When Haque and Fuller affirm that “just as with any non-human entity, we collectively construct our ecological and architectural frameworks, and these frameworks tend to overlap with those of others. These overlaps have consequences. The difference is (or should be) that we consciously recognize our interdependence and thus must consciously act upon it.”, when it comes to tha Smart City, how can this be applied to people which is not necessarily involved in architecture? can new ways of fabrication be utilized to open new ways of agency in the building of the city? How this overlaps can be negotiated and by whom?
Also Haque and Fuller affirm that “This has specific impact on the role of the architect. It suggests a new focus on enabling, generating and engaging, adopting a role similar to the one an operating system designer performs in the world of software. This does not necessarily confer equal responsibility to all participants in a system but instead presumes that while hierarchies formed by experience, skill and aptitude are inevitable, they are not immutable. Equally, such an approach changes the site of the aesthetics in architecture to one not of form but of organization. The aesthetics of organization have yet to be decisively […] various interests. More important is to concentrate on widening people’s spheres of responsibility, and hence motivation, commitment and agency with regard to the design and inhabitation of the urban environment.” In this sense, up to what extent can this be achieved regarding the material limitations of architecture in relation to the design of open development in the digital realm? Up to what scale can this metaphor by applied to the physical world? Also which is the role of the architect in this context? Which is his responsability on enabiling a larger engagement on the design of the city?
In Townsend perspective, “The technology giants building smart cities are mostly paying attention to technology, not people, mostly focused on cost effectiveness and efficiency, mostly ignoring the creative process of harnessing technology at the grass roots [, but] truly disruptive application of new information technology have almost always come from the bottom up […] When you start paying attention to what people actually do with technology, you find innovation everywhere”. In this sense, how can we shift the values trough which c technology is being developed, thinking about new ways of considering values such as efficiency? How can we assure that that the innovation developed from the bottom-up is not mis-appropriated by the techology companies or the government to its own ends? and how can we assure that this development remain open for future participation and engagement?