Pet (un)friendly

Consider the implications of this warning (the rightmost panel in particular) on an escalator in the Shanghai Urban Planning Museum. In a context where pet ownership is on the rise, and behaviors around what is "proper" (or even what a “pet” is) are still in flux, the surrounding urban infrastructure and its accompanying usage guidelines try to keep up – and perhaps influence the definition a bit themselves.

Think of the places in your own urban context where an escalator (or other public pieces of infrastructure and spaces – public buses, metro/subway stops, police stations, urban planning museums, etc.) could potentially be critiqued as being "pet-unfriendly". How would a "pet-friendly" version of each of those look (based, of course, upon the context’s definition of a “pet” and where said pets are allowed/encouraged)?

Semi-mobility

There is a fine balance between instilling the ability in a child to become independently mobile while still maintaining influence over said mobility. In that, note how these tricycles are not gear-and-chain driven, but rather "shuffle-powered" (or, alternatively, "[grand]parent-powered"). On the continuum from "walking" to "riding a bicycle", does this particular stage of child-mobility exist in your context? Consider the cultural-specificities that make this (and similar child-mobility devices) a common sight in China, and think also about the comparable extent of parent/guardian control exerted over such a vehicle in your context (and the child's varying degrees of acceptance of said control).

Drying practices

There is a wide array of techniques and behaviors around public drying in China - from vegetables and meats, to clothing, to the inventory of a store specializing in calligraphy brushes placed upon a patch of sidewalk in front of the store. Noteworthy drying behaviors aren't limited to space-constrained urban densities, either - I've recently seen stone walls become lettuce drying racks, and odd-length branches in wood piles hung with recently-washed shoes. 

Consider the practices that surround drying of different sorts of objects in your context - indoors/private or outdoors/public (and whether that varies by season)? Machine, line or rack (or monkey bars)? What are the infrastructure (built-in or improvised) and customs that support or discourage particular drying behaviors - and to what those behaviors apply ? Consider the factors causing that to vary (population density, education, income, electricity access, and so on.

Urban sandbox

The cheap and sturdy red, white, and blue tarp that may be seen all across China doesn't only contain cost-conscious consumers' belongings or keep rubble and dust inside of construction sites;  it also turns a public square into a space more conducive to play.

Note supervision standards - are children more or less closely watched while at play in your context? Would this be considered "too dirty" or an otherwise inappropriate play activity where you are?

Bonus: sitting patterns/practices.

Shapingba PSA

The format, presentation, positioning, and theme of public service announcements. The universal (or not?) cultural message of the handshake as a sign of friendship (or perhaps just the simplest to depict graphically). Is this in reaction to something, or is it preemptive? I have not seen this in any other neighborhoods (or cities). 

Rough translation:
"Let us from this moment make friends
Flowers rely upon [their] scent and beauty
People rely upon [their] civility and charisma"

Consider the set of behaviors your local government most fervently wishes to inspire in you, and how they choose to convey those desires to the populace. Is it through physical, or digital means?

Also: A very interesting review of different contexts' approaches to "handshake execution" - complete with relative strength, gender norms, handshake initiators, and more. 

Backalley reflections

A slow-motion unfolding of the tragedy of the commons. Consider the speed at which this couch, a once-publicly used good has become what amounts to a garbage disposal point. Is this a signal that the couch is also ready to be removed (along with the accrued garbage)?

Consider the point at which a piece of public furniture such as this will have degraded past the point where you would consider it usable (without unpleasant consequences), and how subjective that point is across different cultural, socioeconomic, (+ etc.) contexts. Your "no thanks" might be another's "looks fine to me, my legs sure are tired." 

By extension, the lack of fairness towards others when the decision to "scrap" a piece of public furniture is made by one whose standards are higher than others (or perhaps they just didn't feel like making the trip all the way to the end of the street to dispose of their rubbish, or perhaps it was their couch and they were tired of people sitting outside their window and talking at loud volumes - I'm not one to judge). Or perhaps consensus was sought - a strong rainfall may have made the decision for the community.

How would this unfold in your context? How long would this couch last on your street? Consider your context's reaction to someone placing a piece of furniture on the street: legal, social, (+etc.). The thin and subjective line between an activity being deemed "charitable/neighborly" versus "illegal/lazy".

See also this, from GOOD (via NYT).

Room for light (not for heavy)

Sign translation: 
"Entrance fee: 100 Kyats"
"Room for peeing - do not poo"
(In Burmese, the word for urine translates as "light", while feces is translated as "heavy", thus making it a "room for light - not for heavy")

First question: Wha...? Second question: Why here? My (debatable) take is that the lack of public space in Yangon (parks are both scarce and require an entrance fee) means that places that are not otherwise designed to function as public space are pressed into service as such. In this case, this "Public Mobile Urination Room" (or PMUR, pronounced "Peemur") happens to be located next to Sule Pagoda, the temple that forms the ostensible nucleus of downtown Yangon. Visiting the temple on a date with one's lover is a common practice (as temples are, critically, free to enter (for citizens of Myanmar at least)). Also, once one has finished visiting the temple and wants to linger afterwards (assuming one is on a successful date and not just a routine visit to make merit), there is a relatively desirable slice of public space for lingering in to be found in the overpass that connects the adjacent sidewalk to the island in the middle of the traffic circle upon which Sule is constructed. Sure, it may be cramped, noisy, lack formal seating options, and expose the lingerers to a constant barrage of vehicle exhaust fumes, but remember: visibility from the street is obscured by the structure of the stairs, and one cannot beat the price. Setting up a charge-to-access toilet is perhaps an acknowledgement on the part of city planners (assuming this toilet is publicly owned and operated - otherwise a whole new set of very interesting implications to consider) of the lack of functional public spaces for people to spend prolonged time in - and the implicit approval of this informal area around the pedestrian bridge as an acceptable public space. How long before ambient sensors or "smart sidewalks" can self-detect the sites where the greatest volume of people tend to informally relieve themselves? Such data could be plugged straight into a forecasting algorithm to determine whether establishing a pay-to-access bathroom at a given point would be worth the investment.

How was 100 kyats decided as the proper amount to charge for the privilege to urinate in a designated room as opposed to the sidewalk or the bushes? Is that price point attractive enough considering the service it offers and the "free" alternative behavior that one could engage in? Is this PMUR not actually intended to be a profit-making enterprise at all, but rather shame people who would normally relieve themselves there into going somewhere else (now that they are "guilty" not only of urinating in an inappropriate place, but now are also deprived of an alibi as to why they chose to do so instead of doing so in an approved space)? Is this just a "modernity prop" meant to convince the many tourists that wander past this point of the supposed cutting-edge sanitation practices that Yangon is embracing?

Also, I'm unsure what aspect of this structure is "mobile", as attempting to move a building filled with urine sounds, well, somewhat complicated.  I was tempted to try moving it myself, but decided against it. If anyone has any other PMUR sightings, please do share.

Place-based inventories

How does the character of inventories change by location? How does place influence goods stocked? Near schools, for example, toys, candies, and comic books abound. What about less obvious locales? Next to a hospital, plastic bedpans are for sale amongst the usual suspects of instant coffeemix and processed pastries. Outside of the passport office, salespeople ditch the powdered drink mix and cigarettes in favor of smaller retail spaces, focusing instead upon glue sticks, paper/plastic envelopes, a multitude of felt-tip and ballpoint pens. 

These retailers' inventories serve as a convenient visual guide to what is "given" in a resource-constrained - but public - context such as a public hospital, or passport office. One can reasonably expect that if they're hawking it out here, they ain't got none "in there" - or can one? Perhaps this is meant to allow one to save time on the passport office's daunting "glue queue" (or the hospital's even more daunting "shu-shu queue") that may await inside. Surprised there is no gluestick rental stand (less surprised that there is no bed-pan rental stand). 

The sign reads: "COPIES | Writing accessories | Phone (local/long-distance)." What more could a passport applicant want (besides someone to do everything for them, of course)?