DAILY RECESS
ZOÉ MONSTREY, GRADUATION PROJECT 2026
The why
This project explores the conditions that make adults play in public space. Not through design that announces itself, but through interventions that complete what is already there - infrastructure that implies movement, waiting, passing through, and nothing more.
Here, play is approached not as leisure or entertainment, but as the visible result of the right conditions. Low barrier, own decision, no signature, competition as trigger.
When these conditions are met, participation happens without being asked. A stranger lifts a child onto their shoulders. A commute becomes a race. The intervention carries within it a logic that the body understands before the mind does.
The spaces
Which urban conditions already hold the potential for play?
In one of the links (01), public space is framed as a key layer of city life, with examples ranging from streets, markets, community centres, parks, squares, playgrounds, temples, forts, libraries, museums, beaches, and restaurants.
The same source also argues that cities benefit from having a substantial share of their area dedicated to public space (it mentions 30%), because access to shared spaces affects mental and physical health.
That benefit depends on public space being genuinely accessible, safe, and inclusive, since exclusion (including gender-based exclusion) changes who can participate and who feels welcome.
So for this project, “public” is not just a location category, it is a condition: a space only functions as public space when people can enter, linger, and participate without fear, friction, or being singled out..
-
text
Gehl divides public space activity into three types:
1. necessary (you have to be there anyway),
2. optional (you choose to linger because the place invites it), and
3. social (which happens spontaneously when the first two are working well).
The better a space, the more optional activity happens — and social activity follows naturally from that. His core argument is that public life should be designed for first, before buildings, because the space between buildings is where actual human experience takes place.
text
The station is an optional activity inserted into a necessary one. People are already there — waiting, pausing, passing through. That's the necessary activity. The station converts that into optional activity: you don't have to engage, but the invitation is there. And if it works, the traces left behind create the conditions for social activity — not conversation necessarily, but the quiet awareness that others were here too.
Gehl's point that social activity is the fruit of good optional activity is what I’m designing toward, not to engineer social interaction directly. But just to make the optional layer possible, and letting the social layer emerge on its own.
His other line is worth holding onto: "first life, then spaces, then buildings — the other way around never works."
-> The station starts with life — with the person already there — and works outward from that.
- (school) hallways
- elevators
- smoking areas
- office spaces
- gp waiting room
- café corners
- library corridors
Whyte spent years observing why some urban spaces attract people and others stay empty.
relevant to where to place the station, but do actual research before deciding
- Saving the Planet One Tiny Public Space at a Time | Carmella Cucuzzella | TEDxConcordia (https://youtu.be/1obVVVjtiIc?si=YwiFHKyGLmDfAGOR)
- Ice Watch (https://weather.com/news/climate/news/greenland-paris-artist-ice-installation)
- Activating Public Spaces | Mara Holt Skov | TEDxTwinFalls (https://youtu.be/5yB7xkiR5ts?si=pEpDntlQiUtYUWry)
- U Is for Urbanism (https://open.spotify.com/episode/5Px5CvBtLDR6OqOmsgep6S?si=EIPDZQkgRJyGrc6bvpYSNg)
- Brain Games: Conformity Waiting Room (https://youtu.be/X6kWygqR6OqOmsgep6S?si=zDImyORHYtpPow0T)
- The Social Dilemma (https://www.netflix.com/us/title/81254224?s=i&trkid=296543911&vlang=en&trg=cp)
- The Psychology of Waiting (Testing with Marie) (http://www.testingwithmarie.com/posts/20230206-the-psychology-of-waiting/)
- The Psychology of Waiting Lines (David Maister), (https://davidmaister.com/articles/1/52/)
- youtube.com — search "Social Life of Small Urban Spaces Whyte"
- pps.org/article/jgehl
The behaviour
What does participation look like when it happens on its own?
How people engage (what blocks participation)
In public “in-between” spaces, people often remain passive. This happens most when waiting feels uncertain, or when the social atmosphere makes it risky to stand out. In these moments, doing nothing can feel like the safest option, because it avoids drawing attention and avoids making a “wrong” move in front of others. In “dead zones” like waiting rooms or corridors, behaviour is shaped less by personal interest and more by the social temperature of the space: if nobody acts, inaction quickly becomes the norm.
This is visible in the Brain Games “Conformity Waiting Room” experiment, where people rapidly align their behaviour with whatever the group appears to accept, even when the action itself is arbitrary. The key point is not the content of the activity, but the way social proof changes what feels acceptable. People scan others to decide what is normal, and they often copy that norm to protect themselves from embarrassment or exclusion.
What increases engagement (conditions for participation)
Engagement increases when an intervention is immediately doable and feels self-chosen, rather than like a task imposed by an institution. Participation becomes more likely when the first step is obvious, small, and low-stakes. Interactive interventions work well when they translate an abstract idea into something tangible and shareable, and when they fit the existing rhythm of a place, such as a bus stop, a library corner, or a school hallway.
Because people mirror what others do, one visible action can lower the threshold for the next person. A making station can use this social dynamic by offering a simple entry point, clear prompts, and an easy way to “leave a trace” that accumulates over time. That accumulation makes participation feel meaningful without demanding long commitment. This also links to research on waiting: active waiting (doing something) feels shorter and more comfortable than passive waiting (having no control). A small optional activity can shift the atmosphere from anxious and self-conscious waiting to absorbed, socially “safe” participation. In The Social Dilemma, the same mechanism of social approval is shown in online spaces, where systems reward attention and validation, accelerating imitation and conformity.
Conclusion
People engage in public making interventions when participation feels safe, optional, and instantly understandable. Designing for low-stakes first steps, clear prompts, and visible traces can transform passive “in-between” spaces into places where one person’s action creates permission for others to join.
title
text
title
text
Conclusion
text
text
Title
Waiting feels shorter when people are doing something, and it feels longer when people are forced to wait with no control over the timing. In other words: active waiting happens when someone is engaged in an activity and can lose track of time, while passive waiting happens when someone is not engaged and has no control over how long it will take.The Psychology of Waiting
In waiting rooms, a simple unrelated activity can be used deliberately to distract people from what is coming next, because anticipation and anxiety can make a wait feel longer.
The Psychology of Waiting Lines > Managing article by David Maister
How the wait is communicated matters too: uncertain waits feel longer than known, finite waits, and unexplained waits feel longer than explained waits.
The Psychology of Waiting Lines > Managing article by David Maister
Conclusion
This connects directly to the making station idea: if the station gives people something optional and absorbing to do, it can shift a “dead zone” into active waiting without needing to fully control the waiting time.
text
Conclusion
text
- Passive Waiting vs. Active Waiting(https://www.thehumandesignsystem.com/blog/2024/1/12/the-art-of-active-waiting-inquiry)
- (https://www.crossway.org/articles/4-strategies-to-help-you-wait-better/?srsltid=AfmBOoquiUVfRkcOOMywriOPhVPjgT-5eGo5zMh9jYrvxfeVntF9b2xS)
- (https://davidmaister.com/articles/1/52/)
- (https://ashleylaurendesignstudio.com/heart/passive-waiting-vs-active-waiting/)
- (https://www.testingwithmarie.com/posts/20230206-the-psychology-of-waiting/)
The reference world
What existing work informed the logic of this project?
Sticker café Vietnam → Graffiti tagging connection — currently scattered across entries, pull it together here
I want it to feel interesting, approachable, and easy to engage with at a glance. Things that seem to matter are physical clarity and friendliness: a format that is comfortable to hold and adapt (like Field Notes: size, weight, durability, and built-in practical details)Why are Field Notes SO Addicting???, plus clear visual rules in the environment (like art markets that show fixed prices and simple steps so people can decide quickly and feel safe approaching)ART FESTIVAL MISTAKES 80% of Artists make.. I should treat the station like a well-designed “invitation” rather than a project explanation: readable from a distance, immediately understandable, and low-pressure to try. I also want to connect this to why people leave traces in public anyway (stickers, tags, notes): it can be a small way to belong to something bigger and to quietly influence the next person who passes by.
- Frame as research for Project Two ("leave a trace" in public space):
- Motivation: low-effort authorship in a shared environment. People leave marks to feel seen, to belong, or to signal “I was here.”
- Social rules: sticker culture has informal norms, like where it is acceptable, what counts as vandalism, and how people respond to existing marks.
- Accumulation: one sticker invites the next. The surface becomes an evolving archive and a conversation over time.
- Anonymity + identity: participants can stay anonymous while still expressing taste, humor, politics, or community.
- Audience: not just the maker. The trace is also for passersby, future visitors, and other contributors.
- Material + permission: what changes when the trace is removable, approved, or designed for this purpose.
- Research questions to carry into the station:
- What makes someone choose to contribute instead of only look.
- What prompts feel like an invitation rather than an obligation.
- How the station can support layering without becoming visual noise.
- Sticker café in Vietnam: “leave a trace” → feeling part of something bigger, and maybe influencing someone else. See pictures:
collective collage, letter writing simplified
traces from others: Paint
take away: I can use this table to paint on, I can make it dirtierararchive of whatever
focussed on city centre Eindhoven
collaborative
temporary collage, many half torn off stickers
many van abbe free entrance stickers on poles nearby the Van Abbe Museum
text
text
text
text
Tryouts
What happened when the conditions were tested?
FIRST TRYOUT
Conclusion
What it means:
The prompt gave people permission to start, but once they started, they stopped following the rules. (exactly what I want).
The instruction was a doorway, not a rule. People walked through it and then made it their own.
-> confirms that my audience doesn't need to be told what to make, they just need a reason to begin.
What it changes:
The prompt doesn't need to be a specific instruction, can just be opener/invite.
example; "Add a circle" worked not because circles are interesting, but because it was specific enough to feel doable and open enough to interpret freely.
-> keep testing that balance
What to test next based on conclusion:
Try a more open prompt and see if people still start.
example: "add something small" or just "add."
(Does the lack of specificity freeze people, or does the previous traces from others give them enough confidence to jump in?)
-> This is where the accumulation becomes functional — the marks already on the page tell the next person it's okay, others did it too. That's the social permission layer working in real time.
One thing to hold onto:
The shapes people drew that weren't circles — those are your project working. That's the moment the station stopped being yours and started being theirs.
SECOND TRYOUT
Conclusion
What it means:
text
What it changes:
text
What to test next based on conclusion:
text
One thing to hold onto:
text
THIRD TRYOUT
hang this sticker somewhere - stickers
Conclusion
What it means:
text
What it changes:
text
What to test next based on conclusion:
text
One thing to hold onto:
text
FOURTH TRYOUT
Solve maze - poster
Conclusion
What it means:
text
What it changes:
text
What to test next based on conclusion:
text
One thing to hold onto:
text
FIFTH TRYOUT
place sticker as high as possible
hung for: 1 day
placed on: billboard, pole studio marc, playground,
Conclusion
What it means:
text
What it changes:
text
What to test next based on conclusion:
text
One thing to hold onto:
text
Final tryout
The one that proves the methodology- treated differently, more detailed.
People are curious, people engage
people interacted, others didn’t, others came back to interact
Zoé Monstrey
The book
An archive of the conditions that worked.
Low-barrier interventions that invite a small, physical, pointless action.
Adults — roughly 20 to 60
Public spaces where people are already passing in-between moments of a day.
The in between moments while going from point A to B.
About-the information page
Daily recess - a graduation project by Zoé Monstrey, Design Academy Eindhoven, 2026
The outcome is a series of interventions and a book.
Through documented tryouts and placed interventions, the project maps what happened when the conditions were right: what people did, how long it lasted, what it looked like the morning after. The book is an archive of these moments, organised around the conditions that produced them. By applying this logic to existing urban infrastructure, play becomes tangible in an immediate way. Not as something handed to you, but as something you discovered entirely on your own.
Lecture on publishing as archiving
to archiving as publishing.
Bio
Mariana Lanari is an artist, researcher and data scientist with a background in political science, currently pursuing a PhD at the University of Amsterdam. Her research combines computational ontology with performance art to propose new ways of reading, and mediation between physical and digital collections in cultural libraries and archives.
Remco van Bladel runs a multidisciplinary design studio in Amsterdam that specialises in book design, publishing platforms, curatorial projects, type design and interactive applications. He is also a lecturer in typography at Graphic Design Arnhem (ArtEZ University of the Arts).
Notes on lecture:
- Nadd: website
- https://www.bakonline.org/
- https://dutchdesigndaily.com/stories/new-website-nadd/
- https://raveculture.biblio-graph.org/public/
- https://www.kb.nl/
Questions:
- what makes you decide what gets archived?→ Time, ethics. Basically there’s no archive without the archiver, then it remains a box.
- What will hapen with the archives when you aren’t here anymore? → Its’s supposed to last forever, but since they’re bombing data centrew in uae it will depend. Most of the websites I made in 2000-2010 most of those are already gone! So maybe we need to put them in print. We don’t have to keep everything but it’s a matter for the future…
- What questions are you asking yourself when you work with storing the data? → image needs to live somewhere, but data is extremely light. There’s levels of compression that can be implemented, its a form or writing and recording « what is this collection in form of text »? So we can put it even in a tiny memory stick. in that way having a book is easier bv you don’t need anything else, even pdf. If the website/… fails you have the data in a pdf or usb.
- We use cloud for sharing and our own small data backup storage for keeping data stored
- How to keep website so quick even though there’s so many visuals?
Conclusion
From the lecture: archiving is an active, ethical choice by an “archiver,” so to make it last and stay accessible you should design your archive as a lightweight, readable structure with a durable backup (print, PDF, USB) rather than relying on a website alone;(what I can learn + apply to my project)
This lecture reframed archiving as an active, authored design decision: there is no neutral archive, because what gets kept, how it is described, and what gets excluded is shaped by time, ethics, and the person building it. For my graduation work, this means the process log is not “extra documentation”, but part of the project itself: a designed infrastructure that makes my practice readable to others.
To apply this:
- Decide what deserves to become “the archive”. Define simple criteria (what counts as a trace, what is too private, what is noise).
- Publish through structure, not volume. Images are heavy, but meaning can be light: short captions, tags, and consistent naming can carry the story.
- Design for failure and longevity. Websites disappear, so I should plan outputs that survive platform changes: a PDF export, a printed booklet, and a local backup.
- Make the archive accessible. Treat the log like a designed reading experience: clear entry points, sequences, and a rhythm that invites someone in.
If my project is about making and leaving traces (both in objects and in public space), then building a deliberate archive becomes a parallel gesture: it turns fleeting moments of making into a shared memory that can travel, be revisited, and outlast the moment.
- Lecture series Design Academy Eindhoven, date?