The categories of housing as described in the first reading was quite interesting the author broke it down in exactly what he wanted to cover in his book. The notion of the first of anything to be produced that costs an amazing amount over the cost of what it sells for (like when the talk of Fords first concept car was introduced) was a big factor for a long time. I feel with 3d design software and so many things in the production of any real manufactured good really brings that cost now down. I was surprised to read about, what I understood as the writers doubts that, mass production housings possibity. Today we still find very similar modes of building from the develop that creates a “cookie cutter” set of houses with all very similar style and aspects, to the moble homes and pre fabricated erector set homes and things have not changed a bit. The author goes on to say that the housing industry is 5000 years behind the auto industry in the ability to mass produce housing. It seems right we are still building houses in generally the same way we have done about the 1900 but car production has really changed.
i like the ideas and how forward thinking Buckminster Fuller was. today a buildings life expectancy is not as high as it used to be fifty years ago and industrially manufactured elements are the norm. there is however, the problem is what position does the architect take in the roll of mechanically produced spaces. on one hand, the possibilities and prices are endless with the aid of mass production, on the other with the arrival of additive manufacturing as well as 3d modeling software, anyone has the opportunity of wearing the designer hat. There is also the problem (today) of safety regulations. The production of objects is an endeavor that is largely observed in search for safety and cost; if suddenly you have the possibility of manufacturing your own goods how do you regulate their performance and ultimate safety?
The Hive mind, where everyone is connected and becomes a nod part of a vast network of information is a reality. however, i believe that there is a certain degree of privacy (or illusion of privacy) that is in place for everyone’s sanity sake. Look for instance at Google Glass. if you are conscious of being observed (not only by the government or security cameras but by your loved ones) and recorded at all times, your behavioral patterns will unavoidably change making everyday life a bit more unnatural (or maybe not, maybe we will adapt as we have done so far….).
While was reading Fuller, I found it complicated. However after reading Rheingold’s, Fuller started to surface. Mob psychology and awareness act in a completely different way. It takes time but when it takes place the force is enormous. Transportation, communication became so fast that the impact of mob awareness is becoming more and more powerful.I can spot some circumstances in a remote country like Bangladesh. In last few years I have noticed several mass activities conducted by social media and communication. In 2012 one garments building collapsed to concrete sandwich.It was common people ( construction workers mostly) came forward to rescue. Not the Government. This rescue activity was encouraged by chain sms and Facebook events. the communication technology and smart devices combined the mass power.In 2013 all the young people in Dhaka gathered in a certain place in demand of justice for war criminals of Bangladesh in 1971. This movement too occurred through Facebook posts and tweeter. From that moment on a cyber war broke out in Dhaka among the Islamic orthodox and young people.This communication power segmented that same mob that stood together in the previous occurrence. I liked the way Rheingold ended with some questions to be answered.
I can see some very important relationships between the two pieces of this week. In my opinion, from Fuller’s hard advocacy of “Fordism” in human residence to the mobs, influenced by digital technology, described by Rheingold, one of the most important issues of technology is its interaction with human social and individual behavior.
Buckminster Fuller, in his article is explaining economical profits of mass production houses in the very unique way of production that he proposed. He also criticize “Architect’s trained in beaux-arty-rococo” who are “secure in their stronghold of aesthetic nonsense” to defend old methods of design of the houses. Then, he also suggests two more obstacles in the way of what he called scientific housing. Those two obstacles can be discussed as economical motivations of housing investor bodies which also cause many financial problems during these years; banks, sub-prime mortgages, etc. despite the huge amount of incentives for investing on land and property, I think that the psychological senses of belonging to a space as well as have a unique place to call home are the main obstacles in the way of mass production of houses. Logically, it’s acceptable that there are more benefits in mass producing houses in the way described by Fuller but the fact that people earn their identity from their homes is undeniable.
This may be described as influences of psychology and human behavior on technology and development, while the other piece shows many influences that technology has on human social behavior. The point which is very interesting to me is that the author tried to model mobs as systems with individuals as nods and relations as connections. He exemplified with ants that “leave chemical trail markers” which are obviously a sort of information. The main analysis is that how information technology affects the mobs and movements; from wearable computers, SMS and social media to p2p journalism. And a very clever question is that how they are changing our history in terms of power, when we look to historical, turning-point movements and imagine how things would be different if in May, 1968 in Paris, people could send texts or in November, 1989 in Berlin they could tweet.
PS: Just for your imagination: Paris Berlin
I found a connection between this two readings, while they seem to be far away in concept. By looking into the concept of Fuller’s reading in a more general manner, you’ll find out that mass production and system design are integrated definitions. When mass production enters the battle, variety goes away. Hence, by producing something including, houses, automobiles, and nowadays smartphones to the market, people are made to buy goods which are very clear and predictable to almost everyone especially people who works in the related field.
It goes without saying that mass production and diversity are against each other. I found Rheingold’s approach an optimist one. Speaking about all opportunity which these kids of new social technologies give us doesn’t match with my own experience in these recent years. If you are using to somehow the result of a mass production; e.g. the smart phone, email, etc., I dare say in 2014 it is not hard at all to stop you and impair your usage.
In 2009, the green movement (protestors to the result of election in Iran), found their emails, phones, services like, SMS, voice call, etc., completely useless in specific districts of Tehran they were all impaired by the providers. Think about a situation that all tools that you use for communication stop working one day. You will probably feel disable and passive. And you have nothing to do.
When you are one member of the world population who use the same communication systems, protocols, etc. (as the gift of mass production), you can be spied easier than you could be in past.
Finally, unlike Rheingold, I think though the fact that the communication technologies which we use world widely has a lot of potentials, there are deconstructive aspects which are noticeable. Just like when we, as architects, can guess the spatial organization of a house which is the result of a mass production, governments, specialists, or those sitting on chairs of power ownership are pretty much capable to control, spy, and impair your devices of communication if necessary.
Improvement in technology may increase our power to solve physical problems, can make non-physical problems worse. (Heylighen and Toffler) When we are talking about technology it is not all about software or devices and how they make life easier for us. But also communication technologies have the potential to change the way people think, communicate, and organize social groups. Computing technologies increase the human talent for cooperation and participation as we see today text messaging makes it possible for group of people who do not know each other and who are located in different parts of the world to be connected to share their interest. By using their mobile phones they can connect to the data information sources as well as other people phones. Internet makes billions of people capable of using their personal communication devices to enhance their situation, for gaining something or protesting against something (generally the collective actions). In my country, we had exactly the same situation 4 or 5 years ago, Individual communication devices and in particular applications such as Viber, WeChat played a significant role in creating demonstrations (about the result of voting for choosing the president at that time ) which made the government to filter these apps and cut the people connections. It made the protests become capable of being aware of the situation in different part of the country and decide what to do next. I think these kinds of devices have the social, political or economic potential that were not discovered by the people who invented, designed or manufactured them. I have seen an interesting question somewhere which was: ‘Are the citizens of tomorrow going to be users, like the PC owners and website creators who turned technology to widespread innovation? Or will they be consumers, constrained from innovation and locked into the technology and business models of entrenched interests? ’
I have a lot of respect for Buckminster Fuller in this article. He blatantly addresses not only problems with design, but problems with society in general in relation to his conjectures on “new dwelling machines” and utilization of industrial processes in housing. Before I begin, however, it is important to note that I did have the priveledge (though blissfully unaware of the signifigance of the experience at something like 10 years old) of touring a Dymaxian House in the Henry Ford Museum in Detroit. With that said, let’s move on. Fuller calls out the mortgage industry, material industry and design industry. He outlines every way industrial production has been fought against from every industry in interest of profit. He relentlesly throws architects into the crosshairs claiming we are “secure in (our) stronghold of aesthetic nonsense.” And he’s right, or at least was at the time (though I would really argue he’s mostly right).
The incredibly interesting thing Fuller does, is take ownership out of the equation for the new dwelling machine. Why? Fuller claims “The fact that the new dwelling machines may look utterly different from anything man has ever thought of living in before will be inconsequential SO LONG AS MAN IS NOT ASKED TO BUY THEM.” Fuller claims that the laity will be receptive, if they do not need to own something that they are unhappy with; but if they are allowed to utilize and exploit this, that they will not care and will finally break free of what a house ‘should’ look like. That’s infatuating! In my younger years wandering through the Dymaxian House I had no idea Fuller envisioned not only restructuring the living machine, but the way we use our homes (ownership vs ‘renting’). His conjecture, that people are willing to accept something that they are just using rather than owning may have been sucessful, but wasn’t ever implemented. From my understanding, the few Dymaxian Homes that were built, were built for those who were interested in the future way of living, and what’s more these people owned them. (and look what happened when they did http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QnZkl3Rmg1Y/UMOz-hwhoqI/AAAAAAAAAIo/1Nlpcmo7Lmw/s1600/Graham%27s+Wichita+House+1974.png)
Had it been realized in this manner, I wonder if there may have been a different outcome. Or certainly with things like careshares in our time, people may be more open to an idea such as this?
