudge-citizens-to-be-more-participatory/ (accessed 8.21.20). Hu, J., Frens, J., Funk, M., Wang, F., Zhang, Y., 2014. Design for Social Interaction in Public Spaces, in: Rau, P.L.P. (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Design, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07308-8_28 Huotari, K., Hamari, J., 2017. A definition for gamification: anchoring gamification in the service marketing literature. Electron. Mark. 27, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0212-z Krakowsky, T., 2008. Interactive Architecture. Interact. Archit. Age Knowl. Archit. Storytell. URL https://segd.org/interactive-architecture (accessed 11.11.20). Landers, R.N., Auer, E.M., Collmus, A.B., Armstrong, M.B., 2018. Gamification Science, Its History and Future: Definitions and a Research Agenda. Simul. Gaming 49, 315–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878118774385 Lange, M., 2015. The Playful City: play and games for citizen participation in the smart city. COST TU1306 STSM Rep. Marcucci, E., Gatta, V., Le Pira, M., 2018. Gamification design to foster stakeholder engagement and behavior change: An application to urban freight transport. Transp. Res. Part Policy Pract. 118, 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.08.028 Montola, M., Stenros, J., Waern, A., 2009. Pervasive Games: Theory and Design. Nijholt, A. (Ed.), 2020. Making Smart Cities More Playable, Gaming Media and Social Effects. Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. Nijholt, A. (Ed.), 2017. Playable Cities: The City as a Digital Playground. Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. Nijholt, A. (Ed.), 2015. More Playful User Interfaces, Gaming Media and Social Effects. Springer Singapore, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-546-4 Nijholt, A., n.d. Playful User Interfaces. Perna, V., n.d. Urban play as a tool for de-forming urban development. 2nd Int. Sci. Conf. Prof. Sci. Perna, V., Ferri, G., 2020. In and out domains: Playful principles to in-form urban solutions; a dialogue between architects and game scholars, in: AcademicMindtrek ’20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377290.3377297 Stevens, Q., 2007. The Ludic City: Exploring the Potential of Public Spaces. Stuart, H., Serna, A., Marty, J.-C., Lavoué, E., 2018. A Design Space For Meaningful Structural Gamification. Tel Aviv Global, 2016. A giant tetris tournamet on the city hall. The Problem With “Playable” Cities, 2016. . Bloomberg.com.

Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 69

Thibault, M., 2019a. Punk gamification - Tampere University of Technology, in: GamiFIN 2019, CEUR Workshop Proceedings. Presented at the International GamiFIN Conference, CEUR-WS, Levi, Finland, pp. 58–69. Thibault, M., 2019b. Re-interpreting Cities with Play Urban Semiotics and Gamification, in: Brooks, A.L., Brooks, E., Sylla, C. (Eds.), Interactivity, Game Creation, Design, Learning, and Innovation, Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06134-0_32 Thibault, M., 2019c. Towards a Typology of Urban Gamification, in: HICSS. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2019.179 Thibault, M., n.d. Play and meaning, the semiotic features of playing practices. Touati, F., 2014. la SNCF transforme des escaliers en piano. Tretola, G., Sorice, F., Gatta, V., 2015. A Gamification approach to promote positive behaviours in Urban Logistics. Using Gamification to Incentivize Sustainable Urban Mobility, n.d. Velev, A., 2016. 15 Examples of City Gamification that are NOT Pokémon GO. Megamification. URL http://www.megamification.com/15-examples-of-city-gamification-that-are-not-pokemon-go/ (accessed 8.6.20). Volkswagen, 2009. The Fun Theory 1 – Piano Staircase Initiative, The Fun Theory. Wallz, S.P., Deterding, S., 2015. The Gameful World | The MIT Press. MIT Press, Cambridge. Walz, S.P., 2010. Toward a Ludic Architecture. ETC Press. Webber, J.E., 2016. Tetris on an office building: can “gamifying” cities help improve them? The Guardian. What is a playable city? [WWW Document], n.d. . ACMI. URL https://www.acmi.net.au/ideas/read/what-playable-city/ (accessed 8.8.20). Who Needs Urban Gamification To Understand Their City?, n.d. URL https://dornob.com/who-needsurban-gamification-to-understand-their-city/ (accessed 8.6.20).

Appendix 1: List of common questions for the experts (Semi-structured Interviews) 1. How is play architected? How does it relate to space, and how does it produce space? (Any comments on re-appropriation or reinterpretation of urban space/ architectural elements through play) 2. What are the spatial requirements for playable design interventions (specifically interactive media design)? Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 70

(Accessibility, centrality, catchment, meaning, and signs of usage, visibility) 3. Who are the players and how inclusive are these ludic interventions? (Age, Gender, socio-economics, and culture) 4. What are the factors that affect or are the basis of determining the efficacy of a ludic design?

Appendix 2: Survey-General Short description of playable cities concept: 

Place



Age*



Gender*

*A video showing the various examples of gamification* 1. What do you think about these designs?* a. Good b. Bad c. Waste of money and effort d. Distraction and would ignore e. Would like to stay and watch, but not participate f. Others please specify 2. How often would you like to participate?* a. Daily b. Once a week c. Weekends d. Once a month e. Only once f. Never 3. If these were to happen at a particular place once a week in your city, would you: Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 71

a. Participate only if you are in the vicinity b. Travel irrespective of the distance to participate c. Travel only if nearby d. Wouldn’t participate e. Others please specify 4. Would you recommend them to your friends and families? Yes or No 5. Would you like to live in such playable cities?* Yes or No 6. Do you think such activities will be a success in your city?* Yes or No or Maybe

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 72

Appendix 3: Interview with Dr. Mattia Thibault Dr. Mattia Thibault is a Postdoctoral Researcher at Tampere University and is a member of the Gamification Group. He is currently working on ReClaim, an EU-funded project (Marie Sklodowska Curie IF) dedicated to the study of Urban Gamification. His research interests revolve around the semiotics of play and the cultural relevance of games while his current research focuses on establishing an interdisciplinary framework for urban gamification. Important points: 1. Gamification leads to people noticing their surroundings, but the effects are short-lived, somewhere around a week after the activity is finished. 2. We shouldn't design for permanence but for temporality, as the essence of gamification lies in temporality so that the activities don't become boring. 3. Architects’ aim shouldn’t be to design playful activities but to design spaces that can afford play. 4. Games aren’t inclusive at a local level but can be inclusive at a city level if there are multiple activities that cater to people with different interests and abilities. 5. Another reason is that cities themselves aren't inclusive. In some cases, gamification can make cities inclusive but in most, it isn’t possible as cities and societies are also determining factors. 6. Empirical data for inclusivity isn't available as not many people have attempted to measure this simply due to ethical reasons and challenges to data collection. 7. Smart cities have more potential but there are also certain risks involved with privatization. 8. No metric to measure efficacy, only certain dos, and don'ts. 9. Play should always be optional, never force people to play. 10. Designers’ shouldn’t have a top-down and paternalistic approach all the time, better to ask people what they want or would like.

Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 73

Appendix 4: Interview with Dr. Valerio Perna Dr. Valerio Perna is an Italian architect who is part of the academic staff of POLIS University. He leads the interdepartmental unit “IF Innovation Factory” at POLIS, and teaches computer-aided architecture at the Faculty of Architecture, Design, and Engineering. His research agenda explores the role of playfulness and ludic processes in contemporary architectural practice using both analog and digital tools. He is also a visiting scholar - Lectorate ‘Play and Civic Media’, Amsterdam - at University of Applied Sciences (HvA), Netherlands. Important points: 1. Games are not childish. 2. Different studios approach the same topic differently, some promote playfulness, some promote civic engagement, some foster collaboration 3. Social contract and agreement make games inclusive, games don’t differentiate, and they are voluntary and optional. 4. Legibility, visibility, simplicity, the flow of activity, and direction. 5. Games should allow for multiple narrations. 6. Appropriation, socializing, and motivation are important. 7. Games should resemantize space. 8. Open spaces should be like what if systems. 9. The user should feel empowered. 10. Shadowing allows for multiple narrations. 11. The city being smart doesn’t foster playfulness, but the city being accessible and accepting to change does.

Urban Play through interactive design | Vaibhav Saini | 74

Originality Report The originality report attached was produced by Google classroom originality report.

Dissertation’20 | SPA, Delhi | 75