Hey Victoria, Go Back to Kindergarten!

This is a follow-up post to yesterday's Different Schools of Thought post.  This post also looks at our comparative perspectives/attitudes towards (progressive) change.

I recently watched this TED talk, and it indirectly brought together much of my recent thinking around bettering our cities.

sorry, struggling with the formatting. Just click again to go to the TED page.

In brief, the Marshmallow Challenge is a teambuilding exercise in which groups of people try to build the tallest tower -- made from spaghetti noodles, string, tape, and a single marshmallow to be poised on top -- in a given time period.

The most common project time line is this:

Orientation (brief)  >>   Plan (most time-consuming by far)  >>   Build (rushed) >> Ta Da! 

... often immediately followed by an Uh Oh! (tower crashes).

The 'uh oh!' comes as the marshmallow is placed on top at the last second, causing the tower to buckle under its weight, leaving no time to fix it or to try something else.

Tom Wujec (the guy) has found that adults, particularly business-oriented ones, have a tendency to over-plan and develop one 'right' or 'best' idea (as they are taught to) and then put all of their proverbial eggs in that basket.

Meanwhile, KINDERGARTEN students are the best at this challenge(!).

taken from marshmallowchallenge.com

Why?

They use a completely different approach:

Build Prototype >> Test Prototype >> Build Prototype >> Test Prototype >> repeat.

... all with the marshmallow already in place. AKA: Trial and Error.


This serves as a brilliant example for many real-world projects: A tonne of time and money are invested into a single, politically-charged 'solution' that is hurriedly built on or after the deadline (and above budget)... and then ends up dropping the said marshmallow, leading to a crisis, fiasco, or complete mess because of ignorance, poor design, an oversight, or all of the above.

This is not necessarily a good example (it's art, after all), but definitely comes to mind:

Public Art FAIL

... as do the new parking metre signs that cannot double as bike parking.

To illustrate this further/better, we will go back to New York City.

In an earlier MVB post, I noted the (generalized) difference between urban progress in NYC and LA: NYC pushes innovative projects through the red tape, pilot tests them, and then makes them permanent if good. Meanwhile, LA hums and haws for a decade -- while things continue to be done in the same old way -- until the opportunity for change is lost.

Let's make that example a little more explicit.

NY City is on fire right now -- on fire with positive change, that is.  I have used the example of the closing of parts of broadway to pedestrian traffic.

 newyorktimes.com

Well, with the help of Gehl Architects, NYC is PILOT TESTING (read prototype test) many, many other public space improvements. The ones that work are being made more permanent; the ones that fail are being altered and/or undone.

The beauty of pilot testing is the ease and lack of expense of these 'prototypes' -- especially when compared to the cost of fixing or inability to fix a failed permanent project/change. Also, keep in mind how much money is spent on 'developing' and 'assessing' on-paper proposals that are never built or are ineffective in the real world.

How cheap/easy? Some paint, potted plants, patio furniture, and traffic cones -- and voila! (as opposed to 'ta da!/uh oh!')

Streetsblog

archpaper.com

torontoist.com

torontoist.com

These pilot tests can last a week, a month, or a year, as in the case of the Broadway/Times Square closure. Sort of like setting a marshmallow challenge time limit.

Now, let me tell you why NYC is will succeed in most (if not all) of their current marshmallow challenges (i.e., public space improvements):

1. Like the kindergartners, New York's leaders can and will make necessary adjustments -- while keeping the most important thing (the marshmallow / livable streets) the most important thing -- until they are successful. Trial and error.

2. Like the 'uh oh' adults who return later to build successful towers, NYC can draw upon -- and so hypothetically not repeat -- a history of unsuccessful prototypes (namely car-oriented ones) that buckled under the weight of the marshmallow.

3. Like the engineers and architects, the most successful tower builders, NYC can and is using existing prototypes-made-permanent -- be it projects in Copenhagen, Melbourne, Malmo, etc. -- that can be custom-fitted to its new environment.

Re-emphasizing #2 and #3:

Nobody is using LA, Atalanta, Hamilton, Auckland, or even Victoria as treasure chests of good urban ideas.

If the City of Victoria and its adjoining Municipalities cannot see this, then they're a bunch of idiots.


Re-emphasizing #1:

If they can separate the bad from the good, then they need to a) go back to kindergarten, b) get some cojones, c) stop humming and hawing, and d) better Victoria.


Try it out. What's the worst that can happen? Even kids know this -- duh!