Blurring The Lines
- Monday, August 10th, 2009 - 23:08
- Relevant to: Posts
Abstruse Goose is a comic I keep up with via my RSS feeds, and the other day I came across this strip.
Source:Abstruse Goose
I’ve made some pretty lengthy posts about how devices are blurring the lines between self and space and what will happen when the line can’t be distinguished at all- so it’s funny to see all those thoughts communicated more effectively with a comic strip panel and a single sentence. It sums everything up beautifully- whereas architecture is typically about exploring how humans relate to space, interactive architecture is about exploring ways to blur the two together. As the comic shows, it’s probably happening faster than we think.
IT'S WORKING
Archipelagos & Armageddon
- Saturday, August 1st, 2009 - 17:53
- Relevant to: Posts
A tweet from my sister the other day made me realize just how many floating city-type projects we’ve been seeing in the last little while. With space exploration having taken very small baby steps in the past few decades, these projects seem to be fulfilling people’s desire to escape the Terran earth. They range from small scale, immediately-feasible structures right up to large scale visions of a sustainable life adrift.
On the small scale, there’s the recent Citadel, soon to be built by Koen Olthuis in the Netherlands. The 60 apartments are part of a larger on-water project that is made to address the rising Dutch coastlines. Though the apartments floating on top of the waters, the remain physically connected with the mainland. The buildings promise to consume 25% less energy thanks to reduced needs for cooling.
The Citadel apartment buildings. Source:” Koen Olthuis
Morris Architects takes the next step up by abandoning the shore entirely. They propose to make use of 4000 oil rigs would by converting them into luxury hotels that rest out on the blue sea.
A repurposed oil rig, as designed by Morris. Source:Morris Architects
The Swimming City, by Andras Gyorfi, is a similar project- though it’s larger (as it’s not restricted to the size of an oil rig) and distinctly more playful.
The Swimming City gives off a watery Duplo vibe. Source:Andras Gyorfi
On the large scale, there’s Vincent Callebaut’s magnificent Lilypad. These vegetation-covered, solar powered, zero emissions, free-floating islands would provide home, work and play for 50,000 people/archipleago.
The Lilypad, adrift on the ocean’s waters. Source: Vincent Callebaut
The Lilypad itself appears to take great influence from BIG’s Mer project:
The Citadel, by Koen Olthuis. Source: BIG Architects
And National Geographic outlines a series of other similar projects in this article. So, the impact these projects have on the imagination is clear.
A number of factors have driven these watery visions to relevance and popularity. The green influence is obvious- any floating form of habitation would help reduce the damaging sprawl of typical urbanism. As well, the fixed-size, self-contained nature of each unit is a good defense against the looming threat of overpopulation, and living adrift would render inhabitants immune to rising coastlines. All of these things are pressing, hot-button topics.
But personally, what I find hilarious is how these projects are deemed as “green”, because of their goals of self reliance and zero ecological impact- and I laugh because those very same properties essentially make the projects giant disaster pods. Sure, any zero-impact project seeks to grant us a level of isolation from the environment so that we may stop having a negative effect on it- but if you cut ties to land entirely and let structure become nomadic, then there is no need for the environment at all. Just give us our world of water, keep the UV levels reasonable and make sure at least some algae survive- and the rest won’t matter. We’ll be fine.
Perhaps one of the reasons these projects are inspiring to us is that, deep down, they illustrate the continuity of our current lifestyle in the future, even if we’ve dealt a fatal blow to environment in the present?
IT'S WORKING
Does Interaction Actually Affect Architecture?
- Thursday, July 30th, 2009 - 22:33
- Relevant to: Posts
Ever since I started school in architecture (almost two years ago now), I’ve tried to sway my studies towards the arena of interactive design. So earlier this year when our comprehensive studio required us to define the parti for our project, I got excited. Any chances I’d had to propose interactive systems were limited to small applications or very idealized, high-level proposals. Finally I’d have a chance to design a complete building where interactivity is a fundamental part of the building tectonics. Nice.
My partner was on board (the studio was a group endeavour), so we started planning our approach. Our proposal discussed the fact that information is something that completely pervades a building, yet has absolutely no architectural presence, because it’s fundamentally such an intangible thing. Our goal was to create something where information is rendered as an architectural element and exposed for all to see.
The studio revolved around the design of a boutique hotel, so we envisioned a building that monitored the information that flowed through it- net traffic, cellular activity, noise levels, room population, and so on. It would also scour the net for information about the building’s local context too- nearby events, restaurant specials, etc. This information would be synthesized and rendered using lights (to alter how the space felt, based on information flow) and OLED screens (to communicate explicit information and allow interaction).
As for the architectural side, everything needed for the transmission of information (phone lines, wireless routers, cat5, power cables) were confined to channels that were capped with the interactive lights/screens. These channels were tightly integrated into the construction of the walls, so the transmission of information actually carved out the circulatory spaces of the hotel. And all the channels (or “bands”, as we called them) never crossed so their directionality became ambiguous, and they all traced their way back to the building core, which doubled as the building server room.
The Band, as we envisioned it.
In this way, we proposed, the interactive element was actually representative of the physicality of the infrastructure needed to push information through a building, and because the information had been given a physical presence, the flow of information actually determined the flow of people throughout the building.
We thought it was cool. And we went into our mid-review feeling damn confident. But after saying our piece, we were greeted with silence from the critics. To those that haven’t gone through the process, understand that, second only to your model collapsing on a critic or perhaps just catching fire, silence is the worst response you can have. A critic may hate your project- and say so- but to hate it they must at least get it. Silence means you’ve failed to convey a major idea at all, so there just isn’t anything there to get and disagree with.
And then the criticisms started coming. Meg Graham was most vocal, and summed up the criticism of the others by calling the band a “glorified bulkhead”. We had failed, she claimed, to actually translate information into a physical entity. She went on to explain the statement, saying that there was nothing about the banding system that couldn’t be picked up and applied to another building of a completely different design, and thus it was not a tectonic element, and thus not architecture at all. Ouch.
Now, this sucked. We realized just how superficial some interactive architecture projects- not necessarily uninteresting, but still superficial in terms of how the building is actually put together- and had gone out of our way to do make interactivity a fundamental design principle. But Meg was right- the band could be slotted into whatever buliding you might choose to make it a part of. It wasn’t tectonic at all. And if that wasn’t- if something we tried so hard to integrate into the building isn’t tectonic to its construction- what kind of interaction could be?
Maybe the intangible nature of information will, by it’s nature, remain exactly that, and never be able to be translated into a physical, inhabitable form.
It tough to think, after two years of thinking of how architecture and information might work together, that the two might not actually be able to mix at a fundamental level. They might just be like oil and water- never actually mixing to create something new, and completely separating unless you work continuously to keep illusion alive.
As I said- this is a sad story and I don’t have answers or rebuttals here…just issues to raise, as they were raised to me. I’m not convinced Meg was right, but she had a point, and pretending the point doesn’t exist isn’t doing anyone any favours. How exactly does interaction affect architecture? Does it all?
IT'S WORKING
Busking and Architecture
- Tuesday, July 28th, 2009 - 23:48
- Relevant to: Posts
A few weeks ago, I was walking between subway lines when I passed a busker- a common sight on the TTC. As I did, though, I noticed that all the people who were walking immediately by him had headphones plugged firmly into their ears. After noticing that, I scanned my eyes over the area- probably 30% of people walking through the subway were listening to some kind of music device- maybe 60% if you only consider people that were traveling alone. That 60% included me, by the way.
It must kind of suck to be a busker these days. You go out in public to share music that you are passionate about with the people around you, but your efforts will fall largely on unhearing ears. If the busker wanted to tell me that people were becoming more antisocial and choosing to shut themselves out from their community, I could see where he’s coming from. By putting in the headphones, you’re and blocking out the opportunity for interaction with something that might be right in front of your face.
Now, I might sympathise with the busker, but that doesn’t mean I’d in any way agree with him. I might seem isolated when I listen to my iPod on the subway, but then I’ll then go home, hop on last.fm and be put in contact with people all over the world who like the same kind of music as me. I can share my favourite tracks, message other people and discuss all the tunes I’d been listening to while I was underground.
People aren’t shutting themselves out of their community- people are simply *choosing* which communities they want to participate in, because- for the first time in history- community need not be defined simply as “proximity in space”. And I think this is a great thing.
The example of music is just one manifestation of an overall shift. At bars, people can hop onto Facebook via their phones and communicate with everyone they know- not just the people sitting there in the booth. In a car, people can choose from hundreds of specialized satellite radio stations rather than be restricted to more generic stations in broadcast range. Movie theatre are filled with tiny points of light as people use their iPhones and blackberries to surf the web/Facebook/Twitter- each point of light marking a place where someone’s attention is leaping out of the theatre and into a virtual arena.
That “leap” I speak of represents exactly what’s driving the redefinition of community- a radical decoupling of physical space and perceptual space.
The decoupling is occurring now thanks to a tipping point we’ve reached in the mass availability of media & communication technology. Portable players no longer hold an hour of music- they hold weeks. Phones no longer just call a person- they put us in touch with thousands of people at a time. Computers are no longer $2000 monoliths- $350 will get you all the computation needed by most people, in the convenient form factor of a 9″ netbook. Internet connectivity isn’t tied down to a desk- it’s on every corner and it’s in your pocket. With the tipping point reached, we have the remarkable situation where your mental location is independent of your physical space. Who saw that one coming?
And more importantly- how will architecture respond? After all, the fact that these devices are changing society is old news- but the fact that they’re changing how we relate to space is barely addressed. Now that the concept of community has escaped into online circles and been completely remixed, what can we do to distill those communities back into actual space?
I’d like to see bars that coffee shops that change the music played based on occupants who share their last.fm proflies. I’d like to see pavillons that cannot be booked by organizations, but whose purpose (for any given moment) is voted up by netizens, digg-style. I’d like to see mobile apps that tell you, based on your Delicious bookmarks, where in space there are currently other people gathered with interest similar to yours, and where in space you might go to talk with people who might challenge your views.
Now, it would be easy to imagine any of these things simply implanted into our currenty situation. However, having these kinds of cultural phenomena will not happen in a vacuum- they will have a very dramatic effect on the spaces we build. As with most things these days, the power dynamic is turned on its head. Broadcast is dead; there no longer just one message communicated unlaterally to those that can’t talk back. User-created content is king. The best buildings would be the ones where the architect reliquishes his control over space so as to let virtual community building happen in the real world. The age of transparency will have finally spilled over in our industry.
If any existing building sums up this new direction, it’s Diller & Scofidio’s Blur Building.
The amorphous Blur Building, encased in its shifting mist.
The building isn’t so much a building as it is a framework onto which people impose their own meaning. And the architect’s role isn’t so much to create meaning through form as it is to create an arena- the rules by which others can create meaning for themselves.
Whereas I’ve recently been skeptical of the role interaction in architecture, I’m now thinking that this is truly what it can bring the architectural table.
IT'S WORKING
Apparently I Should Have Entered This Competition
- Sunday, July 12th, 2009 - 08:58
- Relevant to: Posts
So yesterday I was browsing my sites and stumbled upon news that the winners of the ACSA Green Competition had been announced. Upon clicking the link, I had this jump off the page at me:
The master plan of the winning entry.
I thought to myself, “where have I seen that before?”
My studio project from second term of first year.
It’s not bang on, obviously, and the competition project is much larger. But the striated nature of the plan- and the use of those striations as elements to be pushed and pulled to create the form- is pretty damn similar to what I designed well over a year ago now.
And I was ready to leave it at that- four straight months of looking at nothing but images of the San Francisco shoreline will make me forever think that any plan that has a body of water on its righthand side is a plan of bloody pier.
Then I went on to read that the competition was based on an ACTUAL PIER that is IN SAN FRANCISCO.
So, yeah- apparently I should have entered that competition.
IT'S WORKING
Your Space is Listening
- Saturday, July 11th, 2009 - 00:32
- Relevant to: Posts
Over on Slashdot right now, there’s an article that’s been posted about software developed by Dartmouth researchers that uses your phone’s mic to learn what’s happening around you at any given moment. The program runs on the iPhone, and the idea behind it is pretty simple- it allows the phone to determine what you’re doing by listening in on the specific characteristics of the ambient noise. So it can tell if you’re in the car, biking, at home or in the office just by listening to what’s going on around you. Given that information, the phone can do all sorts of handy things, like increase the ringer volume, send all calls to voicemail, and so on.
The basic idea here is that the phone- carried by a person- will be able to sense its location and behave appropriately. But presumably, the same technology could if the factors are inverted- why not make the location fixed, so the the program is instead determining who is present and what is happening there, so that the space behave appropriately as well?
A kitchen/den could determine who is in a room (from voice tonalities), if a meal is being prepared (from the sound of water running, chopping, or packages being opened), or there is a social gathering. Based on this this information, the selection of music could be changed or light levels set appropriately- down the road, even the arrangement of furniture and partitions could be changed.
The idea could easily apply to offices, halls, meetings rooms, restaurants; the possibilities are actually pretty staggering. Sound is incredibly characteristic of an environment, and you can extract a lot of information from any space’s ambient noises. I think this is a great example of how good interactive architecture doesn’t have to have all sorts of fancy data inputs- instead, it’s better to have fancy AI analyzing more standard data.
IT'S WORKING
Now Twittering
- Tuesday, June 9th, 2009 - 00:10
- Relevant to: Posts
Yeah, that’s right, I’m on the bandwagon. Those of you who know me well are no doubt aware of wariness of these social networks that all the kids these days are using. (Sidenote: get off my lawn!) However, I like the idea of twitter because it’s very basic and atomic nature- no pictures, no groups, no applications, and so on.
I can understand why people are skeptical of it, where the main criticism is that you can’t really communicate enough in 140 characters to keep in touch. That’s why I like it, really- it’s enough for short broadcasts for the world at large without becoming a tool that replaces a proper conversation where one is needed.
Personally, I’ll be using it as a tool to post interesting links (something I don’t like doing on here unless I have the time to add my own thoughts and content), meet people with similar interests, be updated by sites/organizations that use it, mention interests outside the architecture/healthcare/BIM/cognitive worlds, and keep in touch with a few friends. Please feel free to follow me.
All that said, I’m still skeptical about effective it will be, especially given that I don’t know many people who use the bloody thing. So, let’s consider this an enthusiastic experiment for now.
Also, you’ll realize from this posting that I am not, in fact, dead, as you might otherwise deduce from the total lack on activity on here. I’ve been working on many postings- honest!- but I’m fighting a losing battle against the tendency to let a quick idea turn into a full blown essay that never gets completely finished. Then the next idea bubbles up before the first one is posted, and it snowballs from there.
Quite honestly, I’m hoping that this Twitter thingy helps as a quick outlet for ideas so that they don’t build up and become work rather than fun. Time will tell.
Till next time- which is soon- promise.
IT'S WORKING
gCalCron Featured on Lifehacker
- Sunday, March 29th, 2009 - 13:10
- Relevant to: Posts
Last Monday I was very excited to hear from a friend (who made it to his RSS feeder faster than myself) that Lifehacker had written an article about gCalCron. This is definitely the widest exposure this site is yet to see, so I’m pretty happy. Champagne all around.
That said, allow me to respond to a few of the comments about the project (left both on Lifehacker and the gCalCron project page right here).
First off, I do realize that the script, as it is, operates in root space. This is largely because a lot of the functions that would be desirable at a distance (shutdown, reboot, rsync to a remote server, etc) reqiure root access, and balanced against the chance of google account intrusion, I thought the tradeoff would be worth it to the average user (whose most valuable data- photos, music documents, etc, are stored in user space anyway). I also figured that those who disagreed about this decision would be able to fend for themselves…seems I was right.
As for security concerns…I completely agree that there are concerns with regard to Google accounts. However, I did try to note the ones that I could foresee in the README. Remember, this project is meant less as a permanent solution for graphical remote scheduling, and meant more as a proof-or-concept that such a thing could be achieved simply through a mashup of tools- to the point that a 5k python script would do the job just fine. Neat stuff, no?
Thanks again to Lifehacker for the exposure and detailed coverage. I’m very impressed that Kevin took to truly investigate the tool and pass on good information to LH’s readers, so if I feel I come up with any other projects of interest in the future, I will be sure to give them a tip first. Look to them if you don’t visit here directly.
IT'S WORKING
Ant Architecture
- Tuesday, February 17th, 2009 - 13:04
- Relevant to: Posts
My friend sent me this incredible video the other day. Though you really should watch it for yourself, I’ll give you the quick play by play: a research team decides to map the extents of an underground ant colony by pumping cement down the entrance, waiting a month for the cement to cure and then carefully excavating the structure created. The result is a sprawling 10-ton labyrinth of chambers and tunnels.
The negative cast of the ant colony.

Some of the chambers, up close and personal.
The structure is something that intrigues me on pretty much every level.
First of all, the colony looks like something that has been intricately design by a central intelligence- some kind of ant architect, squeaking out instructions to to the ant engineers- despite the fact that we know this not to be the case. Instead, the colony is a perfect example of how form can arise directly from an algorithm or a set of generative rules. Each ant is born with a set of instincts, which are instructions that will direct the ant’s behaviour when presented with a set of circumstances. The colony is a result of those instructions being applied in parallel- with no central authority- all over the site, wherever an ant is found. If this is interpreted as as a kind of computational architecture, this process is pretty incredible.
It is pretty incredible from a cognitive design and wayfinding point of view as well. The form of this colony of can be seen as the mapping of a thought process directly onto space. As such, for an ant traversing the labyrinth, every turn and and every space would make inherent sense to the ant’s mind- the space and the thought process would compliment each other perfectly, such that the two working in tandem make both more efficient. Such a scenario is the ultimate goal of wayfinding- “encoding” knowledge into form and signage to reduce the amount of brainpower needed to traverse a space.
It’s also interesting to realize as well this structure is as much a product of the environment as it is of the ants. The colony may be a mapping of a thought algorithm onto space, but the end resultant colony will be a reflection of how that algorithm deals with a particular space. Any site would contain roots, rocks, loose soil, predators, and unpredictable sources of food, all of which flex the ant’s mental model and thus change the shape of the resultant colony.
What would happen if the ants were instead presented with an “ideal” site? Could the structure that arises be considered a “pure form”- the absolutely direct mapping of an algorithm into space? Or would the “ideal site” be another construct that is based on the algorithm in question?
Obviously, ants aren’t the only insects to create large, complex nests. Other notables are termites, whose nests take on cathedral like forms with high-reaching spires…

…and wasps, who create orbs with rippling landing bays…

…and each of these show just how different thought processes would give rise epiphenomenally to different physical forms.
If we wanted to try and do the same for the human thought process, the results would be hopelessly marred by higher reasoning capabilities, the advantage of complex memory, individual experiences and culture. But, what if we could factor those things out somehow? At a base enough level, the maner in which spatial information is processed must be standardized enough to be representative of a fundamental human condition.
If we wanted to create an inherently natural and navigable building- one that human minds seamlessly integrate into, a structure that takes advantage of the nature low-level spatial processing so as to free our complex thinking abilities from the simple task of wayfinding- what would it look like?
As for the original video- I’ve pieced together from the video comments that excerpt is taken from the BBC Planet Earth Series, but I couldn’t track down which part it was from. If anyone happens to know, do share with the rest of us in the comments here.
IT'S WORKING
A Proof Of Concept
- Friday, October 10th, 2008 - 10:42
- Relevant to: Posts
I’ve done a fair amount of talking in the last little bit about home servers (or “environment servers”- a name that I think will better reflect their usage in the future), but it’s all been very theoretical down-the-road talk. In this post I talk about how the right devices could make our environment feel like an extension of our own bodies, and in this one I talk about what things would be like if they were given the ability to meet our needs based on the way we are acting- all pretty sci-fi stuff for now.
Now, the posts I make here are about many things- psychology, interaction, technology, architecture and spaces. However, it’s also about practicality. For as much as I’m excited by the down-the-road implications of this stuff, I’m also about realizing where progress can be made today if we look beyond what the technology that surrounds us does to see what it can do when we link it up in more innovate ways.
And so, I wanted to make something that’s a very basic proof of concept of the things I’ve been talking about. It’s a script allows you to schedule events and remote control your computer using events that you set up on Google Calendar. The nitty-gritty details are discussed on the project page, but basically, you create event in Google Calendar and add commands for the computer to execute in the event description. When the time comes around, those commands are executed.
But Why?
There are already many different programs that can be used to schedule events on a computer. Windows has it’s own scheduler, and unix-based systems have cron, which is very powerful (though tough for everyone to administer- and also inspiration for my project’s name). So why is this little hack-together a proof of concept of anything?
I think it’s important for a few reasons:
- It does some completely new things. No automation program that I know about allows for administration over a browser; nor does any program I know about show scheduled tasks as anything but tabulated lists, as opposed to a nice visual interface where you can click and drag.
- It get closer to transparency of usability. As a result of things mentioned in the last point, this project shows how automation can become more of a natural process, rather than an artificial one. Tasks can be moved and changed quickly and easily with pointing and clicking, and could perhaps even from anywhere using a handheld device. This possibility puts space manipulation at the fingertips, à la my post about “telekinesis”.
- It shows how much can be gained simply be rearranging the data you already have. Say you want to keep a light on a period of time- rather than needing two discrete events to turn it on and off, the script allows you set commands to execute at the END of an event- so now your Google Calendar shows a nice little block showing when the light is on. Rather than two unrelated, instantaneous events, you have a coloured block with semantic meaning. Same data, better representation.
- It shows the strength of open standards. Google apps aren’t open source, but their exposed API does mean that you can separate the data from the program, and thus can intermingle it with other data as you see fit. Who would want to have another dedicated program (for automation) to deal with when you already have another program (a personal scheduler) that is so similar? Seeing how your automated tasks integrate with your personal ones would be also very useful and provide a level of funtionality two independent programs could not provide.
But the most important thing to realize is that this thing is able to do all this stuff when it isn’t even an automation program- it’s just a 5k python script! So, it’s a very good example of the kind of things that can happen when we look at the strengths of the tools around us and then see how those strengths might serve another purpose. I’m still relatively new to architecture proper, but that is what I like about it so far- the chance to look at what the materials, resources, strategies and technologies available to you are truly capable of doing, and then using those things to synthesize a cohesive space that integrates completely with the way humans process information.
Consider something like this another tool in the toolbox.