Sentient City – Mark Shepard
Mobile technologies have removed the human level of interaction within public spaces, changing the way individuals interact in a space, which results to orphaned spaces.
At one level, one can stay connected to a virtual network, communicate and listen to music; at another level, to provide a certain amount of privacy.
People plug out from the physical space the moment earbuds from a mobile device is used. Mobile technology becomes a tool to organize space, time and boundaries around the individual in public spaces.
The
IPod also provides gradients of privacy in public spaces, affording the
listener certain expectations to come inventions for social interactions within
the public domain. Donning a pair of earbuds grants the wearer a certain amount
of social license, enabling one to move through the city without necessarily
getting into involved and, to some extent, absolving one from responsibility to
respond to what is happening around him or her.
Sentient
City – Mark Shepard
Mobile devices have become ubiquitous in an urban environment, the role of architecture as the primary technology of space making is challenged by the spatial transitions these devices afford. If we disregard the geometries and material arrangements of a space as defined by architecture and the formal program qualities of mobile devices, mobile technologies can be just as important as architecture in shaping our experiences of public spaces.
Currently public spaces are left under utilized, becoming a void in which people transition between space. Mobile devices allow people to disconnect, plug out of public spaces, which results to the space becoming orphaned. So then how can orphaned spaces be transformed where people are allowed to still have the ability to move between their individual private space and the public space around them.
Issue
Mobile technology removed the human level of interaction within public space, which result in orphan spaces.
Position
Create/redesign/rethink the public space so it re-introduces human interaction yet allow individuals to move freely between their private space and the public space around them.
Three strategies I was thinking about to try to clarify how I am going to achieve my positions:
1. Materiality as a sensory aid
My intentions when I say materiality are how can different types of materials, their texture, size, colour, their inherent properties change the way space is interpreted by an individual. It can be used as a tool to facilitate physical interaction within a space, allowing individual who are within their private spaces to experience the space differently, hoping to influence the way they interact.
2. Re thinking the image of public space
Kevin Lynch’s ‘The Image of a City’ describes elements that the public imagine overlap with what many individuals sees within a City. But what if the elements is to shrink to a level of urban space. Paths, edges, nodes, districts and landmarks are what we are familiar with. Within a public space, it is possible to identify nodes, where people can enter the space. Paths that allow users to move, edges define the boundaries of where different functions within a space. Landmarks, where one can make reference to and districts, common characteristics of a space.
The five elements that Kevin Lynch talks about describe a larger context. By looking at successful precedence, I noticed a trend, where public space can be broken down by Kevin Lynch’s elements. By re thinking the image of public space can facilitate the way people immediately interact within a space. The sequence where individuals interact or first contact within the public space can influence the way individuals interacts.
3. Technology as a bridge between the private and public spaces
Not to get confused of privatization of space. Technology today, especially our iPhone, iPod etc has allowed individuals to choice their level of interaction within a public space. It can be simple as texting or putting an earbud, it allows the users to mitigate their level of interaction.
By using technology as another layer to a public space as a tool to interact with a space it can be interesting to see how public space can evolve.
Please post your thoughts, questions, concerns, comments, or even examples I should be looking at I would really appreciate it.
Enjoy reading
Thanks
There is a need to clarify the cause of these "orphaned spaces" as it is implied that the mere act of plugging oneself into a mobile device is responsible for this when in fact it only serves to reinforce this condition. Are these orphaned spaces not underutilized prior to this act?
ReplyDeleteYour position is not an emphatic statement rather it is an action; based upon your reading of the Architectural Positions book, it should be clear that these statements should be declarations of what your stance on an architectural issue is. At this stage it is very weak to be indecisive about word choice so the "create/redesign/rethink" statement and the ambiguity of your statement that people should be able to " move freely between their private space and the public space around them" does not say anything. The former is unclear while the latter is not unique. Is it that you believe that architecture has the ability to work in tandem with mobile technologies to reclaim an intimate connection with physical space (specifically "orphaned space")? If not, what is the position?
Your strategies are not clearly addressing this issue you have with orphaned spaces. Material as sensory aid seems to merely add yet another tool (no different from a mobile device) to augment a user's relationship (in this case direct) with the environment. The second strategy once again suffers from weak language ("rethink") which does not imply a clear sense of what architectural resolution this might include. Also, where does orphaned space fit in the context of the Lynch taxonomy of spaces? The third strategy would work but it is again unclear about what the interaction via the mobile technology would truly do to improve the relationship between users and the orphaned spaces. The concern here is that the attention garnered by these orphaned spaces via technology or material might come across as integration of novelty or worse still, decorative.
Finally, though it is early in your investigation in this material, it is hoped that as this term progresses, you will go beyond the Shepard and Lynch sources as they are basic references which should not serve as the sole lynchpin of your positioned argument.