Intercultural Design E-Portfolio
Table of Contents
- Lectures
- Instructions
- Task 1: Proposal (Week 1 - Week 3)
- Task 2: Field Study Data Collection (Week 4 - Week 5)
- Task 3: Final Project & Portfolio (Week 6 - Week 7)
- Feedback
- Reflections
- Further Reading
LECTURES
Week 1: In the beginning of this module, I learned that intercultural design is not only about making something look modern. It is also about understanding people, place, climate, and daily behaviour. Our theme was related to urban futures, so we needed to think about city life and public needs.
Week 2: I learned how to turn a general social issue into a design direction. Our group started discussing public convenience, waste, charging problems, and weather comfort in public spaces. This helped us connect social observation with design ideas.
Week 3: We developed three early proposals and presented them as a group. From this stage, I understood that each idea needs a clear target user, a practical function, and a reason why it should exist in that location.
Week 4: This week focused more on field study and data collection. I learned that observation, site photos, and questionnaire results are useful because they show what users really need, instead of what we only imagine.
Week 5: We started to connect research with site response. I learned that a public design should match how people move, stay, wait, rest, and use their phones in a real place, especially in a tropical city environment.
Week 6: Our group developed the chosen idea into a one-stop service hub. I learned that a final concept becomes stronger when it combines several simple needs together, such as charging, seating, shade, and lighting.
Week 7: In the final stage, I focused more on visual communication. I used Blender to model and render the design, and I learned how realistic environment images can help explain scale, material feeling, and the relationship between the design and the site.
INSTRUCTIONS
For this project, our group needed to respond to the theme of Designing Urban Futures. We first developed different proposal ideas, then selected one direction after tutor feedback. After that, we carried out site-based research connected to KLCC Park and used observation and survey results to improve the proposal. In the last stage, we developed the idea into a final design with clearer function, site response, and visual presentation.
The work needed to show not only a creative idea, but also a realistic understanding of users and place. Because of this, our group had to think about comfort, climate, movement, charging needs, and how the design could fit the park without looking too separate from the environment.
TASK 1: PROPOSAL (WEEK 1 - WEEK 3)
Theme Interpretation
Our project theme was “Designing Urban Futures”. My group understood this theme as an opportunity to improve daily public life in a city through practical and sustainable design. We focused on public spaces because many people use them every day, including local residents, students, office workers, and tourists. In these spaces, comfort and convenience often affect how long people stay and how they feel about the city.
At the beginning, our group discussed several urban problems. We noticed that public spaces can become dirty, that people often need to charge their devices when they are outside for a long time, and that tropical weather creates discomfort in places such as parks and bus stops. From this discussion, we developed three different proposal directions.
Option 1: Street Cleaning Robot
This idea focused on litter in public areas. The robot would help clean small waste more efficiently and support cleaner public space management.
Option 2: Urban Micro-Charging Carpet
This idea proposed a smart floor-based system that could harvest energy and support convenient charging in busy public areas.
Option 3: Multi-functional Smart Bus Stop
This idea focused on daily comfort by combining shelter, cooling, and public facilities in one bus stop design.
After presenting these three options, our group received feedback and decided to continue with Option 2. This direction was stronger because it could be placed in a real public park and further expanded into a more complete service solution. I think this was an important turning point in the project. It helped us move from a broad idea into a more focused and realistic design path.
At this stage, my role was to join the group discussion and proposal development. Even though I was not the main person drawing the first concept sketches, I participated in the discussion and idea selection together with my group members.
TASK 2: FIELD STUDY DATA COLLECTION (WEEK 4 - WEEK 5)
For Task 2, our group developed the Urban Micro-Charging Carpet into a more complete public service idea for park visitors. The selected site was KLCC Park. This site made sense because it is busy, open, highly visible, and used by different kinds of people. There are tourists taking photos, people waiting near the lake, families, and visitors who stay for long periods, especially around activity and performance areas.
From the images shared in our group chat, I noticed several things. First, the park has attractive open views and strong visual connection to the surrounding city skyline, so it is a place where people naturally stop to look, rest, and take pictures. Second, some areas have shade and seating, but the facilities still look basic and not enough for visitors who stay a long time. Third, the open paths and gathering areas make weather comfort very important. In hot weather, visitors need shade and rest. During sudden rain, they also need protection.
Another point I noticed from the group materials is that people in the park are often using their phones. They use them for taking photos, messaging, navigation, and checking information. This made our chosen direction more convincing, because battery use is closely connected to how visitors experience the park.
The questionnaire also gave useful support to our design direction. It showed that phone battery anxiety was a real issue for some visitors, and this matched our idea of adding a charging-related public service. After reviewing the photos and charts, I felt that a charging design alone was still not enough. A stronger solution should also include seating, comfort, and simple support for longer stays in the park.
Although I did not attend the site visit in person, Task 2 still helped me understand how observation and data can guide design decisions. It also showed me that group collaboration is very important when one member cannot be physically present.
TASK 3: FINAL PROJECT & PORTFOLIO (WEEK 6 - WEEK 7)
In the final stage, our group developed the proposal into a one-stop urban service node near the performance area by Symphony Lake in KLCC Park. The design direction became more complete: instead of only offering charging, it also responded to waiting, resting, lighting, and weather protection. This made the project more suitable for real public use.
Based on the group analysis, active areas near the lake and photo spots were more suitable because visitors tend to stop there for longer periods. This is important because people are more likely to notice and use a charging-and-rest facility when they are not only walking through the space quickly. The final site choice also matched the need for a design that supports both short rest and longer waiting time.
My personal contribution in Task 3: I was responsible for 3D modeling and rendering in Blender. The two images below show my own work based on the final group concept. I used Blender to build the structure, seating, canopy, vertical panel, and planting area, then rendered them into the site image to make the final proposal clearer and more realistic.
In my renderings, I tried to show a structure that feels light, simple, and suitable for a park environment. The canopy creates shade and rain protection. The seating gives visitors a place to stop and stay. The vertical panel can work as a visual marker and support integrated functions. I also added planting so that the design feels softer and more connected to the landscape, instead of looking like a heavy technical object placed in the park.
I think this stage was the most meaningful for me because it connected design thinking with visual communication. Before rendering, the project was mainly an idea and a layout. After modeling and rendering, the design became easier to understand in terms of scale, atmosphere, and public use. It also helped me show my own contribution more clearly within the group project.
FEEDBACK
Week 1 - Week 3
Specific feedback: After we presented the three ideas, we were advised to continue with Idea 2, the Urban Micro-Charging Carpet. We were also told that the project should not stop at only a charging carpet. It needed a clearer target audience, a real location, and a more complete solution that could support park visitors better.
General feedback: A good urban future proposal should solve a real public problem instead of only looking futuristic. The design should be connected to actual user behaviour and the environment where it will be used.
Week 4 - Week 5
Specific feedback: Our group needed to show stronger site logic. This means we had to explain why KLCC Park was chosen, where the design should be placed, and what kind of visitors would use it most. The design also needed to respond to the tropical weather and the park experience.
General feedback: Public design should consider comfort, maintenance, and clarity of use. A design can be simple, but it still needs to be practical and easy for people to understand.
Week 6 - Week 7
Specific feedback: In the final stage, the visuals and portfolio needed to communicate the concept clearly. The final outcome should show how the service node fits the site, what functions it includes, and how it improves the user experience.
General feedback: The final presentation should not only show the final object. It should also show the design thinking process from idea, research, and site response to final development.
REFLECTIONS
Experience
This project gave me a clearer understanding of how a group idea becomes a final design. In the early stage, I experienced the challenge of choosing the best direction from several different proposals. Later, I also experienced a real difficulty in the project because I could not join the site visit due to an allergic reaction. Even though I felt disappointed, I still tried to stay involved by reading our group chat carefully, reviewing the shared photos, and following the research results. In the final stage, using Blender to build and render the design was the part where I felt most confident and useful to the team.
Observations
From this project, I observed that public design becomes stronger when it responds to daily behaviour instead of abstract ideas. In our case, charging needs alone were not enough to create a strong concept. The design became better when it also considered seating, waiting, weather protection, and the visual character of the place. I also observed that group work needs flexibility. Even when one member cannot join every activity physically, the process can still continue if communication is clear and shared materials are organised well.
Findings
My main finding is that simple public needs can lead to a meaningful design if they are combined in the right way. A charging point becomes more valuable when it is placed where people already stop, rest, and use their phones. I also found that rendering is not only for making a design look attractive. It is also a way to test how the design fits the site and how people may understand it. This project helped me improve both my teamwork awareness and my confidence in visualising a concept in 3D.
FURTHER READING
1. KLCC Park Official Information
This source helped me understand the park as a real public place with amenities, paths, shelters, and visitor activities. It was useful for thinking about how a small service node could fit into an already active urban park.
2. Public Spaces and Human Use
This reading reminded me that public space design should support meeting, comfort, flexibility, and human scale. It was relevant to our final idea because our project was not only about technology, but also about how people stay in a place.
3. Design of Kinetic-Energy Harvesting Floors
This source was useful because our early idea discussed energy-generating flooring. Reading about this topic helped me understand that such systems are possible, but they also need careful thinking about function, efficiency, and real public use.
评论
发表评论