Wednesday 20 January 2010
Monday 31 December 2007
FANlondonWEEK_071230
I just came back from london, where stayed for a week. it is always amazing how inspiring this place is. the crack at the tate modern is impressive, the streets busy as usual and the people very disciplined.
one thing that got me thinking the most was once more the new concept at the apple store. the store is innovative and changes a lot, but this time it is mind blowing. it is not so much about the interior design, although they have expanded the upper floor quite a lot. the interior is still similar to the one two years back. focusing on the machines and products. letting people get their hands on the equipment. it always felt more like a mix of office, living room, meeting place or even workspace, rather than a shop. one big element, that is still on, is the genius bar, where qualified staff help out with apple computer related problems.
the new thing now is buying on spot. it is now possible to buy the article you want right where you are in the store. this means literally everywhere in store you can pay and walk out. this is done via mobile card readers. most of the staff are equipped with mobile card readers so one can pay anywhere in store. there is still a till for coins, but it s been moved way to the back of the store.
I was surprised buying stuff like that and only realized what's going on as I walked out of the store. this is a new way of shopping. it finally comes to the ultimate freedom of shopping. do you remember those eighties shopping centers where the shoppers where lead along rows of shelfs from the entrance to the tills in one way. this is the opposite now. one goes in and buys something and pays right there. there is strolling around before and afterwards and there is even the possibility of buying something else. the main point is that shopping is no longer a linear process. the act of paying is no longer the climax of the shopping experience and this is definitely a big step.
this calls for brand new ideas in shop design. I don't think the apple store, in terms of interior, already takes advantage of this new experience. they look rather overstrained with what they created and the staff seems not to know how to handle this new situation (they're all standing around the till) but I am sure they'll work on it.
or someone else will. there is a lot of potential.
one thing that got me thinking the most was once more the new concept at the apple store. the store is innovative and changes a lot, but this time it is mind blowing. it is not so much about the interior design, although they have expanded the upper floor quite a lot. the interior is still similar to the one two years back. focusing on the machines and products. letting people get their hands on the equipment. it always felt more like a mix of office, living room, meeting place or even workspace, rather than a shop. one big element, that is still on, is the genius bar, where qualified staff help out with apple computer related problems.
the new thing now is buying on spot. it is now possible to buy the article you want right where you are in the store. this means literally everywhere in store you can pay and walk out. this is done via mobile card readers. most of the staff are equipped with mobile card readers so one can pay anywhere in store. there is still a till for coins, but it s been moved way to the back of the store.
I was surprised buying stuff like that and only realized what's going on as I walked out of the store. this is a new way of shopping. it finally comes to the ultimate freedom of shopping. do you remember those eighties shopping centers where the shoppers where lead along rows of shelfs from the entrance to the tills in one way. this is the opposite now. one goes in and buys something and pays right there. there is strolling around before and afterwards and there is even the possibility of buying something else. the main point is that shopping is no longer a linear process. the act of paying is no longer the climax of the shopping experience and this is definitely a big step.
this calls for brand new ideas in shop design. I don't think the apple store, in terms of interior, already takes advantage of this new experience. they look rather overstrained with what they created and the staff seems not to know how to handle this new situation (they're all standing around the till) but I am sure they'll work on it.
or someone else will. there is a lot of potential.
Thursday 20 December 2007
brief - workPROGRAMM_071220
this is the minute of the latest progress meeting 2007-12-14/16
discussed points are listed in order of discussion and a to do list will be put in the end.
>theBOOK - the question of how to order different topics within the book where discussed. how to provide order and orientation for the reader. ideas: numbering [1,2,3,4], size [s,m,l,xl], color, icon, a-z, ...
there need to be probably two sections of each topic. a text bit that is connected to examples. the problem of how to actually write the text among the three of us remained undecided. we discussed these options: all of us write bits to each topic, each one writes on his own topics and the others give feedback, we discuss the topics individualy and one of use writes edited text in the end.
the linking among the text bits could be established trough the examples. examples can refer to different texts, the overlay of different texts on to the same example establishes the link.
>theTITEL - options where discussed, no decision taken. agreed was that there is a titel and a subtitel. options for the titel are: >links, >cross links, >urban cross links, >playing links, >urban conversation. the subtitel options: >bogota, london, plymouth, >overlapping topics, >multi discipline research, >in theory and as examples, >urban research comparison, >talking urban subjects, >linking urban tools, >urban relations and their product.
the favorites are:
playing links - bogota, london, plymouth
urban conversation - bogota, london, plymouth
the intension is to bring a narrative into the project in order to enable the reader to experience the text in kind of a flow. this is not yet achieved, but the direction is towards conversation, exchange, comparison of different people [jlf] and different cities [blp]. during the discussion it became clear, that this combination work must be the focus rather than a troughly scientific dissertation on all the subjects.
>theTOPICS - the list of the topics was taken from the visions and all the blog posts. the intention was to talk trough all the topics and find relations. four major groups emerged from this process: process, system, forces, interaction. regarding the time and the recourses, the decision was taken, to focus on one and maybe on a second one if the progress is too good. it was agreed that the intention should be a deeper exploration in one field rather than a collection of outline. first choice is system and if there is time the plan is to look at the system in time which would be the topic porcess.
the relations of the topics are described in the following, listed in no particular order:
>adaptability - system and process - it is believed that this term is a description of what a system needs to be, adaptable, in order to deal with changing inputs and in general to stay alive. on the other hand it is related to process as the adaption takes place within time and describes a process as a kind of a measurable indicator.
>knowledge - force - it was discussed as a product of the system, that could be shared within or with other system as an exchange. it then mainly acts as a force to drive development.
>regeneration - process - this is just like the adaptability, kind of the process itself. a manifestation of the changing system in time, although it can concentrate on only parts of the system.
>chaos - system, force - it is an element of any system and the main force to drive adaptability. it enables structural changes keeps structures flexible.
>cycle - system, force, process - it is the description of the mobile elements of a system. as a generator it drives changes trough movement and at the same time describes changes in time.
>boundary - is an abstract description of the relations within the system. boundaries are constituted among the most important relations, but are highly dependent on the view point / measurement unit.
>culture - force, interaction - it is a driving force of the urban environment. on the other hand it emerges from the interaction of humans and describes their organization [more in terms of codes and general understanding, not system related]
>force - an energy that pushes towards a different stage. it is needed for any kind of activity.
>dynamics/change - process - contains the topics chaos, process but with a strong focus on the time aspect.
>interaction - especially focusing on humans in space, their actions and reactions and how they form and transform space.
>process - describes a system in time.
>emotions - interaction, force - a product of the interaction. it is also a driving force as it is an expression and full of energy as it is extroversive.
>feelings - interaction - a product of the interaction. it is introversive
>urban experience - interaction
>system - it describes a network of elements that are connected trough relations. the network is active and able to maintain itself and exchange informations with other system. the system approach it is a theoretical concept that emerged in the 60-ties. it was initially developed by bertanalfi a biologist, but quickly was translated to other scientific subjects as its potential was discovered. it is used in urban design but not currently not as a concept, more in the manner of a fact. am important theory around this topic is: a city is not a tree by christopher alexander {xxxx}
>memory - interaction, process - in terms of the relationship between humans and space the memory makes a huge bit of how we experience space and especially the urban surrounding. in terms of the time aspect memory provides a sense of continuity within a ever changing environment.
>scale and time - are general terms that apply to all topic. both can be interpreted as a technical unit or as concept.
>theTEXT - layout, keywords, structure, links, quotes,
the layout needs to be worked out in january. and will be revised in july when we have al the text bits.
as we are working on the Ggroup we will not need a special format wile working. what we do need is a specific structure in order to keep the final revising of the text elements as short as possible. this means mainly titling system, references, quotes and bibliography. we will also need keywords to indicate links between the topics.
titels - topic, C for comment or T for text, initial (jlf), date (yymmdd}, title of the text [example - adabtability_t_fan_071220_streetlevel
quotes are stated directly within the text, with name and year
references and keywords are listed in the end of the text and marked with numbers: 1.1keyword01, 1.2keyword02, ... and 2.1reference01, 2.2reference02, ...
the bibliography should be a document that we all share. probably a second edition of what we should read could be helpfull. maybe we even share the books and do not read all the same books. bibliography should be edited: author (date). title. place: publisher
>thePROGRAMM - the time frame is six month into the new year 2008. by the end of july the body of text has to be finished. during this time we put three public consultation [Pc]. this means we publish developed content on digital medias. the first one should take place in mid january and is an introduction to the project with an outline of the content. second one then is content work in march and the third one in may again with text content. we have to allow at least two weeks for people to respond and another two weeks for us to incorporate inputs. this results in a month of work that runs parallel to the normal content development following the Pc. of course it would be nice if exchange could continue after july, specially as a platform to comment on the final result. july and august are dedicated to layouting, proofreading and final mounting. the time to develop the text content is quite tight and the base has to be quite high, but if everyone writes two articles per month we should be able to bring together a good pile of work.
>theORGANIZATION - to publish the text in the end we should think about how to get a publisher to print it for us. the plan is to work on this just after we have the outline in mid january. a second round to approach publishers and potential founders should take place from june on. especially some founders should be found in the beginning. This should be possible, just like it has been done for the bartlett catalogue.
there is no decision on how much content we should work towards.
>theTOOLS - for now the decision was taken, that we are using google group [GoGr] as the development place for the text. google earth [GoEa] could be the tool to maintain example connection. the blog will be continued with material from the discussion. for public consultation we'll use the blog, facebook [Fb] and maybe we have to look for a myspace [mSp].
Ggroup it is seen as a better opportunity in terms of ease to follow ongoing parallel discussion. it should be used as follows: the discussion is for text development. each topic will get two headings, one for text and one for example. the problem with posting images in this section can be solved by posting text and comments via e-mail [we have to test this further]. the page section should be used only for common topics. this is something like bibliography and common definitions of terms and words [eg. quotes from dictionaries...] maybe text bits that are finalized [if so] and also for work/organization related topics.
GoEa could be introduced as a "new" tool. the intention would be to start a collection of marked places and maybe movement to be shared. with placemarks, path, overlays and so on we could share a vivid picture of the current city we are living in. [eg. example fan]
Fb, here we have to work on a way to use it to publish. would it be possible that L can do it? F: I am definitely not familiar enough to work it out
>toDO - jeff: draft of the outline for the book, cheque layout settings for the blog - fan: minutes of the meeting 071214-16, Ggroup setup, Gcalendar - L: testing option to publish content on facebook
by FAN 071220
discussed points are listed in order of discussion and a to do list will be put in the end.
>theBOOK - the question of how to order different topics within the book where discussed. how to provide order and orientation for the reader. ideas: numbering [1,2,3,4], size [s,m,l,xl], color, icon, a-z, ...
there need to be probably two sections of each topic. a text bit that is connected to examples. the problem of how to actually write the text among the three of us remained undecided. we discussed these options: all of us write bits to each topic, each one writes on his own topics and the others give feedback, we discuss the topics individualy and one of use writes edited text in the end.
the linking among the text bits could be established trough the examples. examples can refer to different texts, the overlay of different texts on to the same example establishes the link.
>theTITEL - options where discussed, no decision taken. agreed was that there is a titel and a subtitel. options for the titel are: >links, >cross links, >urban cross links, >playing links, >urban conversation. the subtitel options: >bogota, london, plymouth, >overlapping topics, >multi discipline research, >in theory and as examples, >urban research comparison, >talking urban subjects, >linking urban tools, >urban relations and their product.
the favorites are:
playing links - bogota, london, plymouth
urban conversation - bogota, london, plymouth
the intension is to bring a narrative into the project in order to enable the reader to experience the text in kind of a flow. this is not yet achieved, but the direction is towards conversation, exchange, comparison of different people [jlf] and different cities [blp]. during the discussion it became clear, that this combination work must be the focus rather than a troughly scientific dissertation on all the subjects.
>theTOPICS - the list of the topics was taken from the visions and all the blog posts. the intention was to talk trough all the topics and find relations. four major groups emerged from this process: process, system, forces, interaction. regarding the time and the recourses, the decision was taken, to focus on one and maybe on a second one if the progress is too good. it was agreed that the intention should be a deeper exploration in one field rather than a collection of outline. first choice is system and if there is time the plan is to look at the system in time which would be the topic porcess.
the relations of the topics are described in the following, listed in no particular order:
>adaptability - system and process - it is believed that this term is a description of what a system needs to be, adaptable, in order to deal with changing inputs and in general to stay alive. on the other hand it is related to process as the adaption takes place within time and describes a process as a kind of a measurable indicator.
>knowledge - force - it was discussed as a product of the system, that could be shared within or with other system as an exchange. it then mainly acts as a force to drive development.
>regeneration - process - this is just like the adaptability, kind of the process itself. a manifestation of the changing system in time, although it can concentrate on only parts of the system.
>chaos - system, force - it is an element of any system and the main force to drive adaptability. it enables structural changes keeps structures flexible.
>cycle - system, force, process - it is the description of the mobile elements of a system. as a generator it drives changes trough movement and at the same time describes changes in time.
>boundary - is an abstract description of the relations within the system. boundaries are constituted among the most important relations, but are highly dependent on the view point / measurement unit.
>culture - force, interaction - it is a driving force of the urban environment. on the other hand it emerges from the interaction of humans and describes their organization [more in terms of codes and general understanding, not system related]
>force - an energy that pushes towards a different stage. it is needed for any kind of activity.
>dynamics/change - process - contains the topics chaos, process but with a strong focus on the time aspect.
>interaction - especially focusing on humans in space, their actions and reactions and how they form and transform space.
>process - describes a system in time.
>emotions - interaction, force - a product of the interaction. it is also a driving force as it is an expression and full of energy as it is extroversive.
>feelings - interaction - a product of the interaction. it is introversive
>urban experience - interaction
>system - it describes a network of elements that are connected trough relations. the network is active and able to maintain itself and exchange informations with other system. the system approach it is a theoretical concept that emerged in the 60-ties. it was initially developed by bertanalfi a biologist, but quickly was translated to other scientific subjects as its potential was discovered. it is used in urban design but not currently not as a concept, more in the manner of a fact. am important theory around this topic is: a city is not a tree by christopher alexander {xxxx}
>memory - interaction, process - in terms of the relationship between humans and space the memory makes a huge bit of how we experience space and especially the urban surrounding. in terms of the time aspect memory provides a sense of continuity within a ever changing environment.
>scale and time - are general terms that apply to all topic. both can be interpreted as a technical unit or as concept.
>theTEXT - layout, keywords, structure, links, quotes,
the layout needs to be worked out in january. and will be revised in july when we have al the text bits.
as we are working on the Ggroup we will not need a special format wile working. what we do need is a specific structure in order to keep the final revising of the text elements as short as possible. this means mainly titling system, references, quotes and bibliography. we will also need keywords to indicate links between the topics.
titels - topic, C for comment or T for text, initial (jlf), date (yymmdd}, title of the text [example - adabtability_t_fan_071220_streetlevel
quotes are stated directly within the text, with name and year
references and keywords are listed in the end of the text and marked with numbers: 1.1keyword01, 1.2keyword02, ... and 2.1reference01, 2.2reference02, ...
the bibliography should be a document that we all share. probably a second edition of what we should read could be helpfull. maybe we even share the books and do not read all the same books. bibliography should be edited: author (date). title. place: publisher
>thePROGRAMM - the time frame is six month into the new year 2008. by the end of july the body of text has to be finished. during this time we put three public consultation [Pc]. this means we publish developed content on digital medias. the first one should take place in mid january and is an introduction to the project with an outline of the content. second one then is content work in march and the third one in may again with text content. we have to allow at least two weeks for people to respond and another two weeks for us to incorporate inputs. this results in a month of work that runs parallel to the normal content development following the Pc. of course it would be nice if exchange could continue after july, specially as a platform to comment on the final result. july and august are dedicated to layouting, proofreading and final mounting. the time to develop the text content is quite tight and the base has to be quite high, but if everyone writes two articles per month we should be able to bring together a good pile of work.
>theORGANIZATION - to publish the text in the end we should think about how to get a publisher to print it for us. the plan is to work on this just after we have the outline in mid january. a second round to approach publishers and potential founders should take place from june on. especially some founders should be found in the beginning. This should be possible, just like it has been done for the bartlett catalogue.
there is no decision on how much content we should work towards.
>theTOOLS - for now the decision was taken, that we are using google group [GoGr] as the development place for the text. google earth [GoEa] could be the tool to maintain example connection. the blog will be continued with material from the discussion. for public consultation we'll use the blog, facebook [Fb] and maybe we have to look for a myspace [mSp].
Ggroup it is seen as a better opportunity in terms of ease to follow ongoing parallel discussion. it should be used as follows: the discussion is for text development. each topic will get two headings, one for text and one for example. the problem with posting images in this section can be solved by posting text and comments via e-mail [we have to test this further]. the page section should be used only for common topics. this is something like bibliography and common definitions of terms and words [eg. quotes from dictionaries...] maybe text bits that are finalized [if so] and also for work/organization related topics.
GoEa could be introduced as a "new" tool. the intention would be to start a collection of marked places and maybe movement to be shared. with placemarks, path, overlays and so on we could share a vivid picture of the current city we are living in. [eg. example fan]
Fb, here we have to work on a way to use it to publish. would it be possible that L can do it? F: I am definitely not familiar enough to work it out
>toDO - jeff: draft of the outline for the book, cheque layout settings for the blog - fan: minutes of the meeting 071214-16, Ggroup setup, Gcalendar - L: testing option to publish content on facebook
by FAN 071220
Monday 10 December 2007
Urban reGENERATION
Urban regeneration
Adaptability
Cycles
Knowledge
Chaos
Based on the themes that we work with J, the conversations that we had in the coffee shop and the things we have write and read in the last year, several aspects have raised curiosity on me. Since I moved to Bogotá, a profound interest has grown on me on how to take care and change my city, I find myself worried about decisions that politicians make over the city, and it seems I always have a better way to resolve issues. You can call this irrational I think is love for something that I missed for a long time and now I feel part of it. F, how much of that brain extension is limited or extended according to your feelings towards that place? How much is your brain willing to explore when you find yourself in a new place? When does your brain finally feel at such a comfort level that in a way it stops exploring your surroundings and starts feeling it? Is this intuition?
Ok back to my vision, I do feel that we have in our hands several cities that can learn from each other, Bogotá could learn a lot from London the same way that Plymouth from Bogotá and so on. There is a certain topic I do want to develop in the research and is urban regeneration, cities in Europe don’t take this topic for granted since WWII, but I feel that we are fairly new in this topic and only now after realizing we are increasingly growing and no were to go we have to think on this, for the last years Bogotá has been a model for urban regeneration and a lot of projects are still to come. I believe urban regeneration link the other topics of my concern. Urban regeneration means adaptability, cycles, knowledge, chaos and now intuition.
Adaptability for the city to change, for the space to evolve, and the dweller to understand that as J says there are several other options to habit the space rather than the one that urban designers and architects dictate. Cycles to understand the city as a living organism and humans as flowing bodies traveling through paths that cannot be predicted; knowledge because is the future of our economies and chaos because I believe that is what we are and should always be part of us.
Adaptability
Cycles
Knowledge
Chaos
Based on the themes that we work with J, the conversations that we had in the coffee shop and the things we have write and read in the last year, several aspects have raised curiosity on me. Since I moved to Bogotá, a profound interest has grown on me on how to take care and change my city, I find myself worried about decisions that politicians make over the city, and it seems I always have a better way to resolve issues. You can call this irrational I think is love for something that I missed for a long time and now I feel part of it. F, how much of that brain extension is limited or extended according to your feelings towards that place? How much is your brain willing to explore when you find yourself in a new place? When does your brain finally feel at such a comfort level that in a way it stops exploring your surroundings and starts feeling it? Is this intuition?
Ok back to my vision, I do feel that we have in our hands several cities that can learn from each other, Bogotá could learn a lot from London the same way that Plymouth from Bogotá and so on. There is a certain topic I do want to develop in the research and is urban regeneration, cities in Europe don’t take this topic for granted since WWII, but I feel that we are fairly new in this topic and only now after realizing we are increasingly growing and no were to go we have to think on this, for the last years Bogotá has been a model for urban regeneration and a lot of projects are still to come. I believe urban regeneration link the other topics of my concern. Urban regeneration means adaptability, cycles, knowledge, chaos and now intuition.
Adaptability for the city to change, for the space to evolve, and the dweller to understand that as J says there are several other options to habit the space rather than the one that urban designers and architects dictate. Cycles to understand the city as a living organism and humans as flowing bodies traveling through paths that cannot be predicted; knowledge because is the future of our economies and chaos because I believe that is what we are and should always be part of us.
Friday 7 December 2007
workPROGRAMM_sketch
how can we structure our process.
you both mentioned concerns about the links to cities, as there is the possibility that we are moving to another place and the research could be discontinued. I think the cities we life in will be used as a reference and a place to observe our interests. it should be adaptable to other places, but we need to be careful that it doesn't become general and cheap. it should be specific for the one place.
about the text I am not sure how we can work one one piece of writing. you guys have done this at the bartlett once. how are your experiences?
I can imagine it to be some kind wikipedia or pattern language. say it to be some kind of open map like a graphical pattern language. we continue writing but interlink articles actively. each topic gets explored in an essay and this gets expanded among the keywords. references to our cities could become the links where the theoretical writings meet and interlink. say we write about adaptability and come up with examples of the real place but in the same drawing or image we might also find evidence of boundaries and this would then link to the essay about boundaries.
we need to develop a really good referencing system that then also allows us to bring the work into other forms, say a book.
let me know your inputs. the sketches are not meant to be a final proposal, just tried to visualize the discussion...
[1.0] K E Y W O R D S
.1 >
[2.0] R E F E R E N C E S
.1 >
[3.0] L A B E L S
.1 >work
you both mentioned concerns about the links to cities, as there is the possibility that we are moving to another place and the research could be discontinued. I think the cities we life in will be used as a reference and a place to observe our interests. it should be adaptable to other places, but we need to be careful that it doesn't become general and cheap. it should be specific for the one place.
about the text I am not sure how we can work one one piece of writing. you guys have done this at the bartlett once. how are your experiences?
I can imagine it to be some kind wikipedia or pattern language. say it to be some kind of open map like a graphical pattern language. we continue writing but interlink articles actively. each topic gets explored in an essay and this gets expanded among the keywords. references to our cities could become the links where the theoretical writings meet and interlink. say we write about adaptability and come up with examples of the real place but in the same drawing or image we might also find evidence of boundaries and this would then link to the essay about boundaries.
we need to develop a really good referencing system that then also allows us to bring the work into other forms, say a book.
let me know your inputs. the sketches are not meant to be a final proposal, just tried to visualize the discussion...
[1.0] K E Y W O R D S
.1 >
[2.0] R E F E R E N C E S
.1 >
[3.0] L A B E L S
.1 >work
Sunday 2 December 2007
URtheoryDIGGING_fan071202
to update my vision I would like to trow in the though of intuition.
does a concept of intuition exist in the field of planning? could it be helpful to involve intuition or should planners rather move away from something that is not clearly related to genius? is planning always rational - hyper rational - ?
planning is about taking decisions at stages one doesn't really know about consequences. as it is a process one/team often doesn't evene have a clue how the final stage could look like [in a good case]. taking decisions demands some flexibility and a great deal of independence [in good cases].
to deal with unforeseen changes within the development process one/team has to take decisions on a frequent basis to ensure to keep the project on track. this means the process demands to maneuver the development trough unknown territory although one/team has taken the same route before. different developments within the process do demand a great deal of creativity whilst jumping from one step to the next one.
as there is no knowledge about the exact future decisions can be as rational as possible - hyper rational - but are still based in the time taken. so to say one/team has to guess the consequences.
in terms of time there exist different reasons for this. one is the "unpredictable" future as being constituted out of all the current [now] and former [past] decisions end the other one is parallel processes that influence one another whilst unfolding.
so to say one could argue taking decisions within a planning process is guessing.
intuition [I am guessing here] could be a concept to support and rationalize the guessing process. what do I mean by intuition, can it be more than some kind of gift [born with an ability]?
in the first instance intuition is widely known as some kind of natural knowledge just like instincts. animals are usually born with "knowledge" to undertake daily tasks such as what to eat if their unwell, how to hunt and kill, how to raise their babies. I don't want to go too deep into biology but the same instincts exist in the human nature. our modern world tries to overcome them in any field of human activity, although best business is probably made among suggested instincts, shopping, sex, safety, ... [I am aware that the context is a bit more complex and there exists an influential cultural context around those topics …] in this case intuition is down to natural instincts used without the rational - brain - being involved. since the industrial revolution and in planning definitely since the modern times around maestro le corbusier where the planners managed to imply all the power onto the plan itself. rationality was developed and turned into a striking argument that did not allow any other inputs. [as a note, they managed an almost unimaginable change that would not have been possible if not as a consequence of previous developments embedded within a social change. but most of all the amusing aspect is the status the planner reached as the plans inventor. he is good himself : ) sorry for this. but maybe this was the birth of the contemporary genius idea of a planner. trough his "rational" plan that is regarded as "trough" the planner became the nb one enabled with all the power. - in such a context the previous mention about the split in the oma ny office [see: U R vision F A N 071125] can be seen in a different light and explains the call for a change. to move away from the one genius idea towatds a team / collective is probably crucial. but this is just the celebrity aspect alocated to individuals. the main focus is on the distribution of power. there is too much power related to anonymous objects and sheets of paper.
there were initiatives to change this situation of superimposed power. say public involvment projects but they lack the genius aspect and therefor have diviculties to claim their relevance. also is it difficult to establish a collective rationality among a bunch of people with a diverse background. the combination of collective development and centralized power (plan) does not make sense in a rational environment. although most peoples intuition tells them this doesn't work out like this and not their intelect (brain).
>note: maybe the lack of modern movement in britain could be the reason why architecture and planning are slightly different here than in mainland europe? but maybe the differences are not that much to justify such a theory...
but what could intuition be in this context?
if borrowed from the concept of instinct it would imply that the supernatural interpretation could be replaced with a contextual meaning. the interpretation of instinct in this case would be as acting system related. say in the case of an rabbit digging a tunnel to raise babies this would be an ecosystem. this lens acting within the rabbits natural surrounding in order to keep its place and its good energy balance. there is not really something supernatural to it (all very very rational, although its not explained how a single rabbit acctually is aware of its relations to the surrounding) if intuition is related to such a concept it brakes down taking a decision in planing to a system related step.
it could be argued that planning is something completly different and can't be compared to a rabbit surviving in a natural surrounding. there can be two answers to this. the first thought could be that the concept of inventing has to be questioned on different levels. it I'd not clear that the animal actually doesnt invent something as it would definitely surrender if just repeating actions and not Bering able to adapt to
intuition has other attributes to it, there are also aspects of knowledge, experience, interest, luck, ... involved. but they are over shadowed by the supernatural touch to the word. in such a reading it is not too far to the idea of the genius idea as this must be the supernatural intuition that guides the genuis's mind. but this is exactly where I try to move the meaning of the word away from. I d read it rather towards a contextual interconnection related way of taking the next step.
in relation to the concept of "hyper-rational" the concept of intuition could be explained as a slight shift of the focus. not just all the aspect get talked down to its essentials, its gona be rather the projects interconnections as an element of the system.
to explore the words meaning from a different point of view, one could line up from a "hyper" rational point of view. intuition has to do with the ability to understand and "interact" with a given or imagined setting almost blind. almost as if one is part of it. coming from system theory this would mean to act within the relationships and cycles of the system objects.
intuition could therefor also be an ability to interact with the system as an element of the system. this could be kind of like flying with the birds.
root-hyper-rational could be its definition where everything gets talked down to its roots, but rather round the actual task than into it. the idea would be to be clear enough of the system one/team is working with to establish a common knowledge about its function [relations, cycles] in order to intuitively taking decisions.
what could intuition be in the field of planning. intuition has to do with the ability to understand and "interact" with a given or imagined setting almost blind. just t as if one is part of it. coming from system theory this would mean to act within the relationships and cycles of the system objects.
intuition could therefor also be the ability [time and work based] to interact with the system, as an element of the system. kind of like flying with the birds.
the idea would be to be clear enough of the system and to establish a common [among the team] knowledge about its function [relations, cycles] in order to intuitively taking steps. one couldn't do wrong in this case.
one could argue that there would be the need to understand the context in relation to the project at a certain instant in total - just like a frozen time model. maybe this is possible in the future but it is not clear whether this is necessary. if we look at structures in nature that actually that have exactly this ability if not purpose, we can learn that they actually don't work like this. the brain is such a structure with a great ability to navigate within a system. but it is not ale to understand itself. this would be much too complex and a waste of energy/capacity. thats exactly where the concept of intuition/instinct is based. there is not an exact understanding but more of a sense on how to go about it. the brain acts according to the context in a responsive/integrative manner. a rather soft version with some trial and error elements involved, but still straight forward. this cuts down the amount of simultaneous calculations and operations. quite a simple way overall.
the other argument that stands against the concept of understanding the model as such trough out is the process. a process is fluid and does not necessarily demand a hierarchal, step by step process in a defines order. one/team just has to allow some flexibility and creativity.
would that mean that the term of active decision taking would be ruled out in such a case? - something else to explore...
instinct as a term seems in this context to bee a bit too basic. thats why I rather go for the term intuition but I guess I have to cheque this with a dictionary to work out the differences between the two terms.
[1.0] K E Y W O R D S
.1 >intuition
.2 >instinct
.3 >modern
.4 >planning process
.5 >hyper rational
.6 >root-hyper-rational
.7 >process
[2.0] R E F E R E N C E S
.1 >the plan in the modern movement - implementation of rational power superimposed onto an object/tool, the plan
[3.0] L A B E L S
. >intuition
Sunday 25 November 2007
U R vision F A N
urban design [UD] makes me nervous. not necessarily the outcome, built, although it usually gets me thinking, but more the aspect of planning as an act. the planning act is highly connected to the time it is undertaken. so to say we are dealing with fashion manifested as built form. with fashion I am not only talking about the color and style, but more the self-concept of the society as such.
even more than in architecture UD is representing the current society and its vision. architecture probably is closer involved with fashion and trends but is also able to cover it's ambitions with a style, color or material. UD on the other hand is kind of honest and lays bare the capacity of the society building it. one could argue, it therefore is a summary of the social and scientific background of the time. to follow, this idea would open the possibility to read something into any UD. say the barcelona masterplan with its octagon blocks and rigid grid reefers to the rationality of the scociety surrounding its development. it would be interesting to see how detailed such an interpretation could be developed. but in this case I would guess this.
past UD-visions were usually based in a wider such context. say related to architecture, art, science and society. see 1920's le corbusier's plans of rationality and separation. the intention was to clean up and install a plan that would be able to answer all the questions.
in terms of UDtoday there is now up to date theory covering these aspects. my vision for this project would be to outline such a concept of UD.
what I am talking about is the idea of something that lies beyond the obvious labels of UD. these labels size, high-with relation, connection, [space syntax], color, material, grain, usage, ownership, density... seem to me like materials to build something upon, but I d'rather be interested to talk about the tools to handle them.
something must be responsible for the setting of those elements. as stated above those settings can be seen as society rooted, and therefor a statement of the current state of the art. fashion and trends are probably not predictable, lots of theories around predicting this must exist. here I would say it could be more something as state of the art rather than visionary. if it would be possible to root UD in society that would already be a lot. in the end I do believe in something like a collective memory. UD as a massive form representing this. like the thought I mentioned once in one of my plymouth posts, UD as a body extension. is it possible that one can/does experience UD as a body extension. experiencing and shaping the urban environment at the same time? how far can a intellectual body extension be stretched?
I am thinking about some references just like you guys [J_L] did in your bartlett project, you had some interesting references into science. could be into physics, math [fractals, space syntax, systems, ...], neurotics, medicine, sociology, art, fashion, it, computing, communications, design, material, environment, ...
to refer this vision to my former topic "cycles" [C] I would interpret the aim of the investigation undertaken at the bartlett as a search for an element that drives movement within an urban setting. as a vision Cs could be an element of an urban driving system that contents objects, relations and Cs. this was my basic picture, but I was not able to built up enough evidence to proof anything. but there too was the aim to research on the driving forces behind urban live. also the AKA project could be read as an investigation in this direction, the search for the basic elements of UD. we talked long enough about floating and reconfiguration elements until the "city" dissolved. but again at this point we where not able to come up with the essentials nor the drivers beyond the elements we managed to supersede - so it is kind of time to try again : )
I read an article about the possible split of the new yorker OMA office from its sister office in rotterdam. it is probably down to a dispute between the master rem and the new head of the new york branch. the argument of the guys in new york is basically that they want to establish a new vision of architecture that moves away from the one genius idea in architecture [thats why they think they can not continue working with rem k. as he is an celebrity in architecture and widely recognized as a genius...]. they call it HYPER-RATIONAL [2.2]. sounds great and basically means bringing the intellectual architecture on an even more rationalized level [can't believe it]. explained is it as talking things down to essentials. in order to take decisions and setup directions on those simplified findings.
transferred this idea into this vision, it would be trying to brake UD down and reach trough the decoration of the above "materials" to access the simple links within the society - UD system.
I do see our locations [the different towns] as test and specially recourse areas, where different findings and outputs can be compared.
in order to find essentials this comparison could be the key point. trough comparing the same aspects we would be able to filter out data that refers to underling processes. I imagine it to be real fun to dismantle bogota, london and plymouth/basel. a reassemble in a different order/mixture could be even more fun, having good old ben in bogota high-street and drake-circus at the riviera basel.
to go about it: braking urban structures into fragments is a matter of systems/perspective. say we could brake along extended analysis lines, such as transport links with infrastructure - multistory parking. in terms of history, starting with a urban timeline, we could look at elements from the past that survived and up to now have a relevance within the city structure. ex: union street in plymouth, covent-garden in london.
this would suggest that we continue on the strategy but transfer investigations consequently across the different locations. we end up having a comparable catalog of topics revealed from three/four different scenes.
what do we need a UD theory for? is it useful to know how to do it, to act in different cases? what is the meaning of such a theory. it can't be a how to do manual. this goes too low. I do see a theory more as a state of the art description. a sketch of interrelations and a manifesto for the urban society and positioning UD in the light of a collective commitment rather than a collage of genius visions. this would give consideration to UD as a continuos and collective process and incorporate its fluidity referring to the society it is constituted out of. the word theory is probably not the right one, it claims to be too intellectual. it should be rather guerilla style - [plymouth under attack, bogota under attack, london under attack, basel under attack]
to conclude, I have no idea what I just wrote about and even less clue of how to go about it. it is basically a collection of feelings if not dreams, but maybe for a vision dreams are essential, specially with a personal favor for utopias.
-
fan_visionStatement_2007-11-25
-
maybe this is more of a statement rather than a vision....
[1.0] K E Y W O R D S
.1 >interpretation of designs
.2 >summary of state of the art
.3 >independent statement
.4 >new theory
.5 >underlying process
.6 >hyper-rational
.7 >city comparison
.8 >
.9 >...
[2.0] R E F E R E N C E S
.1 >barcelona masterplan
.2 >prinz-ramus/rem koolhaas OMA twist - businessweek.com, interview with Joshua Prince-Ramus, feb 23, 2006 - "We believe in a hyper-rational process where you accept the constraints, conditions, and challenges of a project, and you attempt to engage them by going back to first principles. You don't accept any convention. ... Our observation is that if you do this hyper-rational, almost dumb process of taking everything back to first principles, it's tiring as hell, but you start to construct something that has never been done before -- something that transcends convention."
>[http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/feb2006/id20060223_523277.htm?chan=innovation_architecture_architecture+lead]
>[http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/95/open_design-prince-ramus.html]
>[http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=35551_0_42_0_C] what the web-community has to say
[3.0] L A B E L S
.1 >work
.2 >research
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)