Yoga by Mark di Suvero, American artist born in China to Italian parents
Today we dove into the problem of improving visitor experience at Millennium Park.
There wasn't a lot of information given on the city of Chicago’s stated goals with the park, so much of that we just tried to infer. The city's goals with regard to the park are essential to understand before the design process begins, so that the stake-holder’s experience will align with and further those municipal goals. Any problems that we define must be solved with these city objectives in mind.
In my estimation, the city has several goals with regard to Millennium Park:
(1) communicate an international focus,
(2) showcase public art and performance,
(3) connect with other city attractions such as the Museum of the Art Institute of Chicago and the Chicago Cultural Affairs office, and
(4) provide a safe and clean public space for tourists and residents to gather for learning and play. All of this is intended to serve another purpose, which is to impress the Olympic 2016 committee.
First, we figured out who all the various stake-holders are for the park and prioritized them:
(1) park donors, supporters, and sponsors,
(2) tourists (international, domestic, and local), and
(3) park employees (visitor services workers, maintenance, security, and consessionaires).
There are many sub-groups that fall under these three categories, but these are my simplified park user-groups.
We were given a couple of so-called “frameworks” with which to consider our observations in the park:
(1) One is an “experience analysis” which looks at the situation at the park through the lens of the user experience before, during, and after their trip to the park. What drew them in, what activities did they take part in, and what did they take home with them? Within each of these elements of the experience, we spent time looking at the user’s basic needs, and the problems arising within the park that need special solutions.
(2) The second is the “gap analysis” that looks at what the users want, what the city wants, and what the environment provides. When looking at these three factors together, it becomes easier to see where problems, or “gaps” in service arise.
I personally found the “gap analysis” to be particularly useful. The most important stake-holder, the tourist, wants/needs a variety of things from the park: entertainment/imagination/inspiration, interaction with nature; education; resting, eating, reading, meeting, and contemplation places; and safety. When looking at these needs in conjunction with the needs/goals of the city (listed above), there are some important overlaps. The park environment provides for many of the desires of the audience: public art/performance; seating areas for eating, reading, and resting; water features and gardens; and contrasting busy and peaceful areas.
As an aside: I noticed that most of the signage within the park is impermanent. The sign (pictured above) was the only one that indicated a relationship between the museum and the park. All other aspects of the park (the art, the seating, the architecture and landscape design) seem very well considered, but the signage is an afterthought.
After looking at these three criteria, some of the gaps in user experience became more clear:
(1) The park needs more educational opportunities for users to learn about the art and its international nature,
(2) Better, permanent way-finding solutions to draw visitors to the park from outside, and to guide them around the park once inside,
(3) Better communication of the activities and events that already exist,
(4) Multilingual communications and signage, and
(5) Better concessions that are more directly related to the park experience, and
(6) A unified message (brand) about the arts theme that permeates through the park.
