By James H. Banning

Informal learning, the learning that emerges from the conversations and discussion among students outside the formal classrooms, term papers, and exams is an important element of the collegiate experience. This importance is often overlooked by campus designers and planners, particularly the informal learning that occurs outside and between campus buildings. The purpose of this article is to highlight the design elements that are needed to promote a "sense of place" or "landscape" for informal learning within the walkways and plaza of the campus.

Two major publications serve as background for this article: Jan Gehl's (1987) Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space and William Whyte's (1980)The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Both authors focus on the physical conditions that influence the opportunities to meet, to see, and to hear other people. These activities of meeting, seeing, and hearing are the basic ingredients to significant informal learning. Both authors agree that social activities such as informal learning are very dependent upon the exterior physical conditions among and between buildings. Perhaps more importantly, both Gehl and Whyte through their studies suggest ways that the outdoor space between and among buildings can be intentionally designed to foster and support social interaction among the users of the space. Neither author particularly addressed the college and university environment, but the application of their findings and recommendations to the informal learning and physical features of the campus ecology are apparent.

Useful Findings and Applications for the Landscape of Informal Learning

The following findings have been selected on the basis of their application to the spaces and places between and among campus buildings.

Finding: The best used plazas are sociable places, with a higher proportion of couples than you find in less-used places, more people in groups, more people meeting people, or exchanging goodbyes ... most-used places also tend to have a higher than average proportion of women. (Whyte, 1980, p. 17-18)

Application: A simple observational audit of cam-pus spaces should give an indication which spaces are sociable places. If the space is used by few people, or few couples and groups, or few women, then a rethink of its design would be appropriate.

Finding: People tend to sit most where there are places to sit. (Whyte, 1980, p. 28)

Application: Take a physical audit of the number of places to sit within campus plazas and walkways. This is common sense, but Whyte (1980) states that "the most attractive fountains, the most striking designs, cannot induce people to come and sit if there is no place to sit." (p. 28).

Finding: Sitting should be physically comfortable ... It's more important, however, that it be socially comfortable. This means choice: sitting up front, in back, in the sun, in the shade, in groups, off alone ... Choice should be built into the basic design (Whyte,1980, p. 28).

Application: A physical audit should reveal the type of seating that is available for individuals and small groups. All seating does not need to be benches and chairs. Ledges, walls, and other flat surfaces also function as places to sit.

Finding: Warmth is just as important as sunlight ... What people seek are suntraps. And the absence of winds and drafts are as critical for these as sun ... There are all sorts of good reasons for trees ... Trees ought to be related much more closely to sitting spaces than they usually are ... Water is another fine element ... One of the best things aboutwater is the look and feel of it ... It's not right to put water before people and then keep them away from it ... Another great thing about water is the sound of it. (Whyte, 1980,t p. 44, 46, 47, & 48).

Application: Given that the features of sun, warmth, protection from the wind, and water enhances the use of a sitting area-how do the campus sitting areas measure up? What improvements can be made in regards to these design elements.

Finding: If you want to seed a place with activity, put out food ... Vendors have a good nose for spaces that work. They have to ... Food attracts people who attract more people. (Whyte, 1980, p. 50, 52).

Application: Is food/vending available? Even the casual observer of college student behavior knows that the presence of food draws students together. Much of the informal learning that occurs on campus occurs around the food tables in residence halls and student unions. Why not in outdoor space? Coffee carts!

Findings: Life between the buildings is both more relevant and more interesting to look at in the long run than any combination of colored concrete and staggered building forms. (Gehl, 1987, p. 24).

Application: Most campus tours for prospective students focus on buildings. Perhaps the tours would be more productive and interesting if the tour route would include highlighting for the visitors the active plazas and walkways of the campus.

The following recommendations have been gleaned from Whyte (1980) and Gehl (1987). They focus on what a campus can do to upgrade the physical environment that promotes informal learning.

Recommendation 1: Create gathering places for students and faculty to engage in the activities of informal learning. Social interaction is contagious.

Recommendation 2: Make sure there are ample seating spaces in campus plaza areas. Whyte (1980) suggests one linear foot of sitting space for every thirty square feet of plaza. This is the ratio that was suggested for a downtown plaza in New York city. Since informal learning is such an important part of campus life, the ratio may be too conservative.

Recommendation 3: Seating needs to be comfortable. Whyte(1980)concluded that people will sit almost anywhere between a height of one foot and three and somewhere around 17 inches would be best. Whyte also points out the need to consider the depth of a ledge or bench-the deeper the better.

Recommendation 4: Benches are good for sitting. Each major walkway and campus plaza should have opportunities for students and faculty to sit on benches. Benches should be movable and they should face the walkways. Placing two benches at right angles around a table provides space for eating and studying. This arrangement directly relates to promoting informal learning at its best (Whyte, 1980).

Recommendation 5: Provide choice in seating arrangements. Not only should there be primary seating(benches and chairs), it is also important to provide secondary seating (stairways, pedestals, steps, low walls, garden boxes, etc. (Gehl, 1987). Fixed-seat groupings are manipulative and moveability is an asset (Whyte, 1980).

Recommendation 6: Keep seating areas safe! The pleasantness of a place is party contingent on protection from danger and physical harm. Gehl(1987)points out the need to provide protection from criminality and vehicular traffic.

Recommendation 7: In the development of campus master plans, give special attention to the placement of buildings and the orientation of entrances in relation to pedestrian routes (Gehl 1987). These areas are important areas to design as spaces for informal leaming.

Recommendation 8: Gehl (1987) points out the importance of sight lines. He states: " If people do not see a space, they will not use it." He goes on: "Unless there is compelling reason, an open space should never be sunk ... sunken plazas are dead spaces" (p. 99).

Recommendation 9: Design and redesign with the concept of "universal" design. If spaces are planned with the handicapped user in mind, they tend to be more functional for everyone (Whyte, 1987). Whyte makes the following observations: "Drinking fountains that are low enough for wheelchair users are low enough for children. Pedestrian paths that are made easier for the handicapped by ramps, handrails, and steps of gentle pitch are easier for all (p. 33).

Recommendation 10: Review all the previous recommendations from the perspective of nightime use. A walk across campus late in the evening will highlight the fact that informal learning is not restricted to daylight hours.

Informal learning, the conversations and discussion among students and between students and faculty, is a key ingredient in the total collegiate experience. More attention needs to be paid to how to develop and foster informal learning within the campus ecology. Key among what a campus can do to enhance the informal learning is to provide spaces and places where students and faculty can sit. Sitting spaces need to be safe, pleasant, attractive, and optimally designed to foster conversation and discussion. Places to sit need to be high on the list of priorities when campus planners put their pencils to the designs of the future. As noted by Whyte(1980), once designers, planners, and architects start thinking about ways to make a place sittable the possibilities are virtually limitless.

Gehl, J. (1987). Life between buildings: Using public space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Whyte, W. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S. & Silverman, M. (1977).A pattern language. New   York: Oxford Press.

Banning, J. (1993). The pedestrian's visual experience on campus: Informal learning of cultural messages. The Campus Ecologist,12(l), 1-4.

Bosselmann, P., et. al. (1984). Sun, wind, and comfort: A study of open  spaces and sidewalks in four downtown areas. Berkeley,CA: University of California Press.

Cullen, G. (I 96 1). Townscape. London: The Architectural Press.

GeW, J. (I 987). Life between buildings: Using public spaces. New York: Van   Nostrand Reinhold.

Goffman, E. (I 963). Behavior in public places: Notes on social organization  Of gatherings. New York: The Free Press.

Hall, E. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Double Day.

Halpren, K. (1978). Downtown USA: Urban design in nine American cities. New York: Whitney Library of Design.

Heckscher, A. &Robinson, P. (I 977). Open spaces: The life of American cities. New York: Harper and Row.

Jacobs, J. (I 96 1). The death and life of great American Cities. New York: Random House.

Lynch, K. (1962). Site planning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Newman, 0. (I 975). Defensible space, New York: Macmillian.

Pushkarev, B. & Zupan, J. (1975). Urban space for pedestrians. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Rudorsky, B. (1964). Streets for people. New York: Doubleday & Co.

Whyte, W. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation.