Session 3: Program Discussions and Sketch Modelling

Friday we held a new workshop with the core group. The task was to identify main functions and parts of the physical design of the stadium. Our friend and fellow student Pasi and our professor Hans Skotte are visiting, giving us a great opportunity to get objective feedback to our methods and process.


We started by splitting into groups of 4-5 people. We asked for ideas and suggestions to what would be natural to have at the stadium. Each group had at least one footballer, one boy and one girl student from Rwenzori High.This way we ensured a wider perspective and exchange of values and ideas from different standpoints.


After some time we gathered around a big sheet of paper, and asked everyone to state one important feature they wanted at the field. This was noted in a thought-chart, not in list-form to prevent the usual rigid and “result oriented” answers.

This was more difficult that imagined. We came quite fast into a line of “stating-personal-items” for the visitors coming to the field. More focus was given to footballboots, referee whistles and scoreboards than the physical structures we were aiming for.


As an attempt to stop this we tried to change the strategy to focus on what the needs of the different kinds of visitors could be and what the differences between them are. What do players need that visitors don´t? What are the similarities between the referee´s and the manager´s needs? The change of strategy didn´t seem to help, and we felt somewhat frustrated and demoralized.


The solution was a ten minute break and to proceed to the next task: Sketch-modelling!


We brought cardboard, tape and knives and introduced the idea of building small scale examples of the structures identified earlier. It was slow in the start, mostly because it is a extremely foreign way of working and thinking, but also because the participants were afraid to do something wrong or that they weren´t able to do it good enough.


We had to do some explanation and showing examples of how cardboard can be folded and cut to make shapes, but when they picked up the general idea it all came to life. The groups all worked enthusiasticly and concentrated for a long time. Even the arrival of food from Mama Juliet couldn´t brake the trance of model-building. “We just need 15 more mintues”. It was a great comfort to see the workshop evolving on its own, and we feel motivated by their efforts.










The models were put onto three maps we had prepared, based on the measurements from the last workshop, and the groups presented their ideas and discussions to the rest. To promote more discussions, we asked some questions on the differences between the three group´s suggestions. As an example there were two different entrances on opposite sides of the field. When asked about this the groups had to think and argue to promote their own choices.






The best thing for us was that they started discussing amongst themselves, not only defending their design to us. We identified the fact that two solutions can have equally valid arguments, and that one can “find” information hidden in the models and inside the heads of each other.


Some of the arguments even led to the important discussion on how can we make sure the structures are usable to other activities and other users as well. Because the resources are so limited, we need to make sure our project is benefitting more people in the communty. If the canteen is placed close to the school it can be used for all the students in the daytime and for bystanders during games in the evening and the weekends. This issue was pushed on by prof. Skotte, and we will try to bring it further in the upcoming workshops.



Andreas