Tag: W07- DIY and Participatory Urbanism

In Townsend’s view “Cities are indeed an efficient way to organizing activity, since infrastructure can be shared. But efficiency isn’t why we build cities in the first place. It’s more of a convenient side effect of their ability to expedit human contact” (p. 160) In this sense, which are the modalities of participation that can enhance this human contact, and how can techology play a roll within such modalities? and also, does new technologies creates new  modalities never seen before, or it reshapes ways of participating from the past?

Jennifer Gabrys characterizes critically three forms of participatory urbanism: problem-solving code, reconfigured solving economies, and participatory sensing. And in this chategories “Urban life is articulated through a series of computational problems that can be solved or enhanced through participatory platforms and programs. [And in which] Citizens achieve participation through using this platforms to perform urban functions, and at a presumaly higher level by writting programs in the first place” (p. 215) But in this sense, in Gabrys’s view, participation seems to be narrowed to a sort of citizen gatherings which only aims to contest with the the city government and private enterprises, which flaws because of it’s incapibility to create sollutions to the same scale and effectivness as those instances. In this sense, should we valorize participation just in terms of effectivness? Is paticipation main concern should be problem-solving?

If new modalities of participation are determined by technologies, how can this technologies  be shaped themselves for enhancing participation themselves or to open new ways of communication? should urban participation shifted its focus from the city to the technology that enables certain aspects of it? How can we address less visible aspects of the city through participation? And how can this dialogic values be introduced in both the technology design and urban design?

Tinkering Toward Utopia – Anthony Townsend

– “…They merely imitate the appearance of the old, its concrete substance: they fail to unearth its inner nature.” This makes me think of information I was given on a walking tour in Budapest. The guide told us that Budapest looked like it had existed in its current state for centuries, but it was all a false facade. The buildings and infrastructure were all relatively new, at least by European standards. The city had been taken over and had changed hands time and time again. When it finally had a chance to choose an identity, it tried to express a history that it never had. What is the mobile/online equivalent of this? Can it be a significant advantage to make an app or website seem older or more established than it is? What advantages do ‘traditional, reputable and reliable’ have over ‘innovative, fresh and novel?’

– “The Web… was becoming a lattice of its own.” Unlike a natural city, which breathes and exudes its history as part of its charm, the web covers and buries its layers. It’s mines data from the past, but doesn’t display it. Are there instances where this is not the case? Where efficiency and evolution move aside to allow room for digital nostalgia and reminiscence?

– “DIYcity was a totally bottom up organization… there was nobody giving orders… it was driven by people showing up, looking at what needed to be done, and doing it.” This only happens when there are people in the community who care enough to recognize what needs to be changed, believe that they have the power to make any kind of difference and are motivated enough to do what it takes to change it. What happens when for one reason or another, these people don’t exist in a given area? Are they left to the devices of their municipalities? What would the reception be to outsiders who swoop in trying to help?

 

Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism – Jennifer Gabrys

– “ Who will control the city: Team Architecture or Team Computing?” (pp.219) Is it possible for one to advance in a smart city without the other? Should they not be collaborating instead of competing? Ubiquitous computing relies on architecture to implement its practices, and the architecture of a smart city should aim to integrate computing to best serve its users.

– “Guattari, together with his electronic card, is participating in the sensor based city, but if he does not have access he can become idiotic through the same technologies that would ordinarily make him a smart and participating citizen.” In an example such as this, surely not many people would have cards that allowed them to access everything. Is a teacher idiotic because he cannot open the services door in his building, even though he might be able to fix the problem? The card system thinks it is preventing inappropriate access, but it may actually delay a solution. Surely someone controls the access and availabilities of these cards. What are the dangers of those with those with both influence and prejudice alienating those they see as undesirable?

– “…unwired humans will come across as singularly unintelligent, non- conversant and incomprehensible.” Will it be impossible to refuse participation, if one wishes to exist with any amount of freedom or fluidity?

– Is there a way to support a complaint in the case of FixMyStreet? As if to say, yes, this also annoys me or inhibits me from doing xyz. Though the same person reporting the same issue again and again should not be encouraged, it would be interesting to see if multiple inputs on the same issue made a difference and could be recorded in terms of locations/concentrations of community involvement. Do unaddressed complaints bother citizens more than complete lack of this service? It may make them question why they have this website/app in the first place, if their needs are not being addressed and they have a voice no louder than before FixMyStreet was introduced.