Erik Filegauf

Erik Filegauf

I chose to represent the two locations on a variety of scales and perspectives, both geospatially and thematically, rather than as one all-encompassing vision. I wanted to maximize the amount of information to include a breadth of visions while retaining depth in details. At the malls, I focused my time at the waterfall area, a node for shoppers and stores, because I felt that it related well to our class’s focus on the built “natural” environment. I sketched the indoor equivalent to the “picturesque garden”, but I also was interested in how shoppers interacted with the meticulously-designed space as a whole, as most (but not all) seemed more focused on shopping than appreciative of the gardenesque oasis. I was also interested in observing what types of stores situated near this environment for economic or other reasons, and which would be on the second floor. I also counted the number of people in each store, but I visited the two locations late in the day, so I do not believe that this even gives a good indication of typical consumer patterns.

While the malls felt expressly designed for shoppers’ convenience and enjoyment from the beginning, Newbury Street had more of an organic, while also more homogenous, layout. Although the inclusion of nature seemed to be more patterned (trees every 20 feet or so, more formal gardens) it didn’t seem like an architect had tried to maximize the amount of money and time spent by visitors. The buildings were likely converted rowhouses, giving a residential atmosphere. There were few places to sit (pointed stone barriers seem to discourage this) and the straight street and wide sidewalks are more conducive to window- shopping and mobility.