A Sustainable Train of Thought

Pseudo live-blogging of a presentation by Maurice Cox at the GSD.

You can complain about the building codes, or you can get involved and change them…

Premise: there are some urgent matters, and some issues which can be weeded out which are not urgent. What you do has incredible relevancy when applied to matters which are truly urgent.

Two cases: one where you have the authority to make changes, and one where you’re leading, but nobody has given you the authority.

Maurice Cox grew up in Brooklyn, saw the decline and disinvestment within the community as it turned into a low-income neighborhood, and this influenced him to explore what influenced these changes and he as an architect could do to reverse this trend.

Thomas Jefferson equated design with happiness.

How to develop an architecture of trust when the public understands the implications of the tools architecture uses—typically planning and architecture are instruments of power. (discussed while showing how the downtown of Charlottesville, VA was razed and rebuilt with the “downtown of business” in mind.)

Using design for its transformative power. Thinking about the risks involved (political and otherwise) related to change.

Charlottesville: why grab adjoining tax base when you can create your own. Look at the entire city as an organism, a whole. Finding a way to strategically increase density.

Design thinking is applicable to problems which may seem political or social.

After defeating plans for a maximum security prison near their town, the community came together and leveraged their capacity for action and design to redevelop and rebuild their own community.

The development process of six years was one of matching their values to reality. Within the community, learning the tools and developing the capacity for transformation—there must be a sense of urgency behind it.

Richmond, VA – a ten-year process of change, zero-displacement, mixed incomes. Involves over 15 different stakeholders.

New Orleans, LA – How to respond to the grass-roots, citizens desire to rebuild.

The Global Green Competition – rebuilding with a focus on green, sustainable designs. How to integrate services (childcare), hydroponics on the roof, and solar panels and louvers.

Moss Point – reached out to Maurice Cox to learn more about the redevelopment process. Engaging in a door-to-door survey to understand the concern of the community prior to resolving problems and designing.

Biloxi, Mississippi – FEMA’s new Flood Elevations and its impact on architecture. (Structures must be 12 feet above flood level—leads to houses on stilts with many stairs.) Design constraints…so how do you challenge those constraints? Through a design fair (sponsored by Architecture for Humanity), architecture models presented to the community and engaged in a dialog with the designers. They began to express preferences and make choices.

(Unfortunately, several slides were missing from his presentation due to some problems with Powerpoint)

QA Session: need to pace the changes at a rate people can absorb them.

Visual communication skills are the most effective tools in the process.

Not to say there’s a direct correlation between internet access and my productivity…but if today is any indication, the evidence is rather compelling. Today I worked for about 9 continuous hours. Every other day this past week has yielded significantly less productivity. The difference? No internet access today, sitting in Gund hall in the shadow of a concrete stairwell.

I suppose another correlation could be proposed, one to do with my proximity to studio (apparently any studio will do) and productivity. But the evidence in this case is less compelling, because although I’ve typically produced more work in studio than when outside studio, I’ve also typically had internet access in studio. Comparing my productivity today with past work sessions in studio suggests that my previous output in studio has been less than optimal when exposed to internet access.

Or maybe I’m just more productive today because I’ve become sick of hearing myself complain about how unproductive I’ve been lately. Maybe I was resolved to be productive today and this clarity of purpose yielded tangible results. Perhaps…but I’m inclined to see the internet as the common denominator amongst all unproductive days.

So let’s extend the experiment and collect more data: I’ll avoid internet use during working hours (what I’m working on right now doesn’t really require it) and see if that contributes to increased productivity. I think the key is to intentionally put myself in WiFi dead spots, although that implies an addiction of sorts; kind of like getting sober by locking up the alcohol and destroying the key.

I wouldn’t characterize it as an addiction so much as a compulsion: if I have internet access, then I find myself occupying my time instead of using my time. Kind of like watching people on TV being creative for an hour and finding your own situation unchanged at the end of the show. Surfing the web for an hour or two leaves me feeling exhausted, as if I’ve been working all that time, but of course I haven’t produced anything. More thoughts, more ideas, more ruminations, more blog entries, perhaps, but no work to speak of.

Am I the only one to experience this phenomenon? What do you think it means for the future of ubiquitous computing? The fact is, sometimes I need a break. Sometimes I need to “get away from it all”. Sometimes I need to cut down on the noise and distractions, ignore the blinking lights and flashing screens. Sometimes I need a clarity of focus and purpose to get work done. How do I turn off the ubiquitous computer?

Yet the curse is that when I return, the inbox is fuller, the IM conversations longer, the phone calls more urgent. My RSS reader reminds me of exactly how many posts I haven’t read, or conversely, how productive everyone else has been (even if it’s to write a blog entry)—I haven’t opened that thing in months: the quadruple digits of unread posts is just too much. When do we stop running the information economy and it starts to run us?

Thus, I currently find myself very much ensnared in a love/hate relationship with technology. At the end of the day, it’s practically Pavlovian: New mail? Check the inbox!

So let’s try a few days without the internet…

Haiyan pointed out a blog post about a reputation network that’s in development by monkeymodulator for World of Warcraft, an online Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG).

What you get to rate is player behavior and characteristics, such as reliability and fun-ness. This would have been nice to have when I was playing StarCraft a couple of years ago. When you’re playing a multiplayer game online, the quality of the other people you’re playing with impacts the game as much as the game mechanics. I’m talking about quality of playing—because a bad player or newbie can make you lose an otherwise winnable game—but I’m also talking about the character of the player (in the real-world sense), taking into account whether he or she is interesting, fun, intelligent, etc.

Talking about games brings up an interesting point: tracking reputation within a game is relevant to the game experience, but is it relevant to real-world activities? What is the relationship between in-game reputations and real-world reputations? In essence they’re all reflections of you, so they’re all relevant. The difference, however, is that real-world transaction take place within one construct and set of rules, and game transactions take place within a different construct and set of rules. By entering a gaming situation, you are entering a world where the rules may be drastically different from those of the real world.

Ultimately, the hinging point or the difference between reputation in the real world and reputation in a gaming situation lies in consequences. Real-world consequences are inherently different from those of the virtual—one example, perhaps the most obvious difference, is that in-game characters may have unlimited lives. Therefore, while in-game transactions may mimic real-world transactions, because of this difference in valuation (and by valuation I mean the assessment of the consequences related to a particular action), reputation within one system (in-game) is inherently different than in another (real world). My assumption is that humans will respond differently to different rules and consequences. Therefore, a set of actions within one rule system will not necessarily reflect actions within a different rule system. For example, in many video games you kill other characters and creatures. This behavior does not translate into real-world behavior, for obvious reasons. (People who are confused by the disjunction of realities—in game and the real world—may have trouble distinguishing one rule-set from another.)

But what if one rule system were imposed in another rule system? One situation that springs to mind is Diablo II by Blizzard. One of the online gameplay modes is “hardcore mode”. As Blizzard explains:

Hardcore mode is a more challenging style of game play on Battle.net, recommended only for experts. In Hardcore mode, you live only once, meaning that if you die, your character can no longer be used.

Clearly, the addition of this rule system changes behavior simply through the addition of consequences: your hard work in developing a character can all be lost in a few moments. Suddenly, the situation shifts: reputation is meaningful because it provides important information that may mean the difference between living and dying (in the online gaming environment, of course).

This notion of consequences is one I explored in my thesis project Thimble, where I found that the notion of consequences was important to lending weight to ratings. In the case of thimble, consequences arise from your relationship with others in your local, physical community: you can’t hide from your bad behavior.

One of the most amazing things I’ve encountered in recent days (if not months—this thing is really amazing!) was presented briefly at the Situated Technologies symposium I recently attended.

Waaaaay back in 1980 (!), a project called Hole in Space linked New York city to LA via a satellite video conference setup. Life-sized television images connected Lincoln Center in New York to a department store window in Century City, Los Angeles, California. Passersby could view, listen to, and speak with one another in real time through the setup, which was presented without any indication of who was responsible for it.

Amazingly, even though there was absolutely no promotion of the project, the crowds grew so large by the third day (simply through word-of-mouth, later reported on television) that it had to be shut down. Random people chatted with one another, family members reconnected—the fact that people had to travel to the installations was not an obstacle.

It blows my mind that in an age of Skype we don’t have this today. Amazingly, a woman at the time (1980, remember) was quoted as saying “Why didn’t we have this 20 years ago?”

I wrote a little more for the previous post which I ended up cutting, but the general point of the excised text was that the internet currently tends to act like a vast echo chamber, not only in terms of the views and opinions expressed, but also to whom they are expressed. That is to say, those who make up the online communities: people with access to a computer, internet access, read/write english (typically). It’s not like I can contact a refugee from Darfur, although I wonder what would happen if I could.

One phenomenon during the Isreal-Lebanon war just recently was the ability of citizens on both sides to talk, argue, and debate with each other via the internet. Their governments weren’t their mouthpieces: they themselves were. And what it came down to was that people on both sides had the opportunity to realize they were all human beings.

And it occurs to me that Hole in Space provides the same ability for individuals to converse as blogs ostensibly do: direct communication without a filter. War may be seen as an abrogation of direct communication between individuals in favor of communication (base though it may be) via figureheads and organizations. Television could be seen as the same: our news is filtered through CNN, whether by reporters or by news anchors. I don’t think it’s conspiratorial to think that the reason something like Hole in Space is exceptional rather than the norm is because these organizations don’t want us to communicate directly. Livelihoods are at stake in the case of television anchors; control in the case of governments.

Just imagine for a moment what the implications would be should another Hole in Space be set up between downtown Baghdad, Iraq and Main Street in Kansas City, Kansas.

I just attended a conference in New York City where it became immediately apparent to me that I didn’t fit in. Not that it’s a bad thing or a good thing; I simply realized that my priorities and focus over the years have changed significantly. While I enjoy a stimulating conversation as much as the next person, I’ve also developed a point of view which now includes Charles Eames’ observation that “Design is a plan for action.” And I must admit, I didn’t see much in the way of action at this conference. A lot of talk about concepts and theories and definitions, but very little in the way of concrete contributions to a cause.

Maybe I’m biased because my entire thesis year was spent looking for ways to make concrete contributions to a cause. But my observation from this weekend’s events is that a common cause might prove useful in harnessing all of this intellect and creative energy and focusing it towards real change.

Perhaps a step back is required to explain my position. In my first thesis presentation (way back in 2005) I proposed that the challanges posed by the climate crisis hold the potential to unify us towards a common goal, just as the Apollo missions captured the imagination, attention, and enthusiasm of the American people forty years ago. We have an opportunity to define real goals, produce real results, and instill real change. And this opportunity is nothing less than an opportunity to bring meaning to many peoples’ lives.

Now before the two people who read my blog get all upset, I use “meaning” as a framing device for actions and decisions. So just as a larger goal of buying a house would probably frame the choice of whether or not to max out your credit card, the climate crisis (and the other attendant ills that humanity faces as Jared Diamond so comprehensively presents in Collapse) provides a framing device for decisions and actions by both society and individuals.

So let’s talk about something controversial. I think most of the so-called “social networking” stuff out there is suspect. Sure, it’s fine if you want a diversion, it’s fine if you want to make money selling Google adwords, it’s fine as a commercial enterprise. But what has “social networking” really accomplished for society? What is its lasting contribution? How has it helped humanity to take a step forward?

I’m not saying that “social networking” is useless. Rather, I’m saying perhaps the energy behind its current application is misapplied. Look, we have more computing power available to us through the personal computer and the Internet than at any other time in the known history of man, and the best we can do is MySpace?

As I’ve said many times before, we face a multitude of very real problems and we have a very real opportunity to instigate change, to gather and focus human enterprise and enthusiasm towards a compelling, worthwhile, and meaningful goal.

Read the following passage from this Salon.com article, Calculating the global warming catastrophe, and tell me that current “social networking” sites are addressing these very real issues of community…what I would term social sustainability.

The technology we need most badly is the technology of community—the knowledge about how to cooperate to get things done. Our sense of community is in disrepair at least in part because the prosperity that flowed from cheap fossil fuel has allowed us all to become extremely individualized, even hyperindividualized, in ways that, as we only now begin to understand, represent a truly Faustian bargain. We Americans haven’t needed our neighbors for anything important, and hence neighborliness—local solidarity—has disappeared. Our problem now is that there is no way forward, at least if we’re serious about preventing the worst ecological nightmares, that doesn’t involve working together politically to make changes deep enough and rapid enough to matter. A carbon tax would be a very good place to start.

While this passage makes the point that our lack of community has made it difficult to pursue change politically, I think the more important point is the lack of community, period.

Think about that for a moment.

In a time when, theoretically, anyone can contact and connect with anyone else in the world, we are experiencing a lack of community.

Does anyone else find this curious and frustrating?

A bit of delayed live-blogging for this conference in NYC…

Usman Haque was the first speaker and I didn’t think to begin blogging until Victor prompted me over iChat. I’m already doing a write-up for the conference for their evening session, but it’s going out only to the IDC mailing list.

One of the more (personally) interesting comments he made was “most people are familiar with Arduino”. Arduino, as you may know, originated out of IDII and the Wiring project, and it’s nice to see how far it’s gone.

^^^^

I’m going to take a different approach to this live-blogging format and just add stuff to the end: it gets a little too confusing for me to keep adding stuff to the beginning, and it is problematic when reading the final product as it becomes very Memento-esque.

Peter Hasdell is the next speaker. He’s talking about Second Nature and the Digital Wild. He’s shown potato and lemon radios, and some physical “creatures” that interact with people, basically asking the question of whether technology must be use-driven. What exists between scripted and unscripted behavior?

Personally, I find these interesting questions, but lacking in a particular…urgency. Obviously anything technological done on a small scale is more or less harmless, but once it scales to large-scale production, seemingly minor problems magnify: resource-use, electronic waste…

^^^^

Michael Fox is next. Why hasn’t architecture done more with engaging the future? is it a fascination with forms? The economics of R&D dictate innovation: architects don’t invent very often. What does R&D have to do with being visionary?

The format for this morning is very quick presentations followed by a group discussion, so there’s a lot of information flying around but not much in the followup at this point. Maybe the conversations will reveal more.

“How does the environment teach us to use it?” He’s got several examples of full-size, large scale prototypes that people can walk around and interact with, and learn from the process (both creators and users). One project is in LA where paired balloons react when people bump into them, deflating and inflating until the person leaves and the system returns to a state of rest.

Not experts, but know how to communicate design intent.

^^^^

Natalie Jeremijenko What’s the difference between a security camera and a camcorder? Unequal access to data: you can’t access the security data. Asymmetrical access…Her talk is basically looking at museums, the types of interactions within them, and the assumptions we currently hold about how to behave in museums.

I might note right now that the WiFi access at this venue, while appreciated, is HORRIBLE. I keep dropping my connection…I know my Powerbook has WiFi issues to begin with, but this is way beyond what I’d consider normal.

She’s showing off SoundSystem, the Tilty Table, and some other projects, talking about the differences in interactions with the devices based on the social resources around them at the moment.

^^^^

Post-lunch posting…

Anne Galloway – the panopticon, convenience and security, devolving management to the level of the consumer. Difficult to have recourse if there are no human beings attached to the process. Where do you locate responsibility and accountability? The citizen’s responsibility. “Power is a negotiation.” What kind of intermediaries are we talking about?

Anne has an abstract of her talk on her blog Purse Lip Square Jaw.

^^^^

Question session: fear is fear about belonging?

Well, the live-blogging isn’t working so good as the internet connection isn’t cooperating…so just some random notes I took while listening to the presenters….

Jonah Brucker-Cohen – the rsstroom reader

^^^^

“Karmen Franinovic”http://www.zero-th.org – Transforming behaviors through interactive art

^^^^

Richard Coyne – Voice as spatial determinant – how large the space, determined by how far the voice carries? Pantagruel’s encounter with frozen words: in space, cut off from being. I actually like the image this conjures as it reminds me of Beowulf for some reason, probably the concept of transition between the oral tradition and the onset of writing.

^^^^

Photos will be posted on Flickr.

If you’re reading this, then the DNS changes have propagated and you’re now viewing content from my new host. Yay!

As for what’s going on with this blog: personal, professional…it’s all tied up together now, so I might as well let this blog reflect it. Once things change, I may reformat things, but until then it is what it is.

I’m currently in the process of moving several thousand photos from my personal gallery (along with captions and titles) into Flickr. Once this migration is complete, it’ll be much easier for me to switch hosts. Plus, more people will be able to see my photos and I’ll do without the annoyances of moderating photo comment spam (although, surprisingly, I just received my first comment spams on Flickr the other day).

I haven’t thought about what I’m going to do with this blog. Originally I kept my personal blog separate from my thesis/work/professional stuff. But I’m also tired of managing two blogging systems (wordpress and blogger). Minor annoyance in the grand scheme of things, but I also have to think about where I’m going to post something before I start to write it. I’ll just use the tagging system to manage the personal and professional stuff, and maybe when I have some time I’ll come up with some wordpress trickery to more visually distinguish the entries.

I’m starting to get a little annoyed by the linear-ness of blogs, just as I am with the navigational system on Flickr. As I am currently in the process of doubling the number of photos on my account, the whole thing is coming across as clunky. Add the Flash memory leak issue in Safari, and the Organizr is rapidly becoming my nemesis. (Yeah, I’m not a huge fan of Firefox either.) Of course a web app isn’t going to match the responsiveness of a desktop application, but I’d still like a more manageable, less resource-intensive way of dealing with large numbers of photos. I imagine the people who run Flickr already realize that accumulating massive numbers of photos will require novel methods of navigation.

For instance, after adding 500 new (old, really) photos, I wanted to check out some of the newer ones I’d taken. With the page-based navigation scheme at the bottom of the page, this required about ten clicks. Viewing and exploring photos is one thing, but methinks managing photos will require a different paradigm. Even going back and tagging all of the photos is a huge pain. I’d settle for some low-rez, quick-loading images when assigning tags—they’re my photos after all and I know what I’m looking at. If I want, I could always load a higher-rez version to confirm the details.

Assuming I’m going to be a customer of Flickr for the rest of my life (now that they have my photos locked away), I hope they’ll offer more, shall we say, modal management tools. That is, optimize my browsing experience. Optimize my photo management experience. Optimize my uploading experience (I have to use a third-party program to upload my 1000 photos, or else face a 5-at-a-time browser-based upload mechanism…what gives?!). Optimize my tagging experience. Let me switch between them easily, but demarcate them clearly. Again, I can’t imagine that the one-at-a-time method of viewing photos in Flickr will work when dealing with the millions of photos I will have in my photostream in, say, ten years.

Once my photo migration is complete (which may take another month considering the 2GB upload limit), I still have a bunch of problems with technorati to take care of (they don’t do well with subdomains, I found out), google sitemaps to create, analytics to install, and phase two of updating my portfolio. In addition to all the other projects I’m working on. Good to be busy I suppose.

In other news, I’ll be in NYC next week doing a write-up of a symposium. And here’s a nice sunrise:

OK, the latest version of my portfolio is now up. Consider it a work in progress. One of these days I’ll get my blog consolidated and everything moved over to the new host. Really.