• Making Everyday Spaces Visible

To research the Chilton Square playground, I want to understand how children and adults used the same space. I recorded the playground at three different tomes, then made maps and grid using different colours. By dividing the space into smaller areas, I compare where children and adults appeared at different times. This methods help me notice the patterns that I might have missed trough casual obsevation.

• Perec and the process of observation

In Species of Spaces and Other Pieces, Georges Perec explores everyday spaces and the things around us (Perec, 2008). This connects to my research because I also started by looking more closely at a familiar place. I divide the playground into smaller areas and recorded what happened in each one. This helped me compare different times and see where children and adults appeared more often.

However, my records could show where people were, but not fully explain why they chose those places. For example, seeing more adults near the seats does not tell me whether they chose to sit there because they wanted to watch their children or simply needed a place to rest. This made me think about how observing familiar spaces more carefully can help us notice things we might usually overlook. It also made me realise that observation can help identify patterns, but further evidence is needed to understand the reasons behind them.

• Borsato and the form of mapping

Diane Borsato’s Olfactory Mapping records smells in different places and presents them on a map (Borsato, 2017). My colour coded grid is similar in its use of visual information. Borsato maps smells that cannot be seen, while I use colors to show the different population densities at various times in the playground. Both turn observations into something that can be viewed and compared. However, maps also have limits. My grid cannot show every interaction, explain why people choose certain places, or tell me how they feel.

This made me think more carefully about how I present my findings. Darker colours can make areas with more recorded activity easier to identify, but they cannot explain why those areas are busy. I need to separate what my data shows from what I think it means.

I try to turn the grid into a simple guide for local residents. Families can use it to find times when more children were present, or choose quieter times if they prefer less busy spaces. However, I only observed the playground during three half-hour periods, so more research is needed before I can say whether these patterns are typical.

Reference

Perec G., Sturrock J., . (2008). Species of spaces and other pieces. London: Penguin Books.

Borsato, D. (2017) ‘(Olfactory-Mapping) Sterling Road’. Available at: https://www.dianeborsato.net/blog/2017/7/4/olfactory-mapping(Accessed: 13 October 2026).

Part 1 — Starting Point

01. Starting with the Playground

I chose Chilton Square because it was familiar and easy for me to visit. I wanted to understand how people used a playground that was designed for play but also shared by different users.

At first, I focused on the physical layout, including the play structures, paths and seating.

These first impressions gave me a starting point, but they did not explain how the playground was actually used. I then pay my attention from the design itself to the people in the space.

02. Looking at the People

I noticed three main groups:

Players, mainly children, were those using the play structures. Companions were mainly adults accompanying them, while others included people using or passing through the space for other reasons.

I recorded activities such as playing, watching, waiting, eating and passing through. This showed me that the playground was used for more than play, and that different users had different relationships with the space.

03 From what people do to where they are

I started to record where different people:

move / stop / wait / play / pass through

My main question became: How do different people use the same playground?

04 Behaviour Observation

To investigate this question, I recorded the playground during three 30-minute periods: 9:30–10:00, 12:00–12:30 and 14:00–14:30. I compared the positions and movements of children and adults across these periods.

Across the three recordings, I noticed that children were often active around the play structures, while adults frequently stayed near the border of the playground. I also noticed that some children returned to or remained in particular areas.

05. An Early Idea About Space

When children repeatedly returned to the same place, I began to question whether it could become a temporary space of their own, rather than simply an area containing play equipment.

I called this early idea “Children’s Private Territory”. At this stage, I did not know whether repeated use was enough to create a sense of territory, or whether these patterns were mainly shaped by the equipment and layout. I needed to look more closely at how children behaved within these areas.

06. Mapping the Behaviour

My early maps suggested that children and adults used different parts of the playground.

07. Changing the Way I Observe

I imagined observing the playground from the perspective of a mushroom: staying close to one place rather than following people around. This changed my attention from movement alone to the environment surrounding it.

I began recording what I could see, hear and smell, including footsteps, shadows, grass, rain, smoke, food packaging, leaves, mud and small objects.

08. Looking at Traces

I photographed marks and objects left in the playground, such as litter, mud and signs of wear.

Unlike video recordings, these traces remained visible after people had left. They offered another way to investigate the relationship between people, behaviour and the environment.

However, a trace alone could not tell me who had caused it or when it appeared. I began to question whether these traces could be connected to repeated patterns of use, rather than treating them as direct evidence of those patterns.

Part 1 conclusion

By this point, I had several ways of observing the playground: recording behaviour, mapping spatial patterns and photographing physical traces. This led me to experiment with a grid and spreadsheet-based approach.

.

01 From Observation to a Grid

After observing the playground at different times, I wanted to compare where children and adults appeared, moved and stayed. My notes and videos contained different kinds of information, but it was difficult to compare them consistently. I therefore divided the playground into a grid to create a shared structure for analysing the three observation periods.

I divided the playground into a grid, with each cell representing a small area of the site. I used two color to mark areas where children were observed and where adults were observed. Where the two groups used the same area, the colours overlapped.

The grid recorded spatial presence rather than ownership. It helped me compare where each group appeared, but it did not by itself show how long they stayed or why they chose those areas.

02 Why into a grid?

After looking at Liang-Jung Chen’s work, I became interested in how a spreadsheet could organise information through grids, colours and data.

03 What Does the Grid Make Visible?

It helped me identify areas where the two groups appeared to use the playground differently, as well as areas where their use overlapped.

Part 2 Conclusion

The grid helped me identify recurring spatial patterns, but it could not explain what produced them. I therefore returned to the videos to examine specific behaviours and researched the playground’s design to understand the physical conditions in which those behaviours took place.

01 The Playground Is Not a Neutral Space

My grid showed where children and adults appeared during the observation periods, but it could not explain why they used these areas.

To investigate this, I researched the history and design of Chilton Square.

Chilton Square was developed as part of the regeneration of King’s Cross. According to the design information I found, the playground was designed by Root And Erect and completed in 2025. It was primarily designed for children aged 4–12, while remaining open to the wider public. Children also took part in workshops that informed the design.

Designing for play in the city

Learning about the design process made me question what children’s participation in design could tell me about the finished playground. Although children’s feedback helped inform the play areas, I still needed to examine how children used the completed space. Participation in the design process did not, by itself, establish whether the final layout matched their everyday behaviour.

This made me question whether the routes provided by the design correspond to the ways children actually move through the playground.

02 What Does the Spreadsheet Hide?

The spreadsheet helped me compare repeated patterns of spatial use, but it also reduced behaviour to position, colour and density. This made some differences between children and adults easier to identify, while leaving out the interactions and decisions that might explain those differences.

03 Where Do Children Gather, and Why?

In the first area, children climbed, lay down and hid underneath the structure. The same structure supported several different activities.

In the second area, children gathered around a long hanging rope and used it to swing. Their activity was closely associated with one particular piece of equipment.

In the third area, a climbing frame marked the beginning of a route through the playground. Here, the position of the structure appeared to relate to how children moved between areas.

Across the three observation periods, the areas where parents were observed were associated with seating. This suggested a recurring pattern in the recorded data, although it did not establish whether seating alone explained where parents chose to stay.