ADAPTING TO A CULTURE OF ‘TRANSIENCE’ DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY CITY Aditya Vipparti, Masters student in Urban Design, CEPT University, Ahmedabad, India
Abstract Built environment is a continuously evolving dynamic entity. The role of designers is to mediate between stability and change. Design is thus an act of morphing built form and space to align people and their environment with change, yet retaining the vitality of fundamental human needs– dwelling, community and place. The transient nature of the built environment and indeed life is as crucial as the three physical dimensions of our perception. This paper explores the above discussed theme in the context of today‟s „network culture‟, where digital network technology has become a dominant cultural logic. Contemporary life increasingly dwells in the virtual information realm, apart from our familiar physical environs. Boundaries of time and space are shrinking, and fundamental notions of „program‟ and „typology‟ are being challenged. Consequently, built environment will be characterized by homogeneity and generic nature of spatial use and character. Having said so, the „atemporality‟ and „location free‟ nature of activities and virtual interactions that have become possible, should only reinforce the need for the „local‟ / „specific‟ / „physical‟. This forms the premise to envision a new adaptable spatial system equipped to bring about an appropriate local-global / real-virtual relationship. Keywords: network culture, physical, virtual, transience, generic, anti-type, parasitic, glocal. INTRODUCTION „Network Culture‟ signifies the development of a new societal condition spurred by the maturing of the internet and mobile telephony. Over the last decade, „the network‟ has become a dominant cultural logic, and has restructured global economy. Owing to it‟s pervasiveness, the network‟s influence has crept into the major realms of urban life – economy, public sphere and culture [1]. Importantly, it has overlaid a new „virtual information realm‟ over our physical urban environment. Architecture and Urban Design would have to increasingly take into account the play of digital information in space, apart from the traditional play of masses and light. The network‟s ubiquity is accentuated by the fact that it directly or indirectly affects urban life patterns of people from all walks. We are at the threshold of a new kind of transformation- that brought about by „bits and bytes‟. Research methodology The effort here is to understand the characteristics of „transience‟ endemic to network culture. Subsequently, the research would attempt to trace the threshold at which network culture creates a paradigmatic shift in our notion of stability and change. This would entail that the organizational structure of the built environment that governs it‟s dynamics, will need to be revisited. It would bring to fore some critical concerns for space/place makers. Also, the exploration here dwells in a zone of contradictions – real vs virtual, local vs global. The study would then further attempt to find some latent opportunities, beneath these contradictions; which could become the basis to frame a design methodology for the 21st century city. Specifically, the paper elaborates on the „generic city‟ theory as one of the implied transformations. In trying to counter this theory, the research tries to understand the fundamental human need for the „local‟/ „specific‟/ „physical‟ as a possible latent opportunity.
TRANSIENCE – THE FOURTH DIMENSION Let‟s see how preceding eras led to contemporary culture which is network driven and predicated on connection. While early 20th century modernist culture witnessed „mechanization‟ for the first time; it‟s succeeding post-modern culture saw „digitization‟, which was a process of abstraction or reducing complex wholes into more elementary units. In turning objects, machines, places and people into quantifiable, interchangeable data, digital culture was universalizing [2]. This laid the foundation for today‟s network culture and it‟s super global connectivity. Digitization made possible in the previous era, can now use the network to be sent or received anywhere anytime. This phenomenon has accelerated the speed and volume of transactions that drive the world – be it financial, social networking or entertainment. This leads to the state of high transience. To speak of network culture or network society is not to imply that networks are somehow new or unprecedented: postmodernity is also a culture of decentralized, global networks and what is modernity but the first regime of globalization and telecommunication? But our networks are different. They are lighter, more pervasive, colonizing everyday life. There‟s no way to separate out technology from mainstream culture anymore [1].
Figure 1: A culture of transience. The following aspects would help understand some typical characteristics: Dematerialization In network culture, information is the key currency. By removing the physical aspect of commodities from their representations, digitization enables capital to circulate much more freely and rapidly. Today, networked connection replaces abstraction. Information is less the product of discrete processing units than the outcome of the networked relations between them, links between people, between machines, and between machines and people [1]. Increasingly, the immaterial production of information and its distribution through the network dominate the global economy. The ensuing condition, as Manuel Castells suggests in The Rise of the Network Society, is the product of a series of changes: the change in capital in which transnational corporations turn to networks for flexibility and global management, production, and trade; the change in
individual behavior, in which networks have become a prime tool for individuals seeking freedom and communication with others who share their interests, desires, and hopes; and the change in technology, in which people worldwide have rapidly adopted digital technology and new forms of telecommunication in everyday life [3]. Location-free and mobile Network culture is a condition of „connectedness‟ such that one could use the network to have interactions anywhere across the world. This operates through a network of scales from hand held devices like mobile phones to personal laptops to large displays in public spaces to whole urban regions and so on. What it also means is that an individual is no longer bound to any activity or function by virtue of it‟s physical location. People simultaneously inhabit virtual and physical realms to enable their high level of mobility. Activities and functions are no longer confined by „place‟, rather it gets upgraded to becoming „mobile place‟ whose physical construct could be used for various location – free interactions in the virtual realm. Atemporality If the last 50000 years of man‟s existence were divided into lifetimes of approximately 62 years each, there have been about 800 such lifetimes. Of these 800, fully 650 were spent in caves. Only in the last 70 lifetimes has it been possible to communicate effectively from one lifetime to another, as writing made it possible to do so. Only during the last 6 lifetimes did masses of men ever see a printed word. Only during the last 4 has man been able to measure time with any precision. Only in the last 2 has anyone anywhere used an electric motor. And the overwhelming majority of all material goods we use in daily life have been developed within the present, the 800th lifetime. The 800th lifetime is the age of super industrialization and super-communication and super-technology. The 800th lifetime is where all boundaries of space and time have disintegrated [4]. Having obtained near-total instant access to information, our desire and ability to situate ourselves within any kind of broader historical structure have dissipated. The temporal compression caused by globalization and networking technologies, together with an accelerating capitalism, has intensified the ahistorical qualities of modernism and postmodernism, producing the atemporality endemic to network culture [1]. Threshold for a paradigmatic shift There is an important aspect which has helped built environment deal with change; that of cyclicity. The concept of „cycle‟ of course has varied manifestations – daily cycles, seasonal cycles, ritual/religious cycles, and so on. It lends a certain order, rhythm and pattern to the working of the built environment; and at the same time leaving the in-between zone of transience flexible to change. This is where one begins to notice the threshold for a paradigmatic shift. Today, the long established principle of cyclicity gets challenged by our 24x7, globally connected, highly mobile lifestyle. It is not appropriate though, to suggest that the notion of „cycle‟ will become obsolete. It only needs to be redefined and aligned with present day dynamics. This argument will be taken further in the following discussion.
GENERIC CITY „Generic city‟ is a term coined by Rem Koolhaas to represent contemporary urban condition – that of global networks and homogeneity. Of particular interest to this paper is Koolhaas‟ remarks on how the notions of „program‟ and „typology‟ get challenged in network culture.
Location-free and atemporal lifestyle means that Generic city would have to account for homogenization of activities – living, working, shopping, playing etc anywhere anytime. “It has to swallow more and more program to survive; soon we will be able to do anything anywhere. We will have conquered „place‟” [5] “Traditionally, typology implies demarcation, the definition of a singular model that excludes other arrangements. Generic city represents a reverse typology of cumulative, approximative identity, less about kind than about quantity. But formless is still form, the formless is also a typology” [6].
Figure 2: Homogenization of spatial use and character through a network of scales. Repercussions on built form The mechanism of „cycle‟ is ingrained in the working and programming of basic urban components. Let‟s understand some possible spatial transformations: Home- refuge as well as workplace: Being connected to the network would increasingly make it possible to work from home. The challenge in designing the house typology would then be to retain the character of home as a „refuge‟ while accommodating for an adaptable workplace [7]. Workplace- formal working as well as casual meeting place: Working from home would not result in the disappearance of the workplace. The workplace would however begin to shed it‟s formal cubicle layout to accommodate a more casual meeting place to present and discuss work [7] .
Shop- going to buy as well as online orders: Commerce would witness major dematerialization as a result of online transactions. Production, distribution and purchase would get decentralized. The activity of shopping would change from „going to buy‟ to „ordering after seeing a product‟[8] . Institution- location-bound introvert spaces as well as location-free extrovert space: Traditional institution typology has been based on formal location-bound learning and spatial segregation of disciplines. Network enabled institutions will move towards location-flexible and interdisciplinary learning [9] . Amenity- centralized establishments as well as decentralized access points: Network connectivity would make it possible to create decentralized access points for civic amenities along with centralized establishments. For example: bank ATMs, telemedicine centers, e-governance centers [7] . The above discussed situation shows a certain paradoxical ambivalence. The cycle in the built environment would need to deal with this paradox. The transformations as projected above show that; while on the one hand there is a tendancy to break away from the cycle of the local physical environs, there is a counter-tendancy to compensate for the broken cycle through global/remote virtual activities. Let‟s see how this paradox affects the organizational structure of the built environment CHALLENGES TO BUILT ENVIRONMENT’S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Figure 3: Switching to the 21st century metropolis. We need to relook at the idea of the 20th century city, to come up with an appropriate scenario for the 21st century city [fig. 3]. The 20th century city was automobile oriented, based on the model of core and periphery. It is increasingly becoming obsolete and is being replaced by the 21st century model based on network of globally connected techno poles (high-tech enclaves). The emergent model is thus, that of a network which allows for geographical dispersion yet reinforces certain strategic nodes. A good way to decode the organizational structure of a city‟s built environment is by understanding the distinct levels of intervention. The diagram in fig. 4 signifies that there are various actors (users, designers, decision makers) who shape the built environment at different levels. It is continuously in the process of change and transformation, such that all the actors involved in the process are part of an overall sense of order [10].
Figure 4: Built environment‟s organizational structure. This kind of an understanding of the city gets challenged: Emergence of the ‘anti-type’ The earlier explanation of the transformation in fundamental urban components shows that the boundaries of time and space have been crushed and folded leading to the creation of the „antitype‟, that category of user-systems and spatial-systems that do not fall under any typology. The challenge to the established systems of the built environment is that there is a new mix of relations emerging between space types in a particular level of intervention and across levels. One critical concern is thus to help the built environment adapt to this change. Spatial Junk Failure to adapt to the transformations brought about by culture of transience will lead to accumulation of spatial junk. Hence, the need for a spatial system that helps in sustainable use of space in the wake of generic homogenization of program and typology. Arriving at an appropriate ‘Global – Local’ relationship Traditionally, decision makers and stakeholders in a built environment have been within the confines of the political and economic confines of a context. This notion gets challenged in today‟s globalizing scenario where the world‟s economic geography is transforming based on virtual information technology based transactions. Cities are operating as nodes in the global network and are being inserted with high technology enclaves. A mechanism would have to be devised where these inserts could be rooted better to the local organizational structure.
NEED FOR THE PHYSICAL / LOCAL / SPECIFIC By now, it is clear that the multitude of transformations brought about by network culture is operated by a global network of interactions in the virtual information realm. This presents us with the question as to what really is the role of the „physical‟ then. A careful observation of our daily lives reveals that a majority of our network interactions are meant to facilitate our actual physical activities, meetings, necessities. If anything, virtual interactions only augment the importance of the physical. For instance, the instant availability of free downloadable music hasn‟t meant the death of the music industry. It has only added to the demand for live concerts. The easy availability of movies online has only enhanced the value attached to multiplexes. One can also notice the increasing value attached to studio apartments, service hotels, and convention & meeting centers. After all, the more network transactions there are, the greater the value attached to face-to-face meetings.
This phenomenon is termed by William.J.Mitchell in his book, “E-topia „Urban life, Jim – But not as we know it‟”, as the „Economy of Presence‟. In conducting our daily transactions, we will increasingly find ourselves constantly considering the benefits of the different grades of presence that are now available to us, and weighing these against the costs. Physical presence does consume money [7]. It would be possible to complete a large portion of day-today tasks online. While this means that one can save costs for physical presence, it also means that an added premium will be associated with certain physical activities and spaces which cannot be compensated by the virtual realm. This could assume two scenarios: Firstly, certain exclusive places and activities would gain added importance – exotic restaurants, resorts and places of natural beauty like hills, beaches etc. The mobility offered by the network could help some select groups to flee their locational confines and cluster around places of special and exclusive attraction. Also, the flow of information on the network would accentuate the craving for some particular public events like concerts, live shows, sports events, large religious ceremonies, cultural displays etc. Secondly, as remote long distance activities are facilitated by the network, the immediate local physical surrounds of a person would become additionally important. He / she would like to have as many diverse physical activities of immediate necessity, in the immediate vicinity as possible; be it work, shopping, play, amenities etc. Opportunity Thus, the physical and virtual realms work together rather than in isolation. The latter scenario projected above shows that, due to the location free and mobile nature of contemporary life, one‟s immediate physical surrounds get additionally charged. This means that, what one gets to do in the walkable vicinity around would become important. The paper argues that the „physical-virtual‟ paradox in network culture is in itself be a blessing in disguise if one chooses to capitalize on the latter scenario. It could be an opportunity to create a walkable, mixed use humane habitat working in cognizance with the „network‟.
POSSIBLE DESIGN METHODOLOGY The search for an appropriate design methodology in the scenario being examined, delves in a tricky zone of struggle between the physical and the virtual. The argument thus far leads to the standpoint that the virtual realm while significantly bringing down barriers for flow of bits and bytes, accentuates the need for the physical. It would be appropriate to draw an analogy of physical and virtual realms with two organisms sharing a parasitic relationship – one feeding of the other. However, the role of the parasite switches as per the situation. As has been inferred in the previous section, the scale of walkable vicinity should be used as a design principle. Then, this parasitic relationship assumes greater charge because of the need for walkable proximity. A ‘Parasitic’ system This system involves a fixed spatial framework over which an overlay of parasitic growth is allowed which is determined by the forces of change. For instance, a transformable layer of transient local activities could be allowed to grow over a fixed layer of static global inserts. Here, local and global could exchange roles of the parasite depending on the situation. The traditional role of built environment has been one of reassuring us that things are under control, i.e. stable and static. The rate of change in today‟s network culture is obstructed by
the inertness of existing spatial systems [11]. Hence, this parasitic urbanism helps in this adaptation by reuse as well as addition to the existing static systems. Flexibility as a sustainable adaptation to change. Flexibility is defined as the inherent property of a system of components to be able to modify itself to the forces of various internal and external stimuli, which directly or indirectly affect the system. Flexibility is a property of a system, preserving its basic recognizable qualities in response to change. Thus, flexibility means that some components of a system are transformable or dynamic while others are constant or static. The intent behind the new spatial system implied above is to be complete at any stage, in order to allow for growth and change. Yet, it is functionally and therefore visually open ended. This indeterminate form thus offers clues for the interpretation of future users.
Fixed framework
Transformable framework
Transient functions Static functions
Figure 5: Parasitic spatial system – fixed framework overlaid with transformable framework. In the absence of this mechanism to adapt to a condition of high transience, there would be residual spaces. Thus spatial junk forms when a system is not planned for future growth or transformation and not left open ended as a design solution. And as a solution to spatial junk, the permanent space is simply broken down, altered, rebuilt or renovated. The result: uncontrolled waste of space and resources. Thus, the need for a flexible spatial system that allows for sustainable adaptation to transience. One could now elaborate on some tangible facets that this concept implies. Vertical landuse: The envisioned mechanism entails that traditional landuse zoning becomes redundant. It would be replaced by vertical landuse planning, where a mix of functions would be created vertically, thus adapting to the advent of the anti-type and reusing existing spatial volumes. This would also mean that existing static functions could be inserted with compatible transient function at appropriate vertical levels. Thus, space between buildings would get activated apart from internal spaces. Walkability as a structuring order: With the redundancy of landuse zoning, there would be a diverse range of activities within walkable distance from a point. This is also influenced by the fact that an individualâ€&#x;s
activities in the city become location free, and mobility in the city is by choice rather than by necessity. Thus it would be preferable to be based at a particular location and having immediate necessities – work, shopping, recreation etc at a walkable distance, while long distance activities are accessed online. Global + Local = Glocal: The envisioned parasitic system allows for an interface between „global‟ and „local‟ in contemporary network where global could add value to local and vice versa. Thus comes about the idea of a „glocal‟ public realm where global and local interact with each other. The design should allow for spill over from the global and local components at points, and at others allow for their particular territorial definition. Hybrid interface between virtual and physical realms as architectural expression: What could be the appropriate architectural expression for a network culture which resides as much in the world‟s material construct as in it‟s abstract dematerialization? Architecture like all other products – cars, appliances, commodities; has to be streamlined with the paradigm of networked intelligence. There are two aspects to this. Firstly, this is an opportunity to equip buildings with smart systems for better management and utilization of systems & resources. Secondly, one needs to explore the horizons of creating spatial experiences by means of network technology – interactive surfaces, facades; human gesture cognition etc.
CONCLUSION Imagining „future‟ has always fascinated designers. Quite often, utopian visions turn out be a bit too far from eventual manifestation. For example, futurists of mid - twentieth century predicted human inhabitation of „extra terrestrial space‟ by the turn of the millennium, which quite clearly hasn‟t happened. To round off the exploration in this paper, it would be useful to reflect on an approach which could lead us to a plausible vision for our future cities. The paper realizes that „change‟; on one hand, it is driven by people‟s evolving needs, their frame of mind and lifestyle. On the other hand, technology is a major catalyst of change. As demonstrated earlier, „transience‟ has become the prime determinant for these two factors in today‟s network culture. Taking stock of the findings in this paper, one can notice an underlying „paradox‟ in this culture of transience. The human mind of the 21st century will dwell in an uncomfortable zone of conflict between global vs local, virtual vs real, solitude vs social network, home vs work and so on. Design has to increasingly deal with this. An important lesson to be learnt is that, this paradox cannot and should not be resolved. What is critical though is to align people‟s frame of mind to change while morphing the built environment. So, the paradoxical tendencies of network culture are something that should be taken up as design parameters and expressed, rather than being concealed or eliminated. This approach could bring about an interesting set of urban relationships and interfaces. Re-thinking mobility (dispersal vs centralization) As people become equipped with virtual hyper mobility, there would be centralization of home / base location and immediate walkable environs. This helps in cutting down „travel by necessity‟, thus contributing to energy savings and dematerialization.
Re-cycling of space (type vs program) As has been suggested in this paper; with collapse of boundaries of space and time, it becomes essential to equip spaces with flexibility to accommodate several different programs and activities of life. This entails recycling the use of space, thus reducing spatial junk. This philosophy could also extend to recycling of building materials and resources. Socio cultural re-connection (global identity vs local familiarity) In a globalizing network of interactions, the mind is constantly caught up in a struggle to clarify one‟s association with identity, culture, language, religion, nationality etc. In tandem with the above mentioned possibilities, one could imagine virtual reality as an augmentation of local familiarity. One could use the information realm to reconnect to local way of life and enhance one‟s face-to-face social interactions. We could thus begin to take upon the paradoxes of the „network culture of transience‟ to contribute to a networked sustainable future.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Notes: 1. Varnelis, K., The Rise of Network Culture, http://varnelis.net/the_rise_of_network_culture, pp.1-5, (11 August 2010, 5:30pm IST). 2. Gere, C., Digital Culture, Reaktion books, p. 11, London, 2002. 3. Castells, M. The Rise of the Network Society, Blackwell Publishers, p.2, 1996. 4. Bose, A. Transience & the Flexible Habitat – an inquiry into systems, transient times & the flexible habitat antitype. Unpublished student thesis, School of Interior Design, CEPT, Ahmedabad, p. 59, 2005. 5. Koolhaas, R., “Generic city”, S, M, L, XL, New York: Monacelli Press, pp. 1248 – 1257, 1995. 6. Koolhaas, R., Junkspace, www.jstor.org, pp. 175-190, October 2002, (17 July 2011, 11:15am IST). 7. Mitchell, W.J., E-topia “Urban life, Jim – But not as we know it”, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachussets, pp. 70-83, 98-111, 128-145, 2000. 8. Suau, C., Margarita Munar, M., The mall in the online shopping era, http://newurbanquestion.ifou.org , (18 January 2011, 7pm IST). 9. Albers, J., Hybrid library for a social suburbia, http://jalbers.com/thesis%20book-web.pdf. (20 January 2011, 3pm IST). 10. Kendall, S., Open building concepts, http://open-building.org/ob/concepts.html , (9 May 2011, 5pm IST). 11. Pit, M., Steller, K., Streng, G., Parasitic architecture, http://gerjanstreng.eu/files/T02%20essay%20parasitic%20architecture.pdf , (13 June 2011, 1am IST) Other references: • Baxi, K., Circling around the multi-national city, Architectural Design, Vol 75, No 6, 2005. • Castells, M., The Informational City, Blackwell Publishers, Massachusetts, 1989. • Graham, S., Marvin, S., Splintering Urbanism, Routledge, New York, 2001. • Heitzman, J., Network City- information society of Bangalore, Oxford press, Delhi, 2004. • Kenniston, K., Kumar, D., Bridging the Digital Divide, Sage Publications, Delhi, 2004. • Sassen, S., The global city, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2001.