![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I have just filled out the public input feedback survey on the proposed design for the revamped Museum of Science and Technology in Ottawa (Canada's capital, just in case you didn't know). The museum had to be shut down last year because, during renovations, they found extensive mould in the walls from years of a leaking roof... and that the roof was about to collapse in several other places... etc.. This is their "new coat of paint" to get it open for 2017 some time. Fyi, clicking on the pictures will take you to the full size versions.
The renewal of the Museum will mean a new exterior, as well as a redesigned interior. The central idea guiding the Museum's transformation is that "through scientific and technological endeavour people have made Canada and continue to shape its future."
Canada Science and Technology Museum - From a Distance
The asymmetric structure is similar to an irregular natural object, evoking a sense of scientific measurement. Within the panels are recessed areas which further suggest a datascape. The clean white panels also contrast with the steel panels lower down, highlighting past and future technologies.
Canada Science and Technology Museum -Approaching the Entrance
A LED display is incorporated into the shape of the façade, wrapping the entrance and providing an immersive display. These panels can be programmed with photographic or text material, turning the façade into an ‘output’ device. The display can be dramatic or subtle, static or dynamic, billboard or art piece. As a guest experience, it provides a dramatic entrance into the renewed Museum.
Based on these images, what are your thoughts on the new exterior of the Canada Science and Technology Museum?
That is probably one of the most boring designs I have ever seen. It does not evoke a "sense of scientific measurement" (I'm a scientist and I know measurement and things that are measured... I'm also an artist and designer, and I know how to represent abstract ideas as physical manifestations, so I have some idea about both worlds). I know you're stuck with a crappy old factory building underneath, but it would be better to just save the money and put it into better exhibits (that teach rather than just entertain... the museum was becoming more of a theme park than a place of learning about science and technology). As the design stands, it just speaks of a lack of innovation, of a "going through the motions" mentality, and shouts that Canada doesn't have a place in the future of science and technology. Now, if the whole facade was made with the display technology used near the entranceway, that could make an impact. Then, it would make sense to make one of the sides a larger "screen" so that movies could be played on it at night (hopefully movies about science and engineering). In fact, with modern LED technology, shows could be done in the daylight (there's that crazy bright sign just up St. Laurent near the 417 as an example). In Europe, they often have events where people bring lawn chairs and blankets and watch movies and concerts and performances in the open air like that. It's a very social thing that brings people together and allows the culture and achievements of that country or region to be shared and showcased (hey, put up a small stage and a camera and get Chris Hadfield or others like him to give presentations in front of it). Anyway, I'm not suggested specifically that this could or should be done, I'm just trying to illustrate that there are ways of making the museum a destination of note and a showpiece instead of a bland lump (that cannot be accessed in any believable way on the city's public transit system, just fyi).
Take a tour! The following sections feature the first sketches and concepts for the interior of the renewed Canada Science and Technology Museum.
This is the Museum's new entrance (just beyond the ticketing area) featuring a display of artifacts and an interactive digital map of Canada. The map can feature information on industries, resources, and communities across the country, as well as user-generated content submitted via social media.
From there, visitors will enter "Artifact Alley." Cutting across the entire Museum, this space showcases the Museum's vast science and technology collection. Computer kiosks will provide information on the displayed objects.
From Artifact Alley, visitors will then see the demonstration stage. At the heart of the Museum, this space will feature daily presentations, function as a gathering place, and display recent science news on its circular walls.
What are your thoughts on the experiences described above?
Well, I had a visceral (and negative) initial reaction to the phrase "Artifact Alley" that drew my focus away from the sketches... it implies a certain level of embarrassment about the artifacts in the museum's collection (alleyways are usually where the garbage is kept until the trucks come around) and a sort of ghettoisation of the museum's (amazing) things. Back to the sketches though... The entranceway looks very similar to what I remember it looking like before, with the addition of the interactive map. I do like the sound of it, but I question how effective it will be with thousands of people trying to use it. As with any sort of installation like that, the proof will be in the execution: it could be a star or it could be a profound dud (and waste of money and resources). Furthermore, will there be staff in place with the time and resources available to keep the map evolving and dynamic? If not, it will be stale after one visit and a static map or set of maps would be a better solution -- like a web site, if there isn't something significant and new each time a person visits, interest will be lost. If the target is the "one off" tourists and visitors, then I guess it doesn't really make much of a difference. With regards to the proposed design for "Artifact Alley", it is mostly, from what I can ascertain from the drawings, glass walls with stuff behind it. While I understand the rationale for protecting items from visitors, it will also isolate them from the displays. I have always preferred exhibits that are roped off rather than glassed off. There is something about sharing a space with things that makes them more real and relevant and tangible. Putting up a glass wall sends the message that "these are not things for you". To bring the exhibits to life, how about some touchable/handle-able 3D printed replicas beside the displays? I know the NRC and museum have (had?) access to very cool 3D scanners, there's no reason why visitors can't have access to 3D replicas of some museum artifacts (it would be a great museum volunteer activity to reproduce items for the public). Anyway, with the way that the "Alley" is laid out, there is no room for any "hands on" interactions... it's all glass walls and glass presentations (computer screens). Lastly, for the stage, I'm not sure about this one. Again, there is a "hide it away" and "close it off" message being subtly communicated with the way it is proposed here. On the other hand, perhaps it will bring a sense of intimacy to the presentations that will provide a more human element to the visit. I know that the stage as it was in the old layout didn't really work all that well as it seemed sort of jammed in the corner and sort of spilled into the space around it... it was quite awkward. What would make more sense to me is to have the proposed room design but with the stage backed by a more open concept. If you're going to have glass walls, that would be the place to have it! In my mind, I'd see it set up with a view of the space exhibit, but the trains exhibit would be pretty awesome as well (there are other, equally compelling, exhibits to view of course). The space as envisioned here definitely is enclosed and inward-looking (a view to the past, the controlled, the already done), not expansive and outward-looking the way that science and technology should be (looking to the future, the wild, the possible).
Moving on, these sketches represent some of the Museum's potential new exhibitions. Each one contains a mix of artifact displays, hands-on activities, and digital interactive experiences for adults and children.
Technology in Everyday Life
Featuring a hands-on design studio, this exhibition explores how Canadians shape, and get shaped by, everyday technologies.
Transportation
This gallery explores the technologies used by Canadians to connect people and communities. It also showcases the Museum's rich transportation collection.
Transforming Resources
This gallery explores how we transform resources into energy and things, and how the choices Canadians make have both benefits and challenging consequences.
The Children's Innovation Space
Finally, this gallery is dedicated to children between the ages of 2 and 10. Built on the theme of innovation, it will feature spaces for creative play as well as hands-on activities encouraging children to try, test, and try again.
What do you think of these exhibition concepts?
What are their strengths and what are their weaknesses?
Well, this section does seem to be more "hands on" or at least visitors can coexist with the artifacts in the same space. There is a feeling that there are two dimensions here rather than the single dimension of walled-off exhibits, and in some cases, there appears as though there might even be three dimensional aspects to the spaces (things up high at least). I *really* like what appears to be an opening-up of the train exhibit to include transportation in general, that is an inspired move. The notion of exhibits as shown seems to be fairly generic, but there is a certain amount of "wandering and looking at stuff" that is expected when going to any museum. They're not innovative perhaps in concept, but there is room for specific showcases to be creative and engaging. Bread and butter stuff I guess. I was intrigued by the statement that "this exhibition explores how Canadians shape, and get shaped by, everyday technologies", but I can't help but think that it is going to fall well short of that based on my past experiences. There is a tremendous amount of literature in the social "sciences" that discuss how our society produces artifacts like toothbrushes and televisions, but does so to reflect the dominant discourses of the day, and as such each of these artifacts actually (and literally) is then used to re-construct our societies to conform to the technology itself. That would be a mind-blowing experience for most people to learn about, but I have yet to see it executed at any public institution (it does work at cross purposes to the agenda of those in power, so there is no surprise there). Short of that, what I know engages people is following the tenuous links that led to the way that a science question was posed and/or a technology evolved into the form that became successful (or even dominant). I am, of course, referring to James Burke's television series "Connections: An Alternative View of Change". When an exhibit can be discovered by a visitor, when the connections that led to the existence of an artifact can be explored, that is where a museum becomes something more than a big room full of stuff. While the space presented doesn't necessarily imply any particular presentation, I can say that it at least looks like it does not prevent high engagement potential with people visiting the museum. As a note... is that a "Maker" space I see in the back of the "Transforming Resources" image? Allowing people to explore technology through creative hands-on interactions and guided exercises is definitely the way to get people interested in science and technology. Unfortunately, most of the maker spaces I have experienced tend to be very niche and kitchy... if there were representative activities from each of the museum's exhibits that tied directly to the past, present, or future of that area of human activity (spread throughout the day, week, month, or even year), then that would make the exhibits much more relevant and important.
For the kids' area, it's always a toss up: do you make an amusement park so kids want to go back to the museum or do you use ECE techniques to engage children in scientific and/or technological activities that train them to think scientifically and/or technologically? The former seems to be most of what I have seen at museums. And yes, I had kids that I would take to the museum there when they were younger, and no, I didn't have a high regard for the quality of either the space or the exhibits that were meant for them... with the exception of a few specific things... fyi, they are adults now and both were driven from science and technology by the public school system even though they were both quite gifted and interested in several related areas. I see museums as being a way to keep kids engaged in the subject they are presenting even when they're not having a lot of fun slogging through school work. Anyway, a depiction of a child 5-10 years old doing an activity sufficiently hazardous that they supposedly need safety goggles and an apron is definitely on the right track! (I'm aware that no such hazard exists or it would not be allowed, but it does imply that they're at least doing something constructive and potentially educational). Having a pure "play area" (Having A Ball) makes a lot of sense, but I would argue that there should be a similar area for kids 9 to 12 as well. I read a study recently that Canadians now have an attention span of 9 seconds... having something physical for older kids to do would let them burn off their excess energy so they can perhaps go back to focusing on the exhibits in the museum. I like the idea of the building area as well, and the way it's presented looks as though there might be some possibility of unstructured play and creative engagement. The depiction of the "Materials Maze" for 2-5 years old looks too complicated and fiddly to me, but as with any exhibit, it's all in the execution. One thing I noticed immediate looking at the floor plan for the kids' area is there didn't seem to be any thought put into accommodation for people with physical or mental impairments (the space looks as though it is "disabling" space and those with impairments would be disabled by trying to be there). The designs here are extremely ableist, but there is a fairly large body of research that shows when spaces are created from the ground up to be accessible (in many senses of the word), that everybody ends up benefiting from it.
Finally, what are your thoughts on the plans for the renewed Canada Science and Technology Museum? What are its strengths and where do you see weaknesses?
There is no link to the plans, therefore I cannot make any assessment beyond what was communicated with a few sketches. The basic strength is that there *is* a Science and Technology Museum in the nation's capital. That it was shut down because of poor maintenance and underfunding of its infrastructure is unacceptable for a nation as rich as Canada. Sorry for the generic comment, but (as stated) I don't have a detailed knowledge of the overall plan. As for weaknesses? Location, location, location. Rather than recreating the museum where is it, it would make a lot more sense to put it somewhere on the proposed LRT route in Ottawa (I know people keep saying LeBreton flats, but that doesn't necessarily make sense to me either, there are a lot of other places it could be). More than anything, I see the existing building and its location as a serious weakness in what is being done. The museum will eventually move or be heavily renovated, it makes no sense to me to do this as a "half measure" when the investment will be lost within a generation when the will and resources are available to build it where it belongs and the way it should be. I see the current building as a liability, not an asset, and the losses should be minimized not prolonged.
From your perspective, how could this Museum benefit you and your community?
It should be clear that my opinion is that without a strong foundation in science and technology amongst the citizens of Canada (and of any country in the world for that matter), then there is no strong future awaiting. With the impending rise in global temperature of 4 degrees Celcius by 2100 (the most likely scenario despite rhetoric to try to limit it to 2 degrees... we are already at 0.8 degrees C above pre-industrial levels solely from human activity, and taking into account all other non-human factors), the future of the habitability of our planet and the welfare of our descendants is utterly reliant on both research and development in science and technology. As such, understanding how we got to where we are, and looking to where we might be going is an important activity for every society, and a Science and Technology Museum is one part of that critical dialogue. From a more day-to-day perspective, it is important for everyone to understand the value that is brought to society by science and technology so it receives the share of resources and support it needs to continue to make positive progress in the short, medium, and long terms. Again, having a museum dedicated to science and technology benefits me, my children, my community, and every single person on Earth in some small way.
As the plans move forward, the Museum will continue to seek feedback and ideas. If you would like to participate in future consultations please provide an email address.
<provided>
The renewal of the Museum will mean a new exterior, as well as a redesigned interior. The central idea guiding the Museum's transformation is that "through scientific and technological endeavour people have made Canada and continue to shape its future."
Canada Science and Technology Museum - From a Distance
The asymmetric structure is similar to an irregular natural object, evoking a sense of scientific measurement. Within the panels are recessed areas which further suggest a datascape. The clean white panels also contrast with the steel panels lower down, highlighting past and future technologies.
Canada Science and Technology Museum -Approaching the Entrance
A LED display is incorporated into the shape of the façade, wrapping the entrance and providing an immersive display. These panels can be programmed with photographic or text material, turning the façade into an ‘output’ device. The display can be dramatic or subtle, static or dynamic, billboard or art piece. As a guest experience, it provides a dramatic entrance into the renewed Museum.
Based on these images, what are your thoughts on the new exterior of the Canada Science and Technology Museum?
That is probably one of the most boring designs I have ever seen. It does not evoke a "sense of scientific measurement" (I'm a scientist and I know measurement and things that are measured... I'm also an artist and designer, and I know how to represent abstract ideas as physical manifestations, so I have some idea about both worlds). I know you're stuck with a crappy old factory building underneath, but it would be better to just save the money and put it into better exhibits (that teach rather than just entertain... the museum was becoming more of a theme park than a place of learning about science and technology). As the design stands, it just speaks of a lack of innovation, of a "going through the motions" mentality, and shouts that Canada doesn't have a place in the future of science and technology. Now, if the whole facade was made with the display technology used near the entranceway, that could make an impact. Then, it would make sense to make one of the sides a larger "screen" so that movies could be played on it at night (hopefully movies about science and engineering). In fact, with modern LED technology, shows could be done in the daylight (there's that crazy bright sign just up St. Laurent near the 417 as an example). In Europe, they often have events where people bring lawn chairs and blankets and watch movies and concerts and performances in the open air like that. It's a very social thing that brings people together and allows the culture and achievements of that country or region to be shared and showcased (hey, put up a small stage and a camera and get Chris Hadfield or others like him to give presentations in front of it). Anyway, I'm not suggested specifically that this could or should be done, I'm just trying to illustrate that there are ways of making the museum a destination of note and a showpiece instead of a bland lump (that cannot be accessed in any believable way on the city's public transit system, just fyi).
Take a tour! The following sections feature the first sketches and concepts for the interior of the renewed Canada Science and Technology Museum.
This is the Museum's new entrance (just beyond the ticketing area) featuring a display of artifacts and an interactive digital map of Canada. The map can feature information on industries, resources, and communities across the country, as well as user-generated content submitted via social media.
From there, visitors will enter "Artifact Alley." Cutting across the entire Museum, this space showcases the Museum's vast science and technology collection. Computer kiosks will provide information on the displayed objects.
From Artifact Alley, visitors will then see the demonstration stage. At the heart of the Museum, this space will feature daily presentations, function as a gathering place, and display recent science news on its circular walls.
What are your thoughts on the experiences described above?
Well, I had a visceral (and negative) initial reaction to the phrase "Artifact Alley" that drew my focus away from the sketches... it implies a certain level of embarrassment about the artifacts in the museum's collection (alleyways are usually where the garbage is kept until the trucks come around) and a sort of ghettoisation of the museum's (amazing) things. Back to the sketches though... The entranceway looks very similar to what I remember it looking like before, with the addition of the interactive map. I do like the sound of it, but I question how effective it will be with thousands of people trying to use it. As with any sort of installation like that, the proof will be in the execution: it could be a star or it could be a profound dud (and waste of money and resources). Furthermore, will there be staff in place with the time and resources available to keep the map evolving and dynamic? If not, it will be stale after one visit and a static map or set of maps would be a better solution -- like a web site, if there isn't something significant and new each time a person visits, interest will be lost. If the target is the "one off" tourists and visitors, then I guess it doesn't really make much of a difference. With regards to the proposed design for "Artifact Alley", it is mostly, from what I can ascertain from the drawings, glass walls with stuff behind it. While I understand the rationale for protecting items from visitors, it will also isolate them from the displays. I have always preferred exhibits that are roped off rather than glassed off. There is something about sharing a space with things that makes them more real and relevant and tangible. Putting up a glass wall sends the message that "these are not things for you". To bring the exhibits to life, how about some touchable/handle-able 3D printed replicas beside the displays? I know the NRC and museum have (had?) access to very cool 3D scanners, there's no reason why visitors can't have access to 3D replicas of some museum artifacts (it would be a great museum volunteer activity to reproduce items for the public). Anyway, with the way that the "Alley" is laid out, there is no room for any "hands on" interactions... it's all glass walls and glass presentations (computer screens). Lastly, for the stage, I'm not sure about this one. Again, there is a "hide it away" and "close it off" message being subtly communicated with the way it is proposed here. On the other hand, perhaps it will bring a sense of intimacy to the presentations that will provide a more human element to the visit. I know that the stage as it was in the old layout didn't really work all that well as it seemed sort of jammed in the corner and sort of spilled into the space around it... it was quite awkward. What would make more sense to me is to have the proposed room design but with the stage backed by a more open concept. If you're going to have glass walls, that would be the place to have it! In my mind, I'd see it set up with a view of the space exhibit, but the trains exhibit would be pretty awesome as well (there are other, equally compelling, exhibits to view of course). The space as envisioned here definitely is enclosed and inward-looking (a view to the past, the controlled, the already done), not expansive and outward-looking the way that science and technology should be (looking to the future, the wild, the possible).
Moving on, these sketches represent some of the Museum's potential new exhibitions. Each one contains a mix of artifact displays, hands-on activities, and digital interactive experiences for adults and children.
Technology in Everyday Life
Featuring a hands-on design studio, this exhibition explores how Canadians shape, and get shaped by, everyday technologies.
Transportation
This gallery explores the technologies used by Canadians to connect people and communities. It also showcases the Museum's rich transportation collection.
Transforming Resources
This gallery explores how we transform resources into energy and things, and how the choices Canadians make have both benefits and challenging consequences.
The Children's Innovation Space
Finally, this gallery is dedicated to children between the ages of 2 and 10. Built on the theme of innovation, it will feature spaces for creative play as well as hands-on activities encouraging children to try, test, and try again.
What do you think of these exhibition concepts?
What are their strengths and what are their weaknesses?
Well, this section does seem to be more "hands on" or at least visitors can coexist with the artifacts in the same space. There is a feeling that there are two dimensions here rather than the single dimension of walled-off exhibits, and in some cases, there appears as though there might even be three dimensional aspects to the spaces (things up high at least). I *really* like what appears to be an opening-up of the train exhibit to include transportation in general, that is an inspired move. The notion of exhibits as shown seems to be fairly generic, but there is a certain amount of "wandering and looking at stuff" that is expected when going to any museum. They're not innovative perhaps in concept, but there is room for specific showcases to be creative and engaging. Bread and butter stuff I guess. I was intrigued by the statement that "this exhibition explores how Canadians shape, and get shaped by, everyday technologies", but I can't help but think that it is going to fall well short of that based on my past experiences. There is a tremendous amount of literature in the social "sciences" that discuss how our society produces artifacts like toothbrushes and televisions, but does so to reflect the dominant discourses of the day, and as such each of these artifacts actually (and literally) is then used to re-construct our societies to conform to the technology itself. That would be a mind-blowing experience for most people to learn about, but I have yet to see it executed at any public institution (it does work at cross purposes to the agenda of those in power, so there is no surprise there). Short of that, what I know engages people is following the tenuous links that led to the way that a science question was posed and/or a technology evolved into the form that became successful (or even dominant). I am, of course, referring to James Burke's television series "Connections: An Alternative View of Change". When an exhibit can be discovered by a visitor, when the connections that led to the existence of an artifact can be explored, that is where a museum becomes something more than a big room full of stuff. While the space presented doesn't necessarily imply any particular presentation, I can say that it at least looks like it does not prevent high engagement potential with people visiting the museum. As a note... is that a "Maker" space I see in the back of the "Transforming Resources" image? Allowing people to explore technology through creative hands-on interactions and guided exercises is definitely the way to get people interested in science and technology. Unfortunately, most of the maker spaces I have experienced tend to be very niche and kitchy... if there were representative activities from each of the museum's exhibits that tied directly to the past, present, or future of that area of human activity (spread throughout the day, week, month, or even year), then that would make the exhibits much more relevant and important.
For the kids' area, it's always a toss up: do you make an amusement park so kids want to go back to the museum or do you use ECE techniques to engage children in scientific and/or technological activities that train them to think scientifically and/or technologically? The former seems to be most of what I have seen at museums. And yes, I had kids that I would take to the museum there when they were younger, and no, I didn't have a high regard for the quality of either the space or the exhibits that were meant for them... with the exception of a few specific things... fyi, they are adults now and both were driven from science and technology by the public school system even though they were both quite gifted and interested in several related areas. I see museums as being a way to keep kids engaged in the subject they are presenting even when they're not having a lot of fun slogging through school work. Anyway, a depiction of a child 5-10 years old doing an activity sufficiently hazardous that they supposedly need safety goggles and an apron is definitely on the right track! (I'm aware that no such hazard exists or it would not be allowed, but it does imply that they're at least doing something constructive and potentially educational). Having a pure "play area" (Having A Ball) makes a lot of sense, but I would argue that there should be a similar area for kids 9 to 12 as well. I read a study recently that Canadians now have an attention span of 9 seconds... having something physical for older kids to do would let them burn off their excess energy so they can perhaps go back to focusing on the exhibits in the museum. I like the idea of the building area as well, and the way it's presented looks as though there might be some possibility of unstructured play and creative engagement. The depiction of the "Materials Maze" for 2-5 years old looks too complicated and fiddly to me, but as with any exhibit, it's all in the execution. One thing I noticed immediate looking at the floor plan for the kids' area is there didn't seem to be any thought put into accommodation for people with physical or mental impairments (the space looks as though it is "disabling" space and those with impairments would be disabled by trying to be there). The designs here are extremely ableist, but there is a fairly large body of research that shows when spaces are created from the ground up to be accessible (in many senses of the word), that everybody ends up benefiting from it.
Finally, what are your thoughts on the plans for the renewed Canada Science and Technology Museum? What are its strengths and where do you see weaknesses?
There is no link to the plans, therefore I cannot make any assessment beyond what was communicated with a few sketches. The basic strength is that there *is* a Science and Technology Museum in the nation's capital. That it was shut down because of poor maintenance and underfunding of its infrastructure is unacceptable for a nation as rich as Canada. Sorry for the generic comment, but (as stated) I don't have a detailed knowledge of the overall plan. As for weaknesses? Location, location, location. Rather than recreating the museum where is it, it would make a lot more sense to put it somewhere on the proposed LRT route in Ottawa (I know people keep saying LeBreton flats, but that doesn't necessarily make sense to me either, there are a lot of other places it could be). More than anything, I see the existing building and its location as a serious weakness in what is being done. The museum will eventually move or be heavily renovated, it makes no sense to me to do this as a "half measure" when the investment will be lost within a generation when the will and resources are available to build it where it belongs and the way it should be. I see the current building as a liability, not an asset, and the losses should be minimized not prolonged.
From your perspective, how could this Museum benefit you and your community?
It should be clear that my opinion is that without a strong foundation in science and technology amongst the citizens of Canada (and of any country in the world for that matter), then there is no strong future awaiting. With the impending rise in global temperature of 4 degrees Celcius by 2100 (the most likely scenario despite rhetoric to try to limit it to 2 degrees... we are already at 0.8 degrees C above pre-industrial levels solely from human activity, and taking into account all other non-human factors), the future of the habitability of our planet and the welfare of our descendants is utterly reliant on both research and development in science and technology. As such, understanding how we got to where we are, and looking to where we might be going is an important activity for every society, and a Science and Technology Museum is one part of that critical dialogue. From a more day-to-day perspective, it is important for everyone to understand the value that is brought to society by science and technology so it receives the share of resources and support it needs to continue to make positive progress in the short, medium, and long terms. Again, having a museum dedicated to science and technology benefits me, my children, my community, and every single person on Earth in some small way.
As the plans move forward, the Museum will continue to seek feedback and ideas. If you would like to participate in future consultations please provide an email address.
<provided>
