The Outdoor Science Experience

Because a fare-paying park on the public seawall was always a component of the

Breadcrumbs concept, so was an “Intervention Zone”.⁴² Together, they were to be known by the working title of the Outdoor Science Experience (OSE). Nastaran Moradinejad, a designer at PFS, explains this concept further:

41 There is a lack of evidence documenting how Concord and Concert developers tested the presentations (Zeisel, 1984). This lack of evidence, triangulated with the drawing and interviews that sought to engage such developers, leads to the conclusion that north and southeast False Creek developers passed on the opportunity of Breadcrumb (TDET) exhibits in 2001-2002.

42 This Intervention Zone would initially have included a pedestrian bridge connecting the end of Ontario street with the Expo deck (PFS Storybook, 2003). This was an initial inspiration to create a looped learning experience like the TDET of today.

NM: [It] was more about connecting different parts of the site. These were all done at a high level establishing an “Intervention Zone”. And then the notion of breadcrumbs, which was yet a bigger idea.

The Intervention Zone was a re-imagination of the fare-paying space first introduced in the1999 Urban Tree House. Between the years of 2001 and 2002, a vast array of presentations on the OSE were made by PFS studio to their client, Science World. These are contained in two booklets: the “Ideas Book” and the “Story Book”. Variations in both the Breadcrumbs trail (TDET) and the Intervention Zone (KSSP) created multiple scenarios in these books, each attempting to better respond to the interests of the City, the adjacent residents to the east, and Science World.

The City had a strong desire to keep a continuous walkway along the seawall, and the fare-paying Intervention Zone to a minimal square footage. The adjacent residents had interests such as maintenance of views to the water, and reduction of the noise from the OSE to a

minimum. Science World, in its creation of the OSE, was driven by a set of purposes explained by the CEO:

BT: Why did we want to do this [OSE]? First, we needed more space.

Attendance was growing…and we knew that for the organization to stay vibrant as a business, we needed more space.

Secondly, we wanted to animate the outside spaces. As much as Science World is visible, it’s static, it’s this big ball sitting there. You have no idea of the animation and energy that’s inside. We needed something that was visually striking and kinetic.

Third, playing more tourist mode, or local pride, what distinguishes the Pacific Northwest? It’s the outdoors. Our identity is closely related to fleece vests, and hiking and biking and walking, … and the environment.

Science World’s objectives were thus: (a) the expansion of the fare-paying space; (b) the animation of its exterior; and (c) the introduction of the themes of the Pacific Northwest. In his Site Planning, Lynch (1962) explains the relationship between project purposes and the design process:

The existing site, and the purposes for which it will be modified, are two sources from which the design springs. These two sources are curiously interrelated in a circular way. Purpose cannot be stated until the limitations that the site will impose are known, and the site itself cannot be analyzed until the purpose for which it will be used is set forth. (p. 11)

Lynch describes how a circular relationship between purpose and site leads to the emergence of the design process. Following his logic, BT’s ability to state the OSE’s purposes required knowledge of the limitations of the Creekside Park site. The vision of an urban treehouse, for example, which served to fulfill purpose (a), required a site analysis from which limitations of the Expo Deck became known. Together, the process of refining purposes and understanding site limitations transformed initial conceptions; the Urban Treehouse was not seen as suitable for the site but a Science Playground could be. The OSE design project comprising Breadcrumbs and the Intervention Zone originated, then, as an update of the 1999 ReGeneration vision:

The False Creek East Bay will be filled with the buzz and excitement of children and adults engaged in the Outdoor Science Experience, the biggest, greatest, outdoor science area in the world. The OSE will be creation of a fun, wild recipe, the very excitement of Disneyland whipped together with whimsy larger-than life,

“totally cool” exhibits. With this formula, we explore the natural forces of Water, Air, Light, Gravity and through physical play, wild laughter, and zany demonstrations. Humour will be a vital ingredient to the OSE. No exhibit environment will be too serious. All will be slathered with a sense of humour.

Imagine riding a bike, not to power a lightbulb, but to power a mechanical dog that pees into a bowl. People will arrive with anticipation and will leave with smiles on their face, a sparkle in their eye, a question in their head with the anticipation of coming back ‘REAL SOON’. (Phillips Farevaag Smallenberg Studio. (2003a, emphasis added)

A shift in theme has been made here from “Earth, Sun, Water and Wind” (Science World, 1999) to “Water, Air, Light, and Gravity” (Phillips Farevaag Smallenberg Studio. (2003a, 2003).

The 2003 Storybook vision is light-hearted, attempting to capture the experience of pedestrians as they approach Science World. The theme of sustainability only came later:

Interviewee 4: When they originally pitched the idea [for the OSE], it had nothing to do with sustainability. It had everything to do with expanding the footprint of Science World so [it could be] outside and visible, and you could do things outdoors that you can’t indoors. Like in terms of the size and scale, we thought it would be fun…The concept [of the TDET] has been floating around for a long time.

Interviewee 4 helps to explain the transitions involved in moving from initial OSE themes to their refinement in its third purpose: reflection of the local identity of the Pacific Northwest. It was this theme that gave rise to that of sustainability between 2006 and 2009 (explained in Section 4.3).