Both the readings seem to emphasize the idea of users being designers or a part of the design process.
Urban Versioning System 1.0 ,Matthew Fuller and Usman Haque
1) ‘In the coming decades computers will increasingly be a part of the architecture itself, enabling user-
centered interaction systems for configuring environmental conditions.’
To design or produce user- centric spaces, can the integration of technology designed by users and designers help aid architectural experience (physically, mentally or spiritually)? Computer scientists seem to be building technologies that are creating people centered architectural interfaces, why are architects not a part of the desing process or consulted upon designing such interfaces? Isn’t the environment we interact in just as important as the technology that helps to create it? Can the production of such interaction systems lead to a more collaborate effort amongst multidisciplinary fields or does it hinder the creative process? Does it take into account users willingness to adapt to such systems?
2) ‘It might be argued that cities are already developed analogously to the ways that a CVS (concurrent versioning system- means for software developer to collaborate) aids in the construction of software. This may be so, unconsciously; however buildings, streets and neighborhoods are still regarded as static, immutable end-products rather than dynamic states within a progression. In an architectural context, a CVS would need to achieve two goals. First, it would enable the processes of development, testing and inhabitation to occur concurrently. Second, it would
provide an infrastructure for different granularities of participation for each designer/participant.‘
Even though such systems would encourage collaboration and participation what would the parameters or limitations to such systems be? If the design process is “open” but the results are structurally, “closed” and there is no distinction between design and habitation, what issues would this bring about? Not only in the design process but also in its construction process? Does such a distinction need to exist? If softwares like CVS help software develops collaborate better, can similar systems be adapted to architecture and if so how different would its structure be that from CVS?
3 “The problem is that architectural design can often simply be a process of predicting problems, removing obstacles and resolving all possible contradictions: the best situation, from the perspective of such an architect, is to have project documentation that is so complete that every aspect of the construction process has been articulated and specified so that the eventual building construction contractor needs to make no on-site decisions and simply has to follow orders to the letter. The first was raised by cybernetician Gordon Pask (particularly in association with Joan Littlewood and Cedric Price’s “Fun Palace” structure.) Here, they emphasized the quality of underspecification.The notion of architecture as a system with underspecified goals suggests an architecture that evolves (and which is, therefore, never “complete”). Apart from making it clear that design and production are simultaneous activities, this conception also helps erase any pre-existing distinction between a building and its environment: it presupposes that a building creates an environment (which includes both our conventional understanding of ecological “environment” as well as all the constituent players, such as its occupants), and carries on creating an environment as it attempts to specify itself. In truly underspecified buildings, architecture can’t help but be ecological,not necessarily for the better, in the sense that all crucial input and output sources inherently become part of the architectural system.”
In Cedric Price’s Fun Palace, the idea was to create an architectural system that constantly evolved an dnever ‘complete’. How does this constant evolution of space psychologically effect the user within that space? How does the constantly evolving environment effect the occupants within that space and how does it effect the relationship amongst spaces within such an environment? What are parameters and limitations of such systems? Would this integration of software, hardware and architecture be considered a bottom-up approach where this building can be seen as a prototype before implementing such technologies at an urban scale?
Smart cities, ‘The Open Source Metropolis’, Anthony Townsend
Cable era giving way to the internet:
1) “William Gibson explained: “ The street finds its own uses for things- uses the manufactures never imagined. The microcassette recorder, originally intended for on-the-jump executive dictation, becomes the revolutionary medium of magnizdat, allowing the covert spread of suppressed political speeches in Poland and China. The beeper and cellular phone become tools in an increasingly competitive market in illicit drugs. Other technological artifacts unexpectedly become means of communication, either through opportunity or necessity,”….With little to lose, the grass roots readily adapts flexible and abundant technologies to pressing problems- spreading dissent, eluding law enforcement or distributing music. The stuff of smart cities- networked, programmable, modular, and increasingly ubiquitous on the streets themselves- may prove the ultimate medium for Gibsonian appropriation.”
Technological artifacts are considered to be in a sense immortal, because it is constantly changing and evolving and present in our society in one form or another. Does technology only become a means of communication through opportunity or necessity? Is there a distinction still present between the two? Top down or grass roots ( bottom up approach) support the idea of technology being a means for communication through opportunity or necessity? Would the collaboration of science fiction writers and technology developers lead to a creative and innovative design process? Why isn’t such collaboration considered when designing new technologies?
2) “ITP’s ambition was to challenge top-down thinking about technology….their focus of interest is obvious- cost effectiveness, However in concentrating… on the bottom line, they have neglected the process through which people harness the technology to create a system.”
“stop paying attention to technology, and start paying attention to people…..Because users are intimidated by the technology and do not have a hand in its design.”
“The Death and life of Great American Cities, by Jane Jacob’s, “glorified how good streets create opportunities for people to meet by chance.” – Dodgeball
Apps such as Dodgeball and writers such as Jane Jacobs, all point towards a bottom up approach as opposed to ITP’s top down approach, would these different approaches be considered successful in the context and scenario they are applied in as opposed to adopting one approach over the other. Maybe different stages of the development of such technologies require either one of those approaches or it depends on the technology? Marketing departments carry out surveys or user testing of products when they are in its prototype phase, wouldn’t this integration which may be a top-down approach is still considering users in its design process?
3) “ Arduinos are becoming cheap enough to stick almost anywhere in the city, and could be the raw material for a kudzu-like explosion of a citizen- built infrastructure of urban sensing and actuation. …suggest a future where citizens decide what is connected to the Internet of Things, and why. Instead of being merely a system for remote monitoring and management, as industry visionaries see it today, the Internet of Things could become a platform for local, citizen microcontrol of the physical world…..Arduino gives us the tools to thoughtfully structure intelligence into the intimate, everyday, human-scale spaces and objects we live in. .. Instead of big data, it lets us collects and spread a few bits that really matter. The promise is that we’ll build the hardware of smart cities just like we build the web, by empowered users one little piece at a time”.
Arduinos, “becomes an excuse to build relationships with people” – Arduino share code ask someone for help. “social lubricant”.
Would technologies such as Ardunios decrease the distinction amongst different professions when designing and lead to a more open and collaborative design process? Would the integration of such hardware and software into the citys current infrastructure be accepted and adapted more willingly, since users have a say in the design process? Freedom and opportunity of choice for users help aid in well integrated infrastructures and design of technology?