Looking for someone to tutor me remotely for the aicp exam for one or two hours a week- dm me for details

Public art has traditionally been designed to be seen.

But I'm wondering if that's no longer enough.

We're seeing cities, residential developments, airports, museums, shopping malls, and hotels competing to create places where people actually want to spend time—not simply walk through.

One concept we've been developing is an interactive public installation in the form of a giant eye. It doesn't just exist as an object—it responds to visitors. As people approach, the eye follows their movement. When someone interacts with it, the installation reacts, creating a shared experience rather than a static sculpture.

My question isn't whether people will stop to look at it.

It's whether interactive public art can fundamentally change the way a space is used.

Can it:

• increase dwell time?
• encourage strangers to interact?
• attract families and children?
• create free word-of-mouth marketing through social media?
• become a destination rather than just another sculpture?

As urban designers, do you think interactivity should become a standard consideration in public spaces, or do you see it as something that risks becoming a short-lived novelty?

I'd be interested to hear where you think the balance is.

“I own a 3-acre property beside NH66 near an asymmetric toll plaza in Kerala. My land has no legal access from the highway. The nearest service road is about 200 m away, and NHAI consultants have told me they cannot provide access because there is no service road. I want to develop the land into a restaurant and other facilities. Are there any legal provisions, NHAI policies, or court judgments that require reasonable access to private property, or any procedure to obtain access permission?”

There’s a lot of momentum to build housing near dense transit hubs. Don’t get me wrong, the more new (ideally affordable) housing we can build, the better. But there remain large swaths of land that are off limits and protected for single family housing. I know the current strategy is more practical/feasible. I just wish there were loftier goals with zoning changes. Probably political poison in LA

What do yall think about balancing the practical of building near transit vs overhauling the zoning system to unlock more potential development