I chose to approach this task with a (pseudo)scientific angle. Rather than answering this task with my own experience, I decided to let the populance of my home city have a say. Just as people sometimes vote with their feet, in this case, I allowed them to vote with their butts - and then I (referred to henceforth as "the author") analyzed the info. And so we begin:

Terms to be defined:

Upon examining the instructions for this task, the author found that the following four key words needed to be defined for the purposes of my study:

SIT: To rest one's body on a surface, generally flat, with one's weight placed primarily on one's rear-end, buttox, derriere, etc. Placing weight on folded legs was also considered acceptable, as was using one or both hands for additional support. Lying on one's back or stomach does not count as sitting, though lying on one's side does. Placing weight on one's feet in any significant way invalidates the sitting, unless the knees are bent such that the butt is in contact with the surface.

FLOOR: For the purposes of this study, floor is defined as any surface that is stationary (i.e. not a subway, bus, etc) and is habitually used for walking on. This surface might be found indoors or outdoors, and might be made of wood, stone, concrete, carpeting, grass, or other materials. Sitting on a thin, flat covering placed on the floor surface was also counted as sitting on the floor for this study. Such a covering was deemed acceptable if it did not significantly change the elevation or shape of the surface. Changing the softness or moisture level was deemed acceptable.

HERE: A finite list of locations found in Manhattan, New York City during a 16-day period from June 22nd through July 8th

GOOD: This, of course, was the most difficult term to define. This value was calculated based on a variety of measures. All sites were evaluated based on the following criteria:

- Number of floor sitters
- Percent of floor sitters
- Concentration of floor sitters

Due to the data collection method of taking photographs of small areas, it was not always possible to use all measures. Though an attempt was made to assign numerical values to each criterion, the author of the study found that it was more prudent in this case to use more subjective values:

For number of floor sitters: level of "goodness" for sitting on the floor here:

- 0-10 sitters: bad
- 11-25 sitters: okay
- 26 - 100 sitters: good
- 101 - 500 sitters: very good
- 501 - 1000 sitters: extremely good
- 1000 - 10,000 sitters: amazingly good
- 10,000+ sitters: unbelievably good/incredible

For percent of floor sitters:

- 0-10% sitters: bad
- 11-25% sitters: okay
- 26-50% sitters: somewhat good
- 51% - 75% sitters: pretty good
- 76% - 90% sitters: very good
- 91% - 100%: incredibly good

For concentration, a comparative scale was used. As there were seven locations studied, the locations were ranked by level of concentration and given a score of bad, okay, somewhat good, good, pretty good, very good, amazingly good. Some locations tied, so some of the scores were not used.

What follows is a summary of the study and findings.

HYPOTHESIS: The author guessed, based on prior experience, which locations might be considered "good" for sitting on the floor. Six of these seven locations were considered likely candidates. The best locations were likely to be time-based as well as space-based (i.e. it's good to sit on the floor here NOW), as a result of live performances.

PRIOR RESEARCH: THe author used personal experience to determine what locations might be good for sitting on the floor, with a particular focus on prior summer experiences in New York City

METHOD: The author used photographic documentation to determine the level of goodness in regard to sitting on the floor in seven locations. In some locations, the author also sat on the floor (as will be evident from the angle of the photos) in order to better understand and enjoy the experience.

FIndings: (further findings can be viewed in the proof)

Location #1: Contol
Rating: Bad
Street Fair, Upper West Side, Manhattan, 6/22/08
This location was used to show that, while New Yorkers do sit on the floor a lot, they do not sit just anywhere. One might think that the following location, a carpet vendor's stall at a street fair, might be a rather inviting place to sit, but the populance voted with its butt, and the outcome was clear. It is most definitely bad to sit on the floor here.


Location #2: The Line
Central Park, Manhattan, 6/22/08
Rating: Good
These folks sat through a summer shower - as can be clearly seen from the large number of ponchos and umbrellas - so this must be a rather worthwhile place to sit on the floor.


Further exploration revealed why:


It was determined that this was a "good" place to sit on the floor, but no better. It was good because, from author estimates, roughly 200 people were lined up here for many hours. On the other hand, it was no more than good because about half of them chose to either sit on surfaces other than the floor (i.e. chairs) or to stand rather than sit. The rain may have been a factor in downgrading the goodness level of this location.

Location #3: The bookstore
Barnes and Noble, Upper West Side, Manhattan: second floor 6/22/08
Rating: Good
This was a difficult location to photograph, as it was the only location chosen that was a)indoors and b) private property. Conveniently, the author managed to miss yet another rainstorm while inside this store - but the dark sky outside lowered the light level considerably, and the fear of getting caught while using a flash led to flashless, hastily snapped, blurry photos. Still, the evidence is there.


Note that, while the concentration of floor sitters is rather low, this may be a part of the appeal for these floor sitters, as the percentage is rather high, especailly when only other sitters are considered. Note, in particular, this entire set of nearly empty chairs - and this woman, sitting in plain view of them.


The floor was obviously chosen over other, more conventional options.

As such, this location rates a "good" as well.

Location #4: The concert
Central Park, Manahttan 6/22/08
Rating: Okay

The late hour and dim lighting made for another set of poor photography. Out of the many concertgoers, however, this was the only group of any significant size found to be sitting on the floor.


The majority of concertgoers were standing or sitting in bleachers. There was, however, this group, and so the rating is "okay" rather than "bad."

Location #5: The Philharmonic
Central Park: Great Lawn, Manhattan 6/24/08
Rating: Amazingly Good and then some

The police estimate, according to the New York Times, was 61,000 people. The photos cannot even begin to capture it, but here they are.


Note how there are a few hold-outs who do not sit on the floor, but the vast majority, perhaps 99%, perhaps more, do, in fact, sit on the floor.


This is by far and away the grand prize winner. Plus, it was a rather good concert. It ended with the NY Philharmonic playing Purple Haze. Oh, and fireworks.

Location #6: The Steps
Union Square Park, Manhattan 6/26/08
Rating: Pretty Good

Though it was hard to judge percentages with so many people entering and leaving the area, those who stayed put were sitting on the floor in a fairly concentrated row. What is most notable about this location is that these people were not waiting for any special event. This earned the location a relatively unscientific bonus point or two, and a slightly improved rating.



Location #7: Shakespeare on the Run
Battery Park, Manhattan 7/8/08
Rating: Very Good

This location was actually a series of locations, as the actors performing Macbeth (for free!) switched locations every few scenes and the audience had to follow, sometimes at a run. This performance was done by New York Classical Theater, which also does two performances in Central Park, one of which should have been Location #8, but the author attended that one without a camera. The performance in Central Park seems to be an even better location to sit on the floor. However, this one seems to have attracted a rather concentrated group of floor sitters, even if the percentage does not seem to rise much past 50%. Note that the actual percentage varies by location, and that significantly more than 50% of audience members probably sat for at least one scene - just not for all of them.




The author of this study plans to continue this research as the summer progresses, and further data may be added.

Analysis: New York City, as a whole, has many wonderful places to sit on the floor in the summer. Though many of these places are time-specific, some are just, in general, good places to sit. Also interesting to note is that all of these places were free of charge to enter - though one location was actually a line to acquire tickets to sit somewhere else - in theater seats for Shakespeare in the Park.

The author also enjoyed sitting on the floor herself in a number of these locations. Especially the Great Lawn for the Philharmonic.