1. Circulation + Security Critique and Research Development New York: Omar & Jaqi Beijing: Andrea & Bobby

2. Table of Contents Assessment critique of the previous group’s identified typologies Refinement addressing the physical/digital scope of the system Precedents relevant examples of similar systems/typologies Analysis user scenario & touch point analysis Sources links & citations

3. Assessment : New York No overview of city systems, only detail a small area of city Analysis only in detail for a very small section of the city without providing adequate context. We suggest a map within a map to show how this area is situated in relation to the rest of the city. No system overview There is no information presented about how the security system is established around or effected by circulation systems. There should be more details about how residents interact with security systems and circulatory systems. Mapping is clear but too limited in scope/scale Again, it would be good to see how this section of the city relates to the city as a how. Distinction between private and public sectors not delineated Garrett and Justin layered private security features with public security systems but did not explain if and how they interact to create a single system. Lack of clearly defined categorizations of typologies Though there is a visual breakdown of each typology, the categorization methodology is not clearly defined. For a greater understanding, the following categories should be explained: Persistent, Transient, Centralized, Decentralized, Real-time, Periodic, & Physical v. Virtual. This group did a fair job of overall, but could expand their presentation

4. Assessment: Beijing Strong concept coupled with organizational clarity Symbols were mostly understandable. Red indicators highlighted areas of interest effectively and overall, the use of color was unobtrusive. The presentation exhibited a thorough research of city-wide typologies. Parts of the typology chart lack clear logic The relationship between the three columns is unclear, as is the hierarchy of the security typology symbols. The lack of symbols in the technological solutions column contributes to the confusion. Certain elements in the graphic treatment are problematic A few of the typology symbols are very unclear, including “Square” and “Bash”. A carefully thought out typographic treatment could help provide a clearer hierarchy. In addition, care should be paid towards using satellite imagery of appropriate fidelity so as not to detract from the overall presentation. Issues with language/translation still need to be resolved Attention should be paid to the difference between “safety” and “security” as Beijing & New York teams seemed to have varying approaches to the “security” system. Areas of potential improvement A more comprehensive analysis of the system’s digital domain is needed, along with attention paid to digital touch points of the circulation system. Online mapping and mobile use of GPS tracking is one area that is completely overlooked.

5. Refinement: Integrated NY/Beijing Plan Physical: We propose to do a thorough analysis of circulation patterns in the defined area as a way of understanding how users interact with the space and areas where security zones intersect. 1.People are traveling through the area to other parts of the city, used as connection hub (subway & buses) 2.Congregations in public space ( demonstrations, presentations, performances, recreation ) 3.User types are business, student, transient & homeless, family 4.Heavy pedestrian traffic mixed with street traffic, auto throughway (NYC) 5.Police precinct in subway station Virtual: We will also do research to determine virtual security systems effect users interaction with the defined space. This will be an effort to determine if systems have an overt presence to act as a deterrent with immediate repercussions or are mere monitors to report behavior with repercussions deferred. 1.Traffic cameras not prominent or immediately visible, not a primary deterrent 2.Card coded doors are a physical barrier connected to digital alarm system with immediate response of security force (NYC) 3.CCTV surveillance not prominent deterrent, documentation and deferred identification and tool 4.Traffic signals are an intended control to maintain public safety 5.Subway turnstile, a physical barrier and virtual check of system use (NYC)

6. Precedents: New York CCTV Cameras on New York City Buses a deferred deterrent system used for identification and documentation Police street surveillance, NYC a deferred deterrent system used for identification and documentation Physical surveillance presents, monitors transit points of entry and exit around the city (immediate deterrent)

7. Precedent 4: US Highway Road Signage Offers information about both circulation and security Precedent 2: Trail Signage Precedent 3: Internet & Computer Signage Offers security feedback in relation to your circulation choices Precedent 2: GPS Signage & Interaction Offers visual & audible circulation feedback Precedent 1: Trail Signage Offers both circulation & personal security feedback Precedents: Beijing

8. Analysis: New York Users are meant to move freely through space and feel minimal security presence Virtual security measures generally have little effect on user User accesses security at entry points of public transportation (train & bus), and private security (ATM, building access) with digital pass cards or keys (student/employee id cards)

9. Analysis: Beijing There are 4 main user types for the observed space: vehicles, bikes, pedestrians, & public transportation users There are a string of potential safety issues that confront users from their start location to end destination The first team has identified many valuable points of interest User-touch-points along with a closer analysis of the digital domain will augment our understanding of the system

10. User Scenario: CarUser Scenario: Pedestrian Analysis: New York/Beijing