on Townsend, “Open Source Metropolis,” Smart Cities (pp. 115-141)
– In the seventies, Burns acted as a mediator between cable, the ground-breaking technology of the day, and people that wished to appropriate it (pp.117). The community video centers she launched in numerous cities could not have been made possible without the support of local governments and the industry. Townsend uses the term “perfect storm” to describe the synced point in time where technologies and people’s understanding of them become ripe together. Later in the chapter, it is implied that a similar condition is taking place today. How will the contemporary “perfect storm”, supposedly comprised of open source commons, ‘wirelessness’ and democratized electronics affect ‘the ways the city plays itself’ in the words of Gabrys? Are local governments and industry still fit to support the creative process “through which people harness technology to create a system” (pp.118) in the smart city?
– The format and standards of technology emerge as enablers of unplanned ‘idiotic’ applications from the users themselves (such as the microcassete recorder or the beeper of the 70’s, pp.119), yet on the other hand, they also pose important challenges along the way. An example of the latter is the obstacle of ‘walled gardens’ for the mobile web and how Crowley identified e-mail, a technology that was already in place as a workaround (pp.123). In a similar manner, Wi-Fi’s limited scale range was initially tackled with an ingenuous use of simple, already existing tools brought together in unexpected ways (arrays of DIY antennas linked to wireless networks, pp.129). But as technologies become more sophisticated, innovation tends to be in the hands of the ones that have the know-how – the hackers, as the last two examples show. Yet, as the “steep learning curve” of physical computing (pp.136) is being evened out, how are non-engineers empowered to meaningfully disrupt and appropriate the existing smart infrastructure of the city?
on Haque and Fuller, “Urban Versioning System 1.0,” Situated Technologies Pamphlets #2
– To approach the building as an in-progress model of itself opens the floor to the participation of non-designers and directs the discussion towards real-world constraints – two features that are apparently suspended by the representational practices and media through which spatial design is usually communicated (pp.23-24). However, it is probable that if the non-linear space-making processes described here were to be entirely carried out in meatspace, then the financial and spatial challenges that would consequently arise would threaten the feasibility of the project or force to unpleasant compromises. It seems that Haque and Fuller identify a resolution in BIM systems’ ability for digitally merging design and construction in an object-oriented manner (pp27). How are BIM systems suggestive of a shift from representation (a linear structure of communication) to simulation (a digital version of the real, constantly subject to change)? BIM systems have been accused of isolating the designed artifact from its context by situating it in an oversimplified approximation of its original environment. How to resolve this contradiction? For instance, in which ways could BIM systems take social parameters as an input?
– Where non-plan ideas meet Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS), Haque and Fuller advocate for an Urban Versioning System that runs on granular parameters. There may include participation [from the non-designer to the virtuoso (p.30, 36)], modularity [ dependent on scale, expertise and time (p.37)] property [from its existing neoliberal redundancy to its mitigation (p.49)] and many others. Is there also a need to granularize persistence (from permanence to ephemerality)? The non-planners proposed permanent hyper-structures on which ephemeral envelopes would allow for ever-changing situations to happen. How would such a condition translate in the contemporary setting? How will the joints between the parts of the system change when the base structure itself is contingent?