Comments on: from architecture to urban planning: technology development in a networked age

By: nick k (inkeyes)

nick k (inkeyes) — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 05:01:39 +0000

Two books and a reference to read on this matter:

Hillier, B., Space is the machine: A configurational theory of architecture. 1996, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mitchell, W.J., City of bits: space, place and infobahn. 1995: MIT Press.

{ http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=4593 }

Hillier looks at how physical spaces can hamper or enhance communication patterns between groups of people.

Mitchell also proposes that “community” is a function that can be identified, and designed into software systems (ie, what sorts of interactions should be facilitated)

Raybourn, E.M., N. Kings, and J. Davies, Adding cultural signposts in adaptive community-based virtual environments. Interacting with Computers, 2003. 15(1): p. 91-107.

{ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(02)00056-5 }

By: Sam Kinsley

Sam Kinsley — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:46:36 +0000

You’re analogy of ‘technology as architecture’ is apposite, in so far as architecture *is* a technology, however what I think you are actually driving at is that technologies are, and one might argue have been thorughout history, assemblages of relations that combine parts that might otherwise have been disperate, and reveal agency in many different ways.

It is, then, through the ongoing becoming of a building that particular social situations and human actors can be said to ‘enrol’ technologies such as architecture/ buildings into actor-networks (after Latour, 1993). Thus one can understand the slightly confused notions of material agency Brand espouses in a more nuanced way; as the agency of matter is revealed in a processual becoming of people and things in complex realationships.

Such ideas, as you might guess, are not new. If you wish to pursue an exploration of our changing socio-technical relationality I would strongly recommend reading Bruno Latour’s ‘We Have Never Been Modern’ (1993) and ‘Aramis, or the Love of Technology’ (1996); Tim Ingold’s ‘The Perception of the Environment’ (2000) and Bernard Tschumi’s ‘Architecture and Disjunction’ (1999). Also, you can’t go wrong with reading Deleuze & Guattari’s ‘A Thousand Plateaus’ to inform these readings, but then I’m of a poststructuralist persuasion

Apologies if you already know/ have read these books, I hope that helps in some small way.

By: raimi rahin

raimi rahin — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:44:27 +0000

can i know how to be a good urban and regional planner?

By: 输送机

输送机 — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 01:34:23 +0000

输送机

By: crzwdjk

crzwdjk — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:17:40 +0000

And I think that permanent beta is a dumb idea and a cop out on the part of the companies that use that term. It gives them a handy excuse for not being able to make something that actually works. “Our website lost your account and lifetime’s worth of data? Oh but that’s to be expected. It’s a beta.” On the other hand, it is certainly true that software allows for frequent releases, and web based software even more so, and it’s probably a good thing as it allows software to evolve faster, get more feedback from the users as to what they actually want, and so on. The trick is making the releases more frequent without letting go of the whole notion of a “release”, something that is a finished product and ready for public consumption. Just calling it a beta is a poor excuse for being too lazy to debug properly. I suppose the builders of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge could’ve slapped a big “beta” label on it too.

By: Jay Fienberg

Jay Fienberg — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:57:35 +0000

I like this comparison. But, I’ll suggest that the spectrum is maybe described in even more spread-out terms, e.g., between a “builder” and an “urban planner”.

“Architecture” can be used to describe a big domain, whether in the realm of physical buildings, or info, etc. Some of it is more like construction (e.g., a garage remodel), and some more like urban planning (e.g., the Getty museum)…

***

I think there is still a limiting viewpoint that gets built into “web companies”–to the degree that they model themselves after software companies.

To use your comparison, what’s the point of refering to one’s neighborhood as being “my hood 2.0″ or “my hood, beta”?

I am still trying to find a good metaphor / comparison for this, but it’s something like having your neighborhood owned by some private commercial building company that is only looking out for your interests to the degree it fits into their business plan to sell more houses. I don’t think the web needs a lot of that, given its fundamental public-ness…

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 10:33:37 +0000

I enjoyed reading this. You are spot on with many points. To comment:
I don’t believe Barthes was removing the author completely from the crime scene, just shifting the focus on the evidence a bit. Perhaps in regards to the presence of the author or the architect in the work it is worthwhile looking also at the genres asserted by and ascribed to it. Use or reading (reception, a la Wolfgang Iser) provides the work with its meaning and such acts can only be performed in relation to communities and may be classified afterwards in terms of genre.
In town planning terms, a neighbourhood can go from “slum” to “bohemian quarter” (read: artists and musicians move in and make it cool) that results in subsequent “gentrification” altering it completely (into an expensive residential area) in a matter of years. Same streets, same buildings, even same businesses (here I am thinking of Brixton in London, or Kreutzberg in Berlin) but the people dominating the use of the space are now the consuming wealthy rather than those of the (soon “relocated”) resident community which produced living culture prior to intense commodification. Nothing has architecturally changed. The genre assigned to the space has radically altered interpretations of space, its uses and broader functions.
Thanks for provocation.