Our group framed our social context by focusing on three specific contexts that relate to our project. To this end, Public Space, Public Art, and Town-Gown Relationships holistically represent how a footbridge could both address the disconnect between Lafayette and Easton and facilitate the identity of the KSAT. As a result, these social contexts coalesce to form a coherent understanding of the social context of a footbridge on the KSAT.

Public Space

The first component of the footbridge feasibility project involves the element of public space. Historically, public space in an urban environment has been “[related] to the social, political, and physical health of urban residents and communities” (Stanley, 2012 1090). Public space can manifest itself in a city in a multitude of ways: food production areas, parks and gardens, recreational space, plazas, streets, transport facilities, and incidental space. As a whole, any of these spaces can function as a public space, and in turn can benefit social interactions, strengthen a democracy, and encourage a healthier mindset (Stanley, 2012 1090).

In particular, the KSAT represents a unique intersection of parks and recreational spaces. Parks became popular in 19th century North America “due to reformist movements aimed at improving the cultural refinement or physical health of city residents” (Stanley, 2012 1098). With the KSAT’s inclusion of a dog park and its function to passively improve the physical health of city residents, the KSAT can be categorized as a park. Conversely, due to the same passive space for exercise, the KSAT can equally be counted as a recreational space, especially as the trail primarily functions as a running and walking path for its users. Through this lens, the KSAT fits into a larger history of public space in urban environments. Specifically, a footbridge could continue this holistic history of parks and recreational spaces by extending the trail itself, both in its functionality and its expansion of a recreational space.

To this end, the KSAT represents public space in the urban environment of downtown Easton. In looking at urban public spaces in particular, a comparative study of community gardens in NYC concluded that “in order [for public spaces] to develop and flourish, such spaces necessitate a social group that shares high levels of participation, control and sense of ownership (psychological ownership) over its local-material space” (Eizenberg, 2012 107). Subsequently, our analysis of the footbridge will interact with these three aspects: participation, control and psychological ownership.

In terms of participation, Eizenberg defines the term as “the direct involvement of residents in designing, constructing or managing their living environment” (2012, 107). Within the scope of the footbridge, the residents refers to Eastonians and the Lafayette community. As a result, in order to have a successful urban public space, a footbridge would combine the efforts of both communities. To this end, the designing of the footbridge should involve both art professors and students, civil engineering professors and students, as well as Eastonian artists and engineers. This combination of efforts will equally serve to reinforce the metaphorical meaning of a bridge, so as to connect the two communities.

The second point, control, gestures to the ability of community members to “[develop] attachment to, identification with, and meaning of place” (Eizenberg, 2012 107). From our perspective, the KSAT Board epitomizes the control that Eizenberg references. This board, comprised of both Easton and Lafayette community members, makes decisions about the KSAT with both entities in mind. As a result, the KSAT Board provides a opportune platform for decision making. In other words, in the hands of the KSAT Board, this footbridge will have a higher chance of being successful as it allows both groups to wield equal control over this shared public space.

The last element of public space that Eizenberg discusses revolves around psychological ownership. While the previous two components are relatively quantifiable metrics, this final factor is more subjective and enigmatic. Furthermore, due to its gravity, this last element stands as the crux of a successful public space. As Eizenberg elaborates, psychological ownership leads “to the effect that [the object] is perceived to be part of the extended self” (2012 107). This concept implies a level of responsibility towards this object, a metric much more difficult to gauge. Though psychological ownership does not necessarily involve the physical ownership of an item, if students (or the Lafayette community) plays a role in the creation or design of the footbridge, this could be a unique way to leverage psychological control. Eizenberg equally recommends that the regulation and imagination of a public space is handled democratically in order for communities to feel psychological ownership for a space. Conveniently, the KSAT Board provides a limited democratic format for decision making over the trail. Subsequently, utilizing as much of the Easton and Lafayette community would promote a democratic process, which would in turn provide a platform for psychological ownership for the different groups.

However, the KSAT has already had to address many of the issues of public space, as the KSAT has been in existence for several years. As a result, the trail already provides opportunity for participation, with a musical playground and a dog park. Similarly, the KSAT Board provides opportunity for control over the future of the trail in a distinctly democratic and inclusive format. Last, the trail has increasingly been working on augmenting Eastonian’s and Lafayette Students’ feelings of psychological ownership through collaborative projects between the city and the school. These factors reinforce the KSAT Board’s unique ability to proctor and manage a public space that involves multiple stakeholders.

Public Art

The role public art plays in the construction of civic spaces has a long history in the United States. At the height of the Great Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) worked tirelessly on efforts to mitigate the crippling unemployment rates of pre-World War II America. As the turmoil of the U.S worker continued to fester, FDR established hundreds of social programs in order to help fill the empty pockets of unemployed Americans. While this may have effectively put a Band-Aid on the struggles of the mainstream laborer, non-traditional workers, such as artists, continued to suffer from the economic conditions of the times. In late 1933, FDR’s secretary of commerce, Harry Hopkins, sought to put an end to the literal starving artist and established the Public Works of Art Project (PWAP) (Adler, 2009). From the ashes of the Great Depression, public art was born.

For this project, the historical context of public art acts as both an anecdote and an integral component of a potential footbridge. The big picture of the PWAP was to “give work to artists by arranging to have competent representatives of the profession embellish public buildings” (Adler, 2009). In other words, the PWAP’s purpose was not just to help struggling artists in a time of peak unemployment, but also to grow the connection between the two inherently different professions, art and government. Just as the PWAP created a bond between two previously separated fields, public art in the KSAT has the same potential to bridge the gap between the Lafayette College and Easton Communities.

Despite the conceivable ability for public art to bring communities together, public perception of that art can be complicated. Subsequently, a footbridge must convey meaning and significance to the public, which is far from a simple feat. Specifically, traditional art is created with a focus on the individual artist’s expression, but public art must be created with a focus on the viewer’s perception. For this reason, public art is notoriously controversial. In 1981, an art installation entitled “Tilted Arc” was erected by artist Richard Serra at Federal Plaza in downtown Manhattan. The art piece was viewed as ugly and a nuisance to the public due to the location and was eventually voted to be removed (Bryzgel, 2016). Our group chooses to deliberately emphasize the potential for public art to be publicly condemned due to the fraught history between Lafayette and Easton, which will be explored more both in the following context and in the Political Context. Essentially, this footbridge provides a unique opportunity to metaphorically bridge the two communities through a successful and shared project. As a publicly condemned installation of public art could lead to an unsuccessful project, thereby serving to further divide the two entities, our group emphasizes the careful curation of the aesthetic component of a footbridge.

Subsequently, as our group explored how to avoid public controversy, we endeavored to understand what goes into public opinion on public art. In the book, Public Artopia: Art in Public Space in Question, Martin Zebracki cites five important attributes in public art perception: educational background of the community, the community’s familiarity with public artwork, appropriateness, sociableness, and meaningfulness (Zebracki, 2011). Ideally, if these attributes are taken into consideration with the prospective KSAT footbridge, potential for failure can be minimized. However, while many of Zebracki’s five characteristics of successful public art are easily satisfied within the communities of Easton and Lafayette, some provide distinct challenges, such as the consideration of educational background.

Easton, PA is a widely mixed community when it comes to education. According to the United States Census Bureau, 81.3% of Easton residents 25 years and older have a high school degree or higher, and 17.1% of the same age demographic has a bachelor degree or higher (United States Census Bureau, 2015). While this may seem like an overwhelming majority, this statistic excludes virtually the entire Lafayette College student body. Although the Lafayette student community technically falls under the “high school degree or higher” category (i.e with the majority), the fact that Lafayette students are all pursuing bachelor’s degrees brands the Lafayette Community’s educational background as fundamentally different from the majority of the Easton Community’s. According to Zebracki’s findings, this division in educational experience implies that finding a middle ground of acceptable public art for both communities may come as a challenge. Despite this educational separation, our group sees this component as merely a consideration for the KSAT Board, instead of a firm blockade to the future of such a footbridge project.

Furthermore, the KSAT Board has experience tackling the challenge of public art. In fact, the KSAT has continuously installed art pieces into the trail. Negative opinion pieces about these installations are difficult to find, which would suggest a lack of backlash. Clearly, the KSAT Board has historically implemented publicly appreciated, and therefore successful, art installations. However, the installation of public art in the form of a footbridge slightly complicates the challenge. Though the KSAT has not faced criticism over its art pieces, if they had, the installation could be removed with relative ease. Conversely, the removal of a footbridge is significantly more complicated. To this end, the KSAT Board’s careful curation and design of a footbridge is integral, given the complex history of public art, the relative permanence of a footbridge, and the potential power of a successful shared project between Lafayette and Easton.

Town-Gown Relationship

The role of town-gown relationships have a long history in the United States. Specifically, a town-gown relationship refers to the relationship between a college town and the college or university it houses. Unfortunately, many town-gown relationships have devolved into a parasitic relationship, giving the term a negative connotation. Specifically, due to studies conducted by Stephen Bruning, Shea McGrew, and Mark Cooper, each party is often under the impression that the other is placing themselves before the other; the town feels like the college is prioritizing its own needs over the town’s, and vice versa. As a result, discussions between the college and its town can bristle with uncomfortable or aggressive static (Bruning, McGrew & Cooper, 2006). As a consequence of this discomfort, “many universities have reacted to the difficulties by isolating the university from the surrounding community, in effect eliminating the need to manage the town-gown relationship” (Bruning, McGrew, & Cooper, 2006). Unfortunately, this instinct to isolate only serves to further widen the gap between the two communities.

Despite this pessimistic historical context, the affective distance between Lafayette and Easton is not as divisive as in other cases. For example, though interactions between Lafayette and Easton have not been easy, the college has not self-isolated, as demonstrated by continued faculty and student engagement in the city. Furthermore, back in the 1800s, Eastonian residents founded Lafayette College (The Lafayette Story, 2017). In this way, the relationship between Easton and Lafayette is unique to other colleges, as the school originated from the burgeoning town and each have grown together over the past 200 years.

Though this particular town-gown relationship is not as disparate as other colleges and their communities, the solutions that Bruning, McGrew and Cooper posit are still valid. For example, their research discusses several strategies used by colleges to improve their town-gown relationships. First, their work explores colleges that primarily seek to bring college students into the city. Unfortunately, the research demonstrates a lack of success with this approach (Bruning, McGrew & Cooper, 2006). Instead, Bruning, McGrew and Cooper advise that colleges endeavor to bring the town onto the college’s campus. Through this strategy, residents of the community begin to feel more connected to and involved with the college. As their work posits, “this relationship-building strategy is mutually beneficial” (Bruning, McGrew, & Cooper, 2006), as the residents are gaining a new community and the college is gaining the validation of its community. Thus, our research found that bringing the community to campus creates a more successful town-gown relationship than bringing the campus to the community

After finding these results, we applied this logic to the proposed footbridge. As Jim Toia, chair of the KSAT Board, reflected, the footbridge would primarily serve as an entryway for college students to explore the city by means of the KSAT. In this way, the footbridge would serve mainly as a means to bring the college to the community. However, by framing the footbridge as a conduit between communities, instead of primarily from the college to the community, the footbridge transforms into a permeable membrane between the two entities, allowing for a fusing of the two communities.

To amplify this permeability, our group suggests that this footbridge should endeavor to bring both Lafayette and Easton residents together to this unique shared public space. In order to achieve this goal, we propose that the footbridge includes artistic and educational components in order to engage and unite both communities. To this end, an artistic element would make the bridge a visual landmark, thereby attracting both Lafayette and Easton residents to this shared space. Then, the educational component would ideally feature both the Lafayette and Eastonian communities working in tandem, perhaps through programming between Lafayette students and Easton schools.

Furthermore, the KSAT itself represents a unique space. While Bruning, McGrew and Cooper focus on bringing the community to the campus or the campus to the community, the KSAT brings a new space into contention. Physically, the KSAT is located between two developing areas: between the Bushkill Campus (Lafayette’s project) and the Silk Mill Revitalization Project (Easton’s project). Evidently, the KSAT physically holds a unique position within both communities. Metaphorically, the KSAT equally represents a unique position in both communities, as the KSAT Board involves leaders of both the Lafayette and Easton community. Subsequently, within the history of parasitic town-gown relationships, the KSAT provides an unprecedented opportunity to forge a symbiotic town-gown relationship. As a result, a footbridge represents an opportunity to literally and metaphorically bridge these two communities, as well as build a new foundation for the Lafayette-Easton town-gown relationship.