The digital condition of the next generation of architects.
Mario Andre Sampaio Kong
Social Me The digital condition of the next generation of architects.
MA (Hons) Architectural Design Dissertation
MĂĄrio AndrĂŠ Sampaio Kong (0789924) The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. April 2011
2|3
Acknowledgements It would have been next to impossible to write this dissertation without Richard Coyne’s motivation and guidance: his thought provoking conversations and blog posts provided me with much inspiration. I am forever grateful to my parents whose generous efforts have always ensured me every condition to be able to excel in my studies. I would also like to thank Carlos Infantes, my mentor at Opera Design Matters, who first sparked my interest in the relationship between architecture and digital networking during my placement in Barcelona. Lastly, I would like to thank all my Facebook ‘friends’ who had to put up with my often-despaired status updates during the writing of this piece!
4|5
Abstract This dissertation seeks to examine the predictions of the future of architecture through the social reality of generation Y. It compares and contrasts the discourse of the tradition of the sociology of architecture with the current, broader digital social network discourse, speculating on how the latter may inform the former.
Given the digital nature of the personal and professional lives of this generation within the already mutating condition of the architectural profession, a new type of architects is bound to enter the market with original, more collaborative, multidisciplinary ideas and different approaches to design.
Using up-to-date reports examining current and possible future scenarios surrounding the use of social network sites and social behaviours, together with first hand observation, the argument constructs and lends itself to speculation of the years to follow.
6|7
List of Figures
Figure 1: Social Network Sites Timeline (1997 -2006). Figure 2: Facebook screenshot of an uploaded photo of The University of Edinburgh architecture studio (via Facebook for iPhone). Figure 3: Facebook screenshot of the group for Unit 2 of the Architectural Design Option. Figure 4: Relationship of the habitus to structures and practices. Figure 5: Screenshot of Architizer.com home page. Figure 6: Architizer brochure diagram explaining the different users. Figure 7: Screenshot of Archello.com home page. Figure 8: Augmented Reality on Archello. Figure 9: Connection Badges on Archello displaying a project’s network of Products and Materials, Companies involved, People, and Social Media links. Figure 10: Architizer for the iPad - Launch event. Figure 11: Architizer virtual architecture map. Figure 12: Plug in City, Archigram. Figure 13: De Stijl publication. Figure 14: Archigram publication cover. Figure 15: Building Futures Report (2011) cover.
8|9
Contents
Contents.........................................................................................................................................9 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................11 SECTION 1: Digital Lives – A generation of networked individuals...............................15
1.1 Social Network Sites (SNSs)...............................................................................17 1.2 Generation Y (the techno pop culture)..............................................................19 1.3 Architecture Studio Today....................................................................................21 1.4 Architizer and Archello.........................................................................................25 1.5 Social vs. Anti Social – The architect’s demeanour..........................................31
SECTION 2: Amongst the Architects – A socio-historical perspective...........................35
2.1 The Architect’s Circle ...........................................................................................37 2.2 Clusters of Networks – Collectives, Groups, and Clubs................................43 2.3 The profile/picture today.....................................................................................45 2.4 Bridging Offline and Online................................................................................49 2.5 Conclusion..............................................................................................................51
SECTION 3: Towards a Digitally Networked Studio...........................................................53
3.1 Networks Now.......................................................................................................55 3.2 Building Futures Report (RIBA)........................................................................59 3.3 Speculating and imagining (what if…)..............................................................63 3.4 Conclusion.............................................................................................................69
CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................................71 BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................75 IMAGE CREDITS....................................................................................................................81
10 | 11
INTRODUCTION Given the surge of social digital media that has invaded almost every aspect of life, one is left to question what impact it has had on the architectural profession - a community that has for centuries, been networking offline, knitting webs of influence, power and trust. This subject is of contemporary relevance, and it is important that it be studied now as the subject is in a constant state of hyper-growth – an analysis done in a months time will contain a mass of new material and statistics compared to one done today. Indeed, during the process of collating information and resources, new ideas kept stemming from news and developments in this field, which, due to the limitations on the scope of this study, had to be filtered. For this reason, the dissertation that follows will act as an argument responding to a snapshot of the history of today.
This dissertation looks into the effect that generation Y will have on architectural practice in the near future. Within the argument, which crosses the historical discourse of the sociology of architecture (drawing largely from the case presented by Gary Stevens in “The Favoured Circle”) and that of social networking sites (SNSs), I have included short references to my own experience as a member of generation Y, in the hope that this will provide a more personal but also unique account and therefore argument. From this perspective I can build upon everyday observation with speculative reports, literature and quantitative data, such that, I can write from an informed position.
The ideas discussed ultimately surround the current crisis experienced in the profession today, where the architect is increasingly loosing power to other roles in an industry that is becoming ever more specialised and fragmented. How will the emerging architects of generation Y respond to these challenges, and how can social digital networks be used to their advantage? Will there be a restructuring of traditional architectural hierarchies? What are its effects on the production of architecture? The discussion within the following three chapters will seek to answer these questions and more, and will hypothesize and imagine scenarios where the developed use of SNSs might best be used to architects’ benefit.
12 | 13 By combining two known bodies of research from different fields, one historical and the other current, I hope to unveil and discover new ideas. This investigation could be of considerable interest to those engrossed in speculative futures in architecture, but also for software architects developing design based platforms. Furthermore, it provides food for thought for other students who will be going into practice, in particular with regard to the importance of collaboration. Lastly, it is aimed that this text will be an interesting and current take on trending topics that would be informative for architectural tutors who are dealing directly with generation Y, and are shaping their understandings of architecture today.
14 | 15
SECTION 1 Digital Lives – A Generation of Networked Individuals
Figure 1: Social Network Sites Timeline (1997 -2006)
16 | 17
SECTION 1 Digital Lives – A Generation of Networked Individuals 1.1 Social Network Sites (SNSs) Since their first appearance in 19971 social network sites (SNSs) have quickly become dominant threads within the digital fabric of the web. Such sites include Facebook, MySpace, Orkut, Twitter, and LinkedIn, amongst a vast array of others, forming a densely packed environment of SNSs that fluctuate in popularity, historically and geographically. The sites range enormously in their style, target users, interests and concepts. As somewhat of a web-flâneur, I come across new SNSs that aspire to become a part of this exponential surge of connectivity, daily. Evidently, such hype is driven by economic ambition (even though they are free for users, they generate income elsewhere along the chain through advertising), but nonetheless, it has formed an extremely fascinating social scenario that has implications on several other fields, including that of architecture.
Facebook is currently the most visited website in the world, with more than 500 million active users, therefore making it the most widespread SNS.2 It is incredible to see how, single-handedly, this SNS that launched only six years ago is now subject to more web traffic than Google - the most popular search engine for all web data,3 and this is despite the fact that China (accounting for a sixth of the global population) has blocked access to it. The Facebook phenomenon is by far the most impressive case of online community activity - on average each user creates 90 pieces of content each month posted visible to the average user’s 130 ‘friends’.4 Over a third of these users actively access their profiles through mobile devices, giving evidence of the technological autonomy of this virtually voyeuristic, active community.
1 Danah Boyd, “Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications”, in Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, Ed. Zizi Papacharissi, pp. 39-58, (London: Routledge, 2010), Available online at <http://www.danah. org/papers/>, [Accessed on 23/03/2011]. 2 Facebook.com, “Statistical Data”, Pressroom – Facebook.com, Available at <http://www.facebook.com/ press/info.php?statistics>, [Accessed on 05/04/2011] 3 Reuters, Facebook tops Google as most visited site in U.S., 30/12/10, Available at <http://www.reuters. com/article/2010/12/30/facebook-google-idUSN3011260620101230>, [Accessed on 06/04/2011] 4 Facebook.com, <http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics>.
18 | 19 Whereas Facebook is particularly geared towards personal relationships, personal life and the links between users as ‘friends’ or ‘family’, the focus of Twitter is on content (in the form of tweets), that is posted by users and seen by their ‘followers’, who they may or may not know. To a certain degree it can be considered to fall outside of the SNSs category because its concept and structure follow that of a blog (or a microblog in this case).5 It does, however, create an intricate network of information exchange within society, which ranges widely in its content. Its significant expansion over the short time it has been in use can be associated with the adoption of twitter by pop-celebrities like actor Ashton Kutcher or pop-star Britney Spears.6 The relationships between the media and SNSs are undoubtedly strong and therefore concepts associated with celebrity, popculture are an influence on the content, attention and style of many of these on-line environments.
MySpace is a prime example of how a SNS has naturally evolved through user interaction. If at the outset this SNS was a generalist socialising platform, it naturally directed itself to the music industry, providing a launching platform for new artists and bands such as Lilly Allen or Arctic Monkeys.7 This did not, however, imply subject exclusivity within the form, thus creating a hybrid community where those interested but not necessarily participating can still be involved. This is not the case with some other ‘niche’ SNSs that close themselves off from the general user by being very specific and restrictive in their content. (Further on this phenomenon will be analysed in relation to architecture-focused SNSs like Architizer and Archello.)
1.2 Generation Y (the techno-pop culture) Generation Y is a term used to describe the first generation to grow up during the boom in digital technology. It refers specifically to those born in the 21-year period between 1977 and 1997.8 This generation has come to use Web 2.0 to interact and communicate, in contrast to the old HTML coded web that was a “platform for the presentation of content”9; a static network. This generation lives within two parallel worlds: on and off-line. Due to the nature of their interactive digital lives, both co-exist and feed into each other, providing a truly integrated experience of both. The development of more mobile, more sophisticated equipment like smart-phones and tablets enables
5 Alice Marwick and Danah Boyd, I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience, 2010, Available at: <http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/06/22/1461444810365313>, [Accessed on 05/03/2011], pp3-6. 6 Ibid. 7 Robin Goad and Tony Mooney, The Impact of Social Networking in the UK, Hitwise, 2008, Available at: <http://www.hitwise.com/uk/registration-pages/the-impact-of-social-networking-in-the-uk>, [Accessed on 26/02/2011] 8 Don Tapscott, Grown Up Digital: How the net generation is changing your world, (New York: McGraw Hill, 2009) p17. 9 Ibid.
Figure 2: Facebook screenshot of an uploaded photo of The University of Edinburgh architecture studio (via Facebook for iPhone). The photo shows a laptop with a Facebook page open. The comments that follow the post, by other architecture students, read “Always Facebook...”, “I was probably on Facebook too as this photo was taken haha!” and “I wonder who I’m stalking”. These comments show perfectly the facebook environment within the architecture studio today.
20 | 21 users to be autonomously and continuously online during their offline lives – online life is no longer tied down to a desktop computer. Given the recent shift in focus from traditional media (e.g. TV and print) to digital forms of on-line entertainment (YouTube, blogs etc.), the media has strongly penetrated the digital communications realm to ensure the continuation of its existence.10 The term social digital media has strong ties to SNSs that largely operate as interactive media; where users can comment, select, post and become active participants, selecting only what they wish to see, and at high speed.11 Naturally, pop-culture - that is intrinsically a source for media coverage - has found an environment in such networks that is both hospitable and sustainable. Pop-celebrity culture presents an attractive lifestyle to this generation, providing idealised icons that are portrayed as wealthy, popular and living fun-filled, glamorous lives.12 There is a public curiosity in relation to the private lives of other people’s, something that came into the spotlight with the advent of popular reality shows such as ‘Big Brother’ in 2000. This voyeuristic cultural context is relevant when observing the attitudes that generation Y users adopt on SNSs. Despite the high interactivity level within SNSs that would suggest a communitarian attitude, there is also a recognisable pattern of narcissistic behaviour in a lot of the users. Studies on SNSs have divided users into categories dependent upon their role within such networks. One of these is the ‘Attention Seeker’, which denotes users who network as a way to call attention to themselves, rather like pop-celebrities do.13 The style of the posted content of these users is primarily: photographs, ‘status’ updates and personal comments. They believe their network follows them and enjoys the content they upload. In other words, they become micro celebrities with the perception that they entertain a group.
1.3 Architecture Studio Today Given the general socio-technological environment of generation Y, how is this environment manifested and experienced in the architecture studio as a gestational space for future architects? From an insider’s perspective and through first-hand daily experience, the patterns observed in research on generation Y and the popularity of SNSs are strikingly discernable in the studio today. Architecture students appear to use Facebook for anything and everything: to communicate privately, to communicate publicly, to ask questions, to socialise, to work, for entertainment and even for dating. Indeed, one most regularly sees students working on AutoCAD and browsing Facebook profiles and pages in parallel. Even most ‘offline conversations’ will occur surrounding online content either on a laptop or smart-phone (and more recently a few tablets). Through-
10 Robin Goad and Tony Mooney (2008) p4. 11 Don Tapscott, (2009) p42. 12 Geert Lovink, Zero Comments– Blogging and Critical Internet Culture, (London: Routledge, 2008) p28. 13 Ofcom, Social Networking – Research Document, 2008, Available at: <http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/marketdata-research/media-literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/socialnetworking/>, [Accessed on 27/12/2010] p6.
Figure 3: Facebook screenshot of the group for Unit 2 of the Architectural Design Option where students discuss work, collaborate in group work and organise meetings and work division. There is the option for live chat as seen on the bottom right corner of the image.
Figure 4: Relationship of the habitus to structures and practices.
22 | 23 out a normal day in the studio, one is certain to hear the word ‘Facebook’ said more often than ‘building’. Facebook has come to absorb almost every student in the studio – it is an organisational platform for their (or should I say our) lives.
Architecture students also choose to engage with Facebook to collaborate and communicate with their peers about university work; it is not exclusively social. University based platforms like The University of Edinburgh’s MyEd and SMS mail are almost exclusively used for communication between students and tutors – rarely between students. For this Facebook is preferred. For instance, in the Architectural Design Option courses where the studio is split into different units, students informally set up private groups for those students in each unit to communicate through messages, live chat or posts, to organise meetings, and to exchange data between peers. This presents a remarkable scenario whereby students log into their private social profiles to engage with their academic and work related projects, in a seamless transition between personal life and work. Facebook is the easiest method of communicating with everyone, given that everyone is so active on it already; there is no need to set up more complicated alternative forums or blogs that are not part of everyone’s daily interaction.
It is worth questioning, however, if the habitus of architecture students at university predisposes students to act in this digital manner.14 Habitus refers to the complex sociological construct that defines the social posture of an individual, defined by acquired sensibilities such as taste.15 One can only be digital if one has access to technology that enables the opportunity to learn and become fluent in it. The interest in social and symbolic capital comes from the habitus of an individual. Studies have revealed that the majority of architecture students come from higher income groups.16 This suggests that as a whole, architecture students will have been exposed to a structure that will have not only enabled them a more educated form of perception, but also a familiarisation with technology. This could denote that digital users with a more socially advantaged habitus may use technology in a more sophisticated and truly integrated manner. Indeed, the Wellman team found that “those with a university degree were more likely to be involved in synchronous online activities and those with lower qualifications were more likely to play multi-user games online, concurring with other researching.”17 Furthermore, within Facebook one can observe a distinct division between those users who come online to socialise and those who come online to play Facebook game applications such as ‘Farmville’. The former group (who frown upon the spam requests to ‘help find a lost horse’) are often found to ridicule the latter.
14 Gary Stevens, The Favored Circle: The Social Foundations of Architectural Distinction, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998) pp56-59. 15 Ibid. p57. 16 Ibid. pp189-193. 17 Howards, Rainie and Jones (2001) cited in Deborah Chambers, New Social Ties, (New York: Palgrave, 2006) p119.
Empowering Architects
Everyone Links to a Project
Architizer is a new way for architects to Created by architects for architects, Architizer interact, show their work, and find new is built specifically for the nuances of the clients. It is a social networking website architectural field. Architizerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s design is where architecture is the tool through which predicated on the intense collaboration that connections are made and relationships are goes into any architectural project. One built. Architizer is an open community of project has dozens of contributors, from the architects, architecture curators, critics and intern who made the conceptual models to fans, a site designed to transcend its editorialthe construction administrator. This kernel based peers and empower the architecture. It is of information links all members of the the online place to see and show contemporary architectural community. architectural Figure 5: Screenshotdesign. of Architizer.com home page. The similarities to other mainstream SNSs is evident. manufacturer The window manufacturer sponsors a page for their product used in the project
museum The museum that hosts a show featuring the building receives a link
university The university that two people on the design team attended is linked to the project
firm The firm that designed the project administers the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s page
guest editor
junior designer
The guest editor features the project in an article about trends in architecture
The junior designer who worked on the design is credited for their contribution
Your project on fans
institution
Fans post comments, video and pictures of their visits to the building
The institution that awarded the building a prize is linked to the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s page
Figure 6: Architizer brochure diagram explaining the different users.
blog The design blog featuring the building receives a link on the page
24 | 25 1.4 Architizer and Archello Architectural SNSs have recently begun to appear. Since the launch of ‘Architizer’ in October 2009, almost 6,000 firms worldwide have joined this website, collectively uploading over 21,000 projects. It can be compared to an architect’s version of Facebook with features of LinkedIn and Issuu: Architizer is a new way for architects to interact, show their work, and find clients. It is an open community created by architects for architects. One architectural project has dozens of contributors, from the intern who made the conceptual models to the construction administrator. A project on Architizer links all members of the architectural community.18 To certain extent, there seems to be a contradiction in ‘an open community by architects for architects’. If for generations the architectural profession has had a reputation for being closed,19 ironically, this intentionally open community that can be used to ‘find clients’ seems to include, into the description of its utopian mission, the reality of its condition. It does not function the same way as MySpace did for musicians, because this SNS grew out of the desire of the users, and not that of the site developers.20 It does, however, give the opportunity for ‘anonymous subordinates’ in architectural firms whose name or face rarely sees the limelight, to have a presence as an individual, a contributor to a project or as part of a team. In fact, there is currently a rather weak level of interaction amongst architects. It returns to the earlier question of online narcissistic behaviour. The website is mostly used as a self-marketing tool (which is only one of its many intentions), with architects uploading their work, and the interactive potential aspect of it is still to be reached. This could possibly be due to a lack of interest in communicating or collaborating in architecture (that goes against the argument that generation Y is fully capable and interested in this), a sense that is an added burden to the already busy lives of architects, or it could also simply be that at an early stage, with such a focused and limited user base, the website has not gained enough momentum to pick up user interest in interaction. Such phenomena are dependent on exponential behaviour that is then self-sustained by its own inertia.
Lovink rightly regards that the, “recycling of old content that is reheated online is a good indication of the integration of the Internet into our society, but is not particularly innovative.”21 Having said this, I believe it to have a considerable amount of potential, especially when one begins to imagine what added features could enable architects to better communicate and collaborate globally. Interest in the site can be seen by the 18 Architizer.com, About Architizer, Available at <http://www.architizer.com/en_us/intern/about-architizer/>, [Accessed on 12/12/2010]. 19 Gary Stevens, (1998) p13. 20 Danah Boyd and Nicole Elisson, “Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11, 2007, Available at: <http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html>, [Accessed on 14/03/2011]. 21 Geert Lovink, (2008), p110.
Figure 7: Screenshot of Archello.com home page. The platform is similar in many ways to Architizer.com
Figure 8: Augmented Reality on Archello.
Figure 9: Connection Badges on Archello displaying a projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s network of Products and Materials, Companies involved, People, and Social Media links.
26 | 27 younger, conceptually and architecturally identical (as well as visually) website Archello, that has regarded it to be a niche market with potential by launching a competing site.
Despite the uncanny resemblance, Archello comes with new added features and gimmicks that could potentially give the advantage required to increase users’ attention and surpass its original model: Architizer. Such features include augmented reality models that users can ‘play’ and interact with on a webcam, and an explicit focus on a shared materials library, connection badges for projects, displaying the different connections of the project to different people, companies, social media channels, and product and material libraries. Additionally, a case study database invites collaboration more effectively than the more linear showcase structure of Architizer.
The two slogans that promote each website are also telling of their attitudes. When it was launched, Architizer’s tagline was “Empowering Architects”. This brought into question why architects needed to be empowered and how showcasing projects within an architect community could achieve this. Essentially, it was extremely sensationalist - even the name ‘Architizer’ itself, a hybrid of ‘architecture’ and ‘socialiser’, evokes a science fiction weapon to combat all evils of professional architecture. The tone and language used throughout the site carries this idea on, suggesting it is aiming to appeal to a younger, ‘hip’ crowd, heavily under the influence of pop-culture, the users of such social networks – their main user target, in order to bring architecture into the mainstream (the profitable) field.22 Today the tagline is: “Where clients find Architects”, which is indicative of a more overt attempt to reel in more users by spelling out the ‘benefits’ of joining. In an essay on the subject of architecture and advertising, Dirk Van Den Heuvel says “to broadcast a message you need to know which message to broadcast.”23 It appears that Architizer is still trying to find this message, perhaps because of the loop that can be detected in their mission.
In contrast, Archello’s slogan: “Your connection with architecture”, carries an emphasis on relationship, community, and user content. Archello is less explicitly and exaggeratedly dramatic in its tone, which is indicative of the differences in the philosophies of the two sites and gives an indication of the direction in which they may develop and be used in years to follow (given they survive).
Nonetheless, Architizer, as the pioneer, currently holds the advantage over Archello in terms of site visits and users, and also in terms of diffusion. Architizer has launched an i–pad application and is using a competitive marketing strategy which follows the more
22 Ibid, p27. 23 Dirk van den Heuvel, “The Delft Attraction”, Volume -Broadcasting Architecture, 3, Ed. Ole Bouman, (Amsterdam: Archis + AMO + C-LAB, 2005:3) p12.
Figure 10: Architizer for the iPad - Launch event.
Figure 11: Architizer virtual architecture map.
28 | 29 traditional conventions of offline networking, in the form of hosting branding events with important names in architecture such as B.I.G. (whose pop presentation style is in sync with that of Architizer). Similarly, they have ensured a group of ‘starchitect’ presences (such as Libeskind, Mayer, and OMA) on their website to attract aspiring ‘starchitects’. Indeed, advertising today “is pure communication”,24 consistently projecting the sites’ aspirations to widen their audience – the need to communicate and make aware. Both these websites take advantage of the popularity of Facebook and Twitter by using ‘Facebook Connect’ technology to bridge the social networks so that ‘likes’, ‘friends’ and ‘tweets’ are synched.
Both of these SNSs create a virtual map of architecture that acts as a geo-referenced archive for contemporary architecture; built or un-built and designed by famous or unknown architects everyone stands on equal ground. In this respect these SNSs do considerably alter the structure of the field as we know it: a system of long established hierarchies led by chains of influential masters and pupils.25 In this virtual world everyone starts off on equal ground but is subject to public critique – the widely adopted star system, a favourite feature within web 2.0.
Both websites are already extremely useful for students, who can access precedent material more readily here – by searching by location, programme, keywords, materials, architect amongst other criteria, providing a highly flexible architectural search engine. In the future it could become a valuable architectural history resource, with a wealth of information about different architects. It would provide an unedited future equivalent of today’s Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architects, “the most comprehensive assemblage of architectural biography ever attempted”,26 containing around 26,000 biographies of leading figures in the history of architecture and construction. It would be up to the user’s judgement and discretion to decide what is of value and what is not, but they would have full flexibility to do so. This would avoid accusations of biased selection for such archives, where to include one figure or another is, to a certain extent, a subjective matter.
What Architizer seems to be doing is creating a platform for architects to be able to do what other platforms such as YouTube have done; where users post and expose their content to be viewed by the masses, an opportunity that would otherwise be unavailable to them. An example is the case of YouTube celebrities such as Ana Free who used this medium as a means of getting exposure as a singer, and has now over 20 million views, over 51,000 subscribers and from it has gained a record label contract. What such platforms end up doing, therefore, is reorganising the way that professional links 24 Paul Virilio, cited in Brett Steele, “Brandspace”, Archis – Branding, 181, Ed. Ole Bouman, (Amsterdam: Archis/Artimo Archi, 2001:1) p1. 25 Gary Stevens, (1998), p144. 26 Ibid. p126.
30 | 31 are established within a network. The structural hierarchy that previously shaped several industries has been completely reconfigured. It seems to me, however, that the main difference is that music as a product is a natural fit with respect to the mass media and architecture is not (or has not been so far), and that is why Architizer endeavours to be mainstream in its style - attempting to steer architecture in a more profitable direction. The product of architecture is just simply not cut out for mass entertainment and Architizer would be better looking into the possibilities that it offers for architects to develop and collaborate on new projects.
Architecture SNSs can, therefore, perform two main roles: 1) they can be used more superficially as a social and marketing tool, for the promotion of architectural renders and glossy money-shots within a traditional architectural operative mode (although this could also provide a valuable historical archive), or 2) they can be used as an internal collaborative and interactive tool within the construction industry, to provide a novel structure for the different sectors to work together more efficiently in a global environment. As it stands, it could be argued that SNSs almost create a dangerous case of franchising – a set of parameters and templates that without true development and interaction could produce a clone environment for all of architecture and for people.
1.5 Social vs. Antisocial – The architect’s demeanour
What may not come across as immediately evident is that social networking sites are in fact, considerably antisocial offline. Despite today’s mobile online condition, they isolate users preventing them from socially interacting to the same extent in offline or ‘real’ life. It gives way to an antagonistic relationship between the social aspect of networking and its antisocial resultant condition: “this is the network paradox; there is a simultaneous construction and destruction of the social at hand.”27 It is particularly interesting to assess such a situation against the current situation of the architect, given that despite the long history of networking for architectural commissions and the fact the construction industry constitutes a team environment, “a definite tendency is seen for architects, particularly the more eminent, to be most unsociable.”28 As in architectural practices, online social networking is as much about group interaction as it is about self-promotion of artistic genius. It poses itself swaying between the social and the antisocial.
Combining the qualitative analysis of generation Y’s online behaviour with quantitative data relative to SNSs use, and taking into account empirical observation within an architecture studio, one can begin to profile a representative model of an architecture 27 28
Geert Lovink, (2008), p29. Gary Stevens, (1998), p13.
32 | 33 student today. It appears that the youngest generation to enter architecture offices is incredibly capable of simultaneously living on and offline, being able to conciliate more than one task at hand at any given moment, and making no distinction between the two. Their social and professional or academic lives are separated by extremely tenuous boundary; they are able and available to work in their social time (responding to emails and reviewing material online) but also expect to spend social time within the work environment, communicating with friends (in and outside of the practice).
SNSs have therefore created a generation for whom life has less rigid boundaries, between work and leisure, off and online, ultimately creating more adaptable, and integrated young architects. This sociological shift in attitude is bound to have an effect on the already mutating practice of architecture. If people in this area are opening up to meeting people on line for intimate relationships, surely there is a disposition to find new ties and links for collaborations in their work: â&#x20AC;&#x153;architects working live within network effects, positioning themselves vis-Ă -vis media, branding, investing, advocacy, energy policy, and social welfare.â&#x20AC;?29
29
Jennifer W. Leung cited in Gary Lovink, (2008), p103.
34 | 35
SECTION 2 Amongst the Architects â&#x20AC;&#x201C; A socio-historical perspective
36 | 37
SECTION 2 Amongst the Architects – A socio-historical perspective 2.1 The Architect’s Circle Since the early days, social circles, architecture collectives and chains of influential individuals have powerfully shaped the field of architecture. Networks and networking have therefore existed in offline mode for centuries and now become absorbed by an online condition. This chapter will take a retrospective look at the way social relations within the network of architecture have transformed to date, and what effect that has had on the architectural discourse as a means of speculating about what may come in the future.
Network refers to “the interlocking of relationships whereby the interactions implicit in one determine those occurring in others.”1 Networks are ever-dynamic structures with patterns, clusters and layers, which have various nodes and links charged with different levels of power, density and influence. Following Stevens’ analysis of the Macmillan Encyclopaedia of Architecture, one becomes aware of the long history of the social milieu of architects and the way the most ‘significant’ or ‘major’ contributors can be situated within a network of masters and pupils, in closed social circles of nepotism.2 It suggests from the outset that only those in higher social tiers (those advantaged with a predisposed symbolic and cultural power) get the chance to be recognised by the architectural community. Indeed he argues that: If success were strictly a personal individual matter then one would find a good deal of social mobility between strata. The evidence is that while there is considerable mobility between the various levels within the middle strata of society, there is very little social mobility into and out of both the highest an the lowest strata.3 The architectural community is interpreted historically as one of an elite: a group of influential individuals that control and dictate matters of sophistication and lifestyle. 1 Siegfried Frederick Nadel cited in John Scott, Social Network Analysis: A Handbook, (London: Sage Publications, 1991) p30. 2 Gary Stevens, (1998), p144. 3 Ibid. p69.
38 | 39 This view is supported by the idea that, To say one is an architect is not only to say one has a certain sort of degree, or that one can design building, it is to say that one has a certain set of attitudes, tastes and dispositions, all the forms of cultural capital that distinguish an architect from a mere builder.4 Architects thus enjoy the reputation of being distinguished individuals. Such evidence would reinforce the perception of the antisocial character of the architect. The only way for the dominant antisocial attitude to work in social situations is to be in a position of power. Nevertheless, those who are less influential - working under or in the shadow of this more prominent network - still constitute a network. In fact, this is a denser network, as there are more subordinates than leaders in the field. These architects are caught between symbolic and economic capitals,5 however, the symbolic capital is the capital desired by the architect.6 It defines the status within these networks, providing an intellectual and aesthetic superiority: to the extent that Stevens proposes, that, “the basic dynamics of the architectural field are driven by symbolic concerns and the quest to achieve reputation through the production of great architecture, which is, of course, that which the field defines as great.”7 The subordinates therefore enjoy a certain amount of symbolic capital through the power-imbalanced ties that connect ‘genius’ and subordinate. It provides them with an association that, however weak (in terms of power), represents a degree of symbolic capital within the subordinate’s own network. For example, there are architects working for Sir Norman Foster who have never even spoken to him. The link between master and subordinate is extremely feeble and yet what this link represents in the subordinate’s own network is strong. The same does not happen to those who are subordinates in the field, not because they work under some other powerful individual but simply because their work is not recognised for its symbolic capital. These may very well seek to exchange this for a more purely economic capital and ‘sell out’ into purely commercial practice. Thus, there are two overlapped layers of networks, one with the exclusive influential leaders, and the other under it with the subordinates. The latter is denser than the first, however these two layers are highly connected, creating a three-dimensional network but through links charged with a power imbalance, given that to lead implies interaction with those who follow.
Stevens raises yet another pertinent point regarding the distinguished network of architects of high symbolic capital, by suggesting that the intellectual field has only got room for so many ‘architectural geniuses’ at one given time.8 This would imply that
4 5 6 7 8
Ibid. Ibid. p144. Ibid. p94. Ibid. Ibid. p125.
40 | 41 such an overlapping network of power has a saturation point. This network may not be too dense otherwise that would imply a loss of power within the nodes, as it would become diluted. This ultimately means that newcomers, unless being ‘invited’ by one of the nodes within the network will experience a challenge in being accepted in. One can therefore argue that personal networks become more powerful than professional ones, given that true trust and ‘opportunities’ lay within the personal network connection, and less in the professional (because here people are also in competition). These networks may overlap and most probably will, in cases where professional and personal relations are blurred. In fact, these might be the most powerful of connections as they combine the sense of loyalty and clique to the professional opportunities.
It could be further speculated that the more influential network of powerful architects will itself be connected to more influential networks of other fields therefore ensuring a position of sustained power (through the management of more important work). Indeed this can be seen throughout history in the several commissions that eminent architects have obtained from friends: Again and again we observe architects beginning their careers with commissions given to them by wealthy members of their families or by wealthy friends; in some cases, the commissions are among the most substantial they will ever have.9 This perpetuates a vicious cycle of architectural power relations that would support the idea that there is little social mobility between the strata of architectural society. These are instead formed within families, schools and friendships. One can observe this happening in other fields, and it is perhaps simply a condition of humanity rather than architectural social comportment. In Steven’s argument, he further cites R.K. Williamson in saying that, In the course of examining biographical material in the literature of architecture, I found factors that surfaced with surprising regularity. Family advantage, schools, and social connections (…) For architects this means contact with wealthy potential clients and with decision makers, whether they are politically or socially based. A number of famous architects did gain access because of their families’ social contacts and because they attended Ivy League schools where their classmates included potential future clients.10 It should be noted however, that both references in Steven’s arguments date as far back as 1982, and so that it may not be the same scenario today. Indeed, schools have attempted to increase access to educational attainment, varying the spectrum of students 9 10
B. Gill, cited in Gary Stevens, (1998), p178. RK Williamson cited in Gary Stevens, (1998), p178.
Figure 12: Plug in City, Archigram.
Figure 13: De Stijl publication.
Figure 14: Archigram publication cover.
42 | 43 in architecture degrees.11 Over the past thirty years society will also have reshaped itself and the technological revolution (favouring all amateur work and giving new opportunities to all) will most likely have had impacted today’s networks and hierarchical relationship structures.
2.2 Clusters of Networks – Collectives, Groups, and Clubs Historically, architects have been seen to have collaborated or formed groups within networks of friends. Archigram (in England), The Four (in Glasgow), the Italian Futurists, or De Stijl (in the Netherlands) are but a few of the groups and collectives within architecture that have resulted from the collaborations within a social network of friends and acquaintances. Interestingly, all of these collaborations came to define a particular movement or style. Furthermore, one can observe a geographical correlation within these collaborations. Given the limitations of mobility contemporary to these groups, the elements of such groups would be required to be in physical proximity (however this would not be a forced condition, as the natural network of personal relations would too be localised geographically). These groups are united by shared ideals and constructed manifestoes. Many times (as is the case of Archigram and De Stijl), they have involved the idea that such a message had to be disseminated through a communication device (in this case publications), therefore social networking platforms could be the perfect environment for a contemporary take on such practices. Today, given the speed of mobility and transfer of information, there is no longer the need for geographically fixed groups. Indeed, the project for Architizer itself came about from the initial collaboration of friends Marc Kushner and Matthias Hollwich (based in New York) who then partnered with professional contact Alexander Diehl (in Berlin), an expert in this field. The project, in many ways, finds points in common to some of the ideals of Archigram. Both have names that link architecture to communication: Archigram hybridised telegram and architecture, and Architizer merged architecture to the idea of a socializer (with the letter “z” – given its American origin). Both worked within mass media (magazine publication and online digital media) and their emphasis lays on the idea of communicating a forward thinking idea presenting themselves through a pop culture artifice, be it in the form of comic books or mainstream SNSs.
Archigram’s schemes, however, ultimately represent a manifesto for the change of architectural design – putting forward avant-garde ideas of how technology and network structures (as seen in Plug-in City) have influenced the making of architecture and urbanism itself.12 What Architizer does, is it focuses on changes in architectural communication and relations. Nonetheless, I believe Archigram would have been interested in the possibilities of Architizer as a process and tool for architecture. In both of these 11 Maggie Woodrow et al., Social Class and Participation, (London: UK Universities, 2002), Available at <www. universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Documents/feti2.pdf>, [Accessed on 15/04/2011] p49. 12 Peter Cook et al., A Guide to Archigram 1961-74, (Berlin: Academy Editions, 1994) p50.
44 | 45 one can perceive the ambition to change the architectural scene; to maximise efficiency through the introduction of technology to combat “the stagnation of the architectural scene”13 or “empower architecture.”14 Could this mean that an architectural identity could result of integrated, interactive, architecture social platforms as an environment for the formation of groups? As we have seen, these collaborative groups originated from groups of friends. If one were to speculate about a scenario where global collaboration would work to exchange and integrate different knowledge and expertises, one would probably identify that these would not be built on personal relations but on a shared interest or belief. With evidence from blogs, chat rooms, forums and dating websites, people today have come to develop a pseudo-anonymous cyber intimacy, where one may not have met the person but develops a virtual (even if momentary) relationship. It is plausible however, that these are considerably weaker, failing to foster the sense of trust that is what many of offline social circles are founded upon. Indeed the process of spending time together (even if involuntary) has been studied to prove that those who interact more frequently will develop the feeling of liking and therefore engage in other types of interaction.15
Nonetheless, these studies have not looked at whether time spent online together produces the same effect. Given that SNSs have been observed to sustain offline relationships this would seem plausible. For example, if you meet an individual at a conference and then develop an online relationship that could lead to a trust based online collaboration. Collaboration does not however, imply friendship and as Pahl points out, “personal relationships are being undermined by the superficial glad-handedness’ which is becoming a feature of much corporate culture.”16 Pahl proposes that genuine friendship is not on a par with today’s superficial network culture. Helpful work acquaintances (regarded as ‘false friendships’) are distinguished from affectionate relationships in a public context in a situation where friendship is often established out of obligation and personal gain.
2.3 The profile/picture today
In contrast to theories of social disintegration and social segregation, Manuel Castells argues that, “the ‘regeneration of the social’ involves a technology-based recovery of community life through networks.”17 There seems to be evidence in the arguments that have been discussed so far, to suggest that there is in fact a tendency towards such an idea. At points in history it has been believed that in restructuring the architectural
13 Ibid. p106. 14 Architizer.com, About Architizer, Available at <http://www.architizer.com/en_us/intern/about-architizer/>, [Accessed on 12/12/2010] 15 John Scott, (1991), p26. 16 Pahl (2000) cited in Deborah Chambers, (2006), p117. 17 Deborah Chambers, (2006), p113.
46 | 47 hierarchy an overall social reformation would take place. This is revealed in the manifestoes of the architects of the 1920s and 1930s, arguing that, the reformation, the betterment, of the whole social order can only occur if there is a reformation of the architectural field: to overturn the hierarchy of social relations as a whole requires first the overturn of the hierarchy of architects.18 To speak of a reformation in the architectural field by overturning the structural hierarchy of architects is to identify a need for restructuring of networks, as they provide the circumstances that derive the initiatives. Indeed networks are crucial given that they:
- Provide robust and dispersed communication channels
- Create opportunities for reflection and learning
- Facilitate collective action and underpin multi-agent partnerships
- Promote social cohesion19
Traditionally, social mobility was more difficult within analogue networks. Today, with digital networks, supported by efforts made in the education system to balance the social strata within architectural education (‘widening access’), I would argue that it is now easier for members of lower income groups, with a degree of talent to ascend and integrate within groups of individuals of a different habitus. This is possibly reinforced by this idea that with online profiling people can gain more extrovert and confident alter egos, enabling them to enact a different habitus through mimicry. On the other hand, given the social and technological revolutions over the past century, such theories are yet to be significantly proved within the circles of architects. Not much seems to have changed in the social relations amongst architects: to this day the emerging architects can be directly traced back to the masters of the previous generations. For example, Bjarke Ingels, one of the most recent and youngest phenomena in the architectural scene today, has strong links with Rem Koolhaas, having worked at OMA for three years. Similarly, Marc Kushner, the founder of Architizer was himself a disciple of Jurgen Mayer. This view is shared by Bauman Lyons Architects who say that, “the ‘old boys’ network’ has a less defined identity today, but it lives on nevertheless.”20 Worryingly, Deborah Chambers raises the point that, “in the context of work, network 18 19 20
Gary Stevens, (1998), p104. Alison Gilchrist, The Well Connected Community, (Bristol: The Policy Press, 2004) p41. Bauman Lyons Architects, How to be a Happy Architect, (London: Black Dog Publishing, 2008) p81.
48 | 49 culture is mainly benefiting the lives of the urban elites, and in particular, elite men.”21 If this is true, it would suggest that very little indeed has changed, not even the gender power imbalance within the workplace. This idea is further reinforced when we realise that some of the most acclaimed architecture schools in the world, from which a majority of the most successful architects have graduated, are not affordable to the majority of students. To go to such schools one needs to either be exceptionally talented, to be sponsored or wealthy enough (notwithstanding with a certain degree of talent). The rich and the best are therefore put together, giving advantage to those who are already naturally advantaged by their socio-economic condition.
2.4 Bridging Offline and Online Research on SNS use indicates that, with existence of some exceptions, they are primarily used to support and maintain existing social relations.22 They sustain what Chambers refers to as both ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ relations: they serve to cement already existing relationships in a traditional structure, but also serve to “provide the source (due to their [online] vulnerability) of collaborative assistance if required.”23 Acknowledging this, architecture SNSs have attempted to bridge the social world of the architect between his or her on and offline condition. They bridge real life professional contacts and friendships within the architectural and wider construction community (allowing users to maintain, cultivate and make use of existing contacts), they link online clients to potential architects through search engines, post job opportunities and provide the space for new online relations to be established between architects, manufacturers amongst other members in the industry. It invites discussion and participation generally, by addressing current topics in editorials and launching design competitions (in addition to those that are posted by the users). The intended spirit is one of community aiming to provide an equal ground for all, independent of their social or educational background. Everyone is welcome to this online, open community and the traditional hierarchical structure is abolished; in that leading names in the industry are put in the same category as those whose work is not published by glossy magazines. This gives the chance for me as a student of architecture to have a profile that may, for example, appear next to Steven Holl’s. Although this has its advantages, it would take a great deal of arrogance and unawareness for any relatively unknown architect or student to perceive themselves as having the right to be in that position. A hierarchy does not simply exist as an unfair structure of networked opportunities; those with talent who have obtained recognition (even if helped within their social circle) have worked for a status of seniority and respect. Having said that, what happens here is the opportunity is to start from an equal grounding, with the aim of dissolving preconceived barriers of architectural distinctions.
21 22 23
Deborah Chambers, (2006), p116. Danah Boyd and Nicole Elisson, (2007), <http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html>. Deborah Chambers, (2006), p114.
50 | 51 If masters are acclaimed by the rest of the architectural community and general public, this will now be achieved through the icon of modern acclaim and popularity: ‘likes’ and ‘star ratings’. In doing so it abolishes the presumptions of the elite, and given the importance of individual attainment, celebrity, and reputation in the creative arts (of which architecture is one), architects will become more prevalent. It treats architects in a popular celebrity style; with a fan-base of followers. Many architects enjoy this - a ration of self-profiling fame, ultimately providing a stimulus for a larger user base such that it can really take off. Ultimately, it symbolises choice and self-judgement, which is something that has come to be hugely significant in the success of web 2.0 – the choice of flexibility and customisation.
2.5 Conclusion The social milieu of the architect has traditionally and is still today (if to a lesser extent) one charged with influence based on networks of nepotism, linking masters, pupils, families and friends. Not surprisingly, it has, therefore, always been a circle of middle and upper class members that are the classes holding most symbolic power. It operates in two layers: a sparser network of powerful nodes (the masters) overlays a network of less distinguished subordinates. Personal ties are more likely to rule the network of masters operating within circles of trust.
Given the technological limitations earlier in architectural history (and more generally), networks used to be more geographically localised and clustered. Thus, architecture collectives and groups that had a significant impact in architectural history often had a specific country or city that brought it together. Nowadays, with the new global mobility enabled by technology and the Internet, together with an increasing presence of architecture platforms for architects to communicate, could this provide a new realm for new collectives and collaborations to take place? And could the social hierarchies within it be restructured to finally achieve the visions of the 1920s’ manifestoes for a social improvement? Like the aforementioned groups, drawing upon their contemporary values, online collaborations clearly give way to a new expression in design, however, there seems to be a major difference that would be required to be overcome if this new realm and restructuring were to happen. In history groups would come together locally, with a common concept and vision that gave rise to a movement. The idea to use integrated systems today seems, rather, to be driven more by the economic implications of the benefits it may comport. If there is in fact a stronger emphasis on the economic capital than symbolic capital, then it seems unlikely that an architectural movement would come out of it. On the other hand, the very structure of this economic capital circle in architecture through digital optimisation has in itself symbolic capital, as it reflects today’s social context in the way the architecture is produced; it becomes an architecture of its zeitgeist – a fast networking economically driven world.
52 | 53
SECTION 3 Towards a Digitally Networked Studio
54 | 55
SECTION 3 Towards a Digitally Networked Studio 3.1 Networks Now Reading the following account by Chris Luebkeman, one gets the idea of just how global architecture can be today: I have just completed a competition in Zurich with the Tokyo based architect Shigeru Ban. He is working with another Arup designer on an art museum in the States, and in addition, we are discussing working together on a high-rise residential project in Australia and on an educational building in Lebanon.1 This has of course, been enabled by the injection of collaborative digital tools in design today. As architects, we are now working within an increasingly fast paced environment, under exponential pressure to absorb new information from the media, technology, academia, obliged to memorise an increasing number of passwords for different website accounts, and to perform faster, aided by new software that itself needs to be absorbed. We are trying to keep up with the superhuman pace that technology has reached in order to maximise opportunities.
Within the construction industry project teams have grown and individuals have become increasingly specialised given the increasing complexity of buildings. This ultimately requires an increasingly efficient and organised collaboration within a networked frame. Given the digital condition observed in the work environment, this is naturally being developed online, given todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strength in the bond between architect and online portal: The laptop has become an extension of the body, allowing for international hot-desking, 24-hour working, on tap presence and response, simultaneous private and professional communication and all entertainment not involving movement.2 1 2
Branko Kolarevic, Architecture in the digital age: Design and Manufacturing, (New York: Spon Press, 2003) p279. Bauman Lyons Architects, (2008), p16.
56 | 57 This is becoming even more of a reality with smart-phones and tablets that are taken everywhere, professionally and in personal life, blurring the boundaries between the two.
Certainly, communications within today’s architectural studios are mainly by email and one also increasingly sees the use of Skype for meetings or interviews, where faceto-face contact is required but not possible. For offices that still have not realised the potential of social networking sites in this field for their architects to keep a large list of contacts (personal and professional – both useful), there is evidence of the perceived need to regulate the use of social networking. Indeed, at Bauman Lyons Architects where, “the average time spent at one’s desk is 30 per cent of a working week”3, it is believed that, “the silver bullet has not yet appeared that allows us to incorporate these new ways of communication into [their] everyday work routine and productivity.”4 The fact they have not yet discovered this, however, does not imply they are not moving towards a networked studio. In fact, an extremely revealing point in Bauman Lyons Architects’ account of their office experience indicates a significant change towards a digitally linked office: We threw our technical library three years ago. Magazines still arrive but they are rarely read beyond headlines. Instead they are viewed almost entirely online. Samples are never kept and the CD-based technical information service have been replaced by a web library.5 This is particularly interesting in reference to one of the principles that Archello focuses on, discussed earlier. Archello has a vision of an online technical library that is linked to the suppliers and to the projects in which they are used sharing a communal open platform for collaboration. This account points towards a similar direction. It does, however, still conserve the rather protective closed secrecy of an archive for materials and details. On the other hand, details by architects have been shared for decades in publications such as Detail and case studies on materials catalogues are used to show the projects that architects have used their products in. It is therefore perhaps simply a case of changing the attitude and being more sharing and open, understanding that if it becomes truly communal then there will be benefits for all sides. Ultimately, I see this a symptom of a transitional generation. This is the attitude of those who grew up using work analogue systems and later adopted and learned to use technology to their benefit, however they are not generation Y, native to this mind frame of online communities. The Internet is being used seriously but not yet fully adequately to go beyond the dialogue mimesis and as a technical and promotional tool.
3 4 5
Ibid. Ibid. p16. Ibid.
“ARCHITECTS HAVE SHED PROJECT MANAGEMENT,
-40% Medium sized design-led practice
“I THINK WE NEED TO STOP BEING OVERLY POLITE AND LEARN HOW TO BE BUSINESS PEOPLE.” ARCHITECT
REDUCTION IN DEMAND FOR ARCHITECTS’ SERVICES
2008
50%
THE FUTURE FOR ARCHITECTS?
OTAL UK WORKLOAD S FOR CONTRACTOR CLIENTS
HE PROBLEM IS E SEPARATION TWEEN WHAT CHITECTS WANT DO, AND THE ALITY OF THE ARKETPLACE.” IENT ADVISOR
“IN 10 YEARS WE PROBABLY WILL NOT CALL OURSELVES AN ARCHITECTURE PRACTICE, IT WILL BE SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY.” ARCHITECT
GLOBAL POPULATION GROWTH 2000-2050
46% INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION GROWTH
Small metropolitan boutique practice
70%
WILL LIVE IN URBAN AREAS BY 2050
SHARE OF GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION
consultancy
UK
128%
EMERGING MARKETS
18%
DEVELOPED MARKETS
Emerging markets
2010 - 2020
55%
45%
Developed markets
BY 2020
MORE PEOPLE, BIGGER CITIES, MORE CONSTRUCTION...
Figure 15: Building Futures Report (2011) cover.
14/02/2011 14:27
58 | 59 Ultimately, these information and communication technologies are increasingly enabling the spatial reconfiguration of collaborative work, enabling remote working. Architects today are operating within a crucial moment of transition, facing a crisis. Thus, the transition from an industrial to an information society is changing the environment in which the architect draws upon to inform design. In an age where the tertiary sector and software development (emerging quaternary) are the leading sectors of the industry, the architect has to reassess the terrain of the discipline seeking to find opportunities for new ideas in this transition: “The way in which we think and design is changing accordingly, as the centre shifts away from the objectivity of the machine to the subjectivity of information.”6
3.2 Building Futures Report (RIBA) The Building Futures Report, published this year in partnership with the RIBA, sets out to predict the state of the construction industry for UK architecture practices in 2025, speculating on the roles of architects and the configuration of “new and diverse forms of architectural practice.”7 The report forecasts that infrastructure construction growth in the next 10 years is expected to increase by 128% in emerging markets compared to 18% in developed markets, therefore the majority of all architects’ work in the world will be in developing countries. This implies that most architecture companies in developed countries will have to take on work abroad, and ultimately that these companies will have to develop collaborative strategies between the headquarters, travelling architects and foreign partners in each of the industries’ many fields. The report also points, however, at the reluctance of small practice to take on work aboard due to their scale, means and infrastructure.8 It therefore suggests that small practices will take on local small and medium scale projects and that large multinational companies will take on the international projects using BIM software, putting medium scale practices out of business. I do not agree, however, that small practices could not take on international projects, as there is the opportunity for outsourcing teams of architects local to the project location to complete later stages of work at cheaper rates.9 Given the extent of the communication made possible online this would not be unfeasible. As a response to the situation, “some practices [have] taken the step of creating offshoot companies with a separate identity and different branding to their main practice that [does] not use the word ‘architect’”.10 This widens the work they are able to get given the embedded perception of what an architect traditionally does. The findings reflect this a strong move towards multidisciplinary practice.
6 Branko Kolarevic, (2003), pp236-237. 7 Claire Jamieson, The Future for Architects – Full report, (London: Building Futures/ RIBA, 2011), available at <http://www.buildingfutures.org.uk/projects/building-futures/the-future-for-architects>, [Accessed on 27/03/2011] p6. 8 Ibid. p11. 9 Ibid. p21. 10 Ibid. p10.
60 | 61 Ultimately, architects are looking to be more flexible, especially recent graduates who have shown that this is in fact their idealised work environment. Generation Y is not only fluent in SNSs management; the technological skills and increased flexibility has developed in them an interest to take these skills into the practice of architecture, unwilling to be limited by the fence of the construction industry. Indeed, the report states, in reference to this type of emerging interdisciplinary practice, that: This type of practice could do well if it is driven by technology, and by the new markets where technology provide opportunities. They might pool the collaborative talents of brand consultants, researchers, product and industrial designers, with architects. This is a strand of practice that may well break free from the constraints of the term ‘architect’, possessing a much broader base than the term can provide. Service design and design of experiences might be significant areas for these practitioners.11 The report further suggests that there will always be a market for a certain amount of signature star architects, however even these will increasingly collaborate with other signature designers from other fields such as the fashion industry in acts of marketing and promotion.12 This once again reinforces that the whole industry is moving towards collaborative work with other design industries, and with new roles within the construction industry. It also suggests that it may not be as easy to accept and assume a less self-centred posture within architecture SNSs, given that fame within the industry will continue to blindly inspire celebrity wannabe’s (even if their chances of entering this circle without a ‘master’ are extremely low).
In addition to this, the role of the architect within the construction industry is seen to be losing importance, especially to engineers who are regarded as more technically knowledgeable individuals on whom responsibility can be laid. It is suggested, therefore, that architects should be learning management skills earlier in their education, to learn to stand their ground. Once again, it was felt that: there was a gap for architects to take advantage of in the realm of ‘interdisciplinary leadership’ – embracing their skills and putting them to use in senior positions within construction firms or as clients, developers or policy makers.13 The most valued skills of the architect are creativity and the ability to work across disciplines, product of the condition of the subject in academia. These are the same qualities that make the architect’s condition especially suited to network organising, being social networkers or socialisers (that derived the term Architizer). 11 12 13
Ibid. p25. Ibid. p14. Ibid. p13.
62 | 63
Contrary to such predictions, and despite the unquestionable contemporary predominance of the engineer in the construction industry, Chris Luebkeman argues that, “the number of engineers required to complete the design of a complex project is steadily decreasing as tools become more powerful and automatic.”14 As the project complexity increases, however, someone who is multi-skilled has to be able to manage all these different inputs, however automatic they are. Indeed, it means that this person must be digitally proficient and able to network and bring together all the links. These requirements could, therefore, mark the re-emergence of the architect in the field of construction. This view is shared by John Pittman who affirms that, “the architect will reappear on centre stage as the master builder of information, the key figure upon which all of the other players in the process depend.”15
3.3 Speculating and imagining (what if…)
Today we take on the ‘what if ’ approach. The world of anti-dogmatic thinking, ‘hypothesis’, and ‘the principle of contradiction’ is embedded in the contemporary approaches to architectural issues. It is this epistemological shift that provides a very strong link to information technologies.16 Antonino Saggio suggests that “the crucial aspect of interactivity it its role as a catalyst for a new aesthetic condition in architecture.”17 I disagree with him on this point, given that the interactive and collaborative nature of architecture making, should not follow the same patterns as those collectives in the past that came to define a visual identity. Given the novel nature of their working methods, the mere pursuit of a new aesthetic would seem like a lost opportunity. It should strive to make a better, more integrated architecture with its users, not simply define an aesthetic. He does, however, go onto elaborate the point saying that, in a way that it defines both an ethic and an aesthetic, “interactivity will be one of the key architectural paradigms in the future [and that] it will play a role similar to that of transparency in the Modern movement.”18 So ‘what if ’ architecture did adopt an online network as a framework for making architecture?
Saggio argues that currently, “new experiments show that the new subjectivity implies not only users’ desires, but also a fascinating path that brings life, knowledge and intelligence to the buildings themselves.”19 Imagine an online collaboration of several specialists from different fields from all over the world, linking together within an open digital platform and working together on a project, for example, for the urban regeneration of a square. Proposals of variations could be posted and voted upon with ‘likes’, 14 15 16 17 18 19
Branko Kolarevic, (2003), p285. Ibid. p258. Ibid. Ibid. 239 Ibid. Ibid.
64 | 65
giving way to a techno democratic architecture. Architecture influenced by popular choice. Not only would this create a more satisfactory space for the public which they would feel a part of (as they may see parts realised that were of their selection), but it would engage people in the making of architecture and urban planning, making them excited to see a project grow and ultimately making them feel they live in a more inclusive society. This proposal would thus make new use of SNSs within architecture and outside, change the way architecture can be made, and also change the way democratic society works - handing over part of the decision making to those who will use the facilities built for them and with their tax payers money (in the case of publicly financed projects).
As well as restructuring the internal hierarchies within architecture, in doing so it would also change the societies in architecture. This would constitute the realisation of the manifestoes of the 1920s and 1930s architects who argued that for social reformation, a reformation of the architecture circles would be necessary. The opportunities for such project where architects, artists, designers, engineers, anthropologists, sociologists, philosophers could come together amongst all the citizens and collaborate with feedback from those for whom it is for, would be endless. This could manifest through forums, polls, interactive mappings, competitions, walls posts or ‘likes’, amongst so many other online tools of web 2.0.
This would bring architecture closer to a pop industry, and in fact could have a positive impact; if architecture is going to be ‘for the people’, then architects should not sit and observe from above presuming to know what it is people want. Architecture itself would become more social through the online socialising of its makers. There is evidence that the increase in architecture reality shows such as Grand Designs has increased the public’s interest in architecture.20 It seems that the potential is there, however, unlike the fast changing music industry, architecture is a slow process and it is a challenge for it to sustain the interest of society that demands instant satisfaction: Any architectural project we do takes at least four or five years, so increasingly there is a discrepancy between the acceleration of culture and the continuing slowness of architecture. The areas of consensus shift unbelievably fast; the bubbles of certainty are constantly exploding.21 In terms of the relation of interactivity to architectural practice, there are at least two other possible levels. The first level is interactivity between architects and the public making the process of design making a more socially integrated one. The second is a physical interactivity between the user and the architecture. Recent experiments show that buildings’ environments can be altered according to the situations within it. This 20 21
Claire Jamieson, (2011), p4. Rem Koolhass (2004) cited in Bauman Lyons Architects, (2008) p12.
66 | 67
is seen both in new houses for the wealthy, in public buildings and cultural centres. Responsive reactions include changes in the conditions of light, ventilation, but also an “architecture that changes according to the variations in moods and feelings of the inhabitants.”22
One could suggest that there could be an extension of this online reality into the spaces themselves, pre, during and post construction. The spaces where the interventions are proposed for could be targeted before the project is decided so that the people who most use it and already frequent it are ensured to have a say. For example the site could see the installation of interactive spots where passers by get notified on their smartphones that this space has a proposed project for it and invite them to participate. During construction, users could be able to see the progress, visualise how the project will be finished and some minor design specification decisions could intentionally be left open until the construction has begun, so that there would be a continuous input of feedback and interest from the public right up to the point that it is complete.
Within this kind of strategy there is large amount of consideration given to marketing within architecture, pulling it closer to the pop industry. Pop culture is what the masses are most exposed and accustomed to, so by adopting techniques that are foreign to the architectural industry perhaps the general public (and not just those with a level of higher education) could enjoy and participate in the making of a project within parameters and options set by the ‘experts’. This is similar to music talents shows where there is an ‘expert’ pre-selection of the candidates that will then be elected by the public vote. Even within and during the show the experts get a say, being able to choose between the two least voted. It is not, in this case, completely handed over to the public to make the decision and it would probably be best to do the same within this architectural scenario.
Finally, post-construction, the project itself could continue to be interactive with its users. One could even speculate that SNS data could be the input mechanism to a personalised environment. For example, analysis of the status updates of different users, might be responded to through the architecture – an aggressive status update could prompt an environment to be transformed so as to be more soothing.23
22 Branko Kolarevic, (2003), p285. 23 This could be supported by NESTA’s Connect Programme, an initiative leading to new experiments to test the potential of digital technologies for collaborative and use-centred business models. This programme showcases and celebrates the best ideas and projects based on collaboration and participation.
68 | 69
3.4 Conclusion Digital architecture social networks may not only become a platform for more multidisciplinary collaborations, as there are endless opportunities to create more integrated ways of working within the increasingly proliferating building industry. The opportunities for such networks to integrate professional and social relations hold an important opportunity for the architect as cross-disciplinary individual to reclaim power of the construction industry.
Informed architectural imagination and a belief that a new attitude to the process of its making is possible, is required for its realisation: If we want a new architecture that incorporates the crucial and mobile aspects of our time, if we believe that art is the highest form of knowledge and of salvation, if we think that technologies must reinforce a consciousness of progress and of widespread rights, then we must first have the courage to dream it.24 For a real change to happen, a change of attitude coupled with a desire for social and technical transformation, must be expressed by the majority of architects of the next generation – those native to the tools that enable this realisation. Only then will the art of collaboration come to life and the Internet will reach its potential as a resource for architects. This may seem an overly idealistic statement, but to follow Bill Gates’, “we always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten.”25
24 25
Branko Kolarevic, (2003), p242. Bauman Lyons Architects, (2008), p152.
70 | 71
CONCLUSION Social networks dominate the digital realm today. This can be seen through the exponential integration of Facebook in personal life, the media and in business, making it the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most visited website. Generation Y was not born within the period of the full integration of these systems but have grown up digitally, allowing them to fully adapt to new technology. As a group, Generation Y is highly influenced by the mass media and pop-culture that feeds technology and which in turn survives on it in a symbiotic relationship between information and technology. Information is transferred at an unprecedented pace today, and architects in this increasingly globalised society are learning to deal with this by incorporating the benefits of organised networks into their practices. The next wave of architects to enter the saturated construction market is a digitally articulate generation Y one. The technological skills and fluency that has naturally developed in them will most likely be their key asset in redefining what architecture will be in the future. Their lives have an increasingly blurred division between work and leisure and are ever productive, given the speed their environments allows them to live at.
The emergence of architecture social networks, such as Architizer and Archello, respond to a niche where both the increasing number of architects who use social and professional networks and a disjunction within the construction industry have been recognised as an opportunity for SNSs to establish. These networks have yet to prove themselves but show signs of features that one can imagine being developed in the next few years to create more collaborative platforms. This, however, is only possible if architects do collaborate. Currently, we are observing a transitional generation that is mostly using these as self-promotion tools (the result of an inherent narcissistic attitude in the field and more widely in contemporary culture), in a direct translation of analogue customs into digital content. I believe, however that many of the issues today will be overcome once generation Y is operating with its full power.
SNSs in architecture can operate in two ways: firstly, on a more superficial level of promoting architecture, and secondly, on a truly interactive collaborative platform of people (within and outside the field) that may ultimately promote architecture in new ways (connecting not only with clients but with users too). A key goal for architecture
72 | 73
is to break out of the aforementioned circles of nepotism and the structured hierarchy of geniuses and subordinates, in a closer manner to the way collectives have worked throughout history. If, throughout history, these had been limited by the geographical conditions, then today, with communication technologies as they are, this would no longer present a challenge - a global collective of architecture, of online ‘friendships’ and collaborations would, like the collectives before them, end up itself defining a new expression for architecture. Such a scenario would respond well in the conditions of today, and react to the predictions made by the Building Futures Report. Even though architects are currently losing power to an increasingly complex industry of contractors and sub-contractors, our skills in technology and our flexibility to move across fields should enable us to network across this complex field successfully, and give us the opportunity to work in an industry that will be forced to work abroad given the conditions of the markets. It will also make it possible for architects who wish to explore and expand beyond the field of architecture to more effectively collaborate with other fields in multi-disciplinary projects.
The ideas argued for in this dissertation may appear idealistic and utopian, however in a fast evolving world, the possibilities for digital technological are potentially vast. It is a challenge to foresee what may come out of the current conditions. Perhaps generation Z will reconfigure their own views depending on generation Y’s true capability to take on these issues in practice. Concrete conclusions can, therefore, not be fixed. This was never the aim of this research and discussion, but investigation into this subject does, however, allow informed speculation as to how practical research projects could develop the principles of the discourse of SNSs in architecture. There is indeed an unprecedented opportunity for research given the online traces SNS users leave behind. The architect must be a prophet…a prophet in the true sense of the term… if he can’t see at least ten years ahead don’t call him an architect.1
Frank Lloyd Wright
1
Frank Lloyd Wright cited in Bauman Lyons Architects, (2008), p152.
74 | 75
BIBLIOGRAPHY Books
Bauman Lyons Architects, How to be a Happy Architect, London: Black Dog Publishing, 2008 Blau, Judith, Architects and Firms: A Sociological Perspective on Architectural Practices, Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1987 Boyd, Danah, “Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications”, in Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, Ed. Zizi Papacharissi, pp. 39-58, London: Routledge, 2010, Availible online at <http://www.danah.org/papers/>, [Accessed on 23/03/2011] Burke, Anthony, Network Practices: new strategies in architecture and design, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2007 Chambers, Deborah, New Social Ties, New York: Palgrave, 2006 Christakis, Nicholas and Fowler, James, Connected: the amazing power of social networks and how they shape our lives, New York: Harper Collins Publishers Limited, 2010 Cook, Peter, et al, A guide to Archigram 1961-74, Berlin: Academy Editions, 1994 Cuff, Dana, Architecture: The Story of Practice, Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1992 Doesinger, Stephan, Space Between People, Munich: Prestel, 2008 Gere, Charlie, Digital Culture, London: Reaktion books, 2002 Gilchrist, Alison, The Well Connected Community, Bristol: The Policy Press, 2004 Johnson, John and Crandall, Jordan, Interaction – Artistic Practice in the Network, ed. Scholder, Amy, New York: Eyebeam Atelier, 2001 Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the digital age: design and manufacturing, New York: Spon Press, 2003 Lovink, Geert, Zero Comments– Blogging and Critical Internet Culture, London: Routledge, 2008 Mitchel, William, City of Bits: Space, Place and the Infobahn, Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1995 Mitchel, William, Me++: The cyborg self and the networked city, Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2003 Rossiter, Ned, Organized Networks: Media Theory, Creative Labour, New Institutions, Rotterdam: NAi publishers, 2006
76 | 77
Scott, John, Social Network Analysis: A Handbook, London: Sage Publications, 1991 Stevens, Gary, The Favored Circle: The Social Foundations of Architectural Distinction, Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1998 Tapscott, Don, Grown Up Digital: How the net generation is changing your world, New York: McGraw Hill, 2009
Publications, Articles & Reports
Armour, Stephanie, “Generation Y: They’ve arrived at work with a new attitude”, in USA Today, 2007, Available at: <http://www.usatoday.com/money/ workplace/2005-11-06-gen-y_x.htm>, [Accessed on 14/03/2011] Bouman, Ole (ed.), “Branding”, Archis, 181, Amsterdam: Archis/Artimo Archi, 2001:1 Bouman, Ole (ed.), “Broadcasting Architecture”, Volume, 3, Amsterdam: Archis + AMO + C-LAB, 2005:3 Bouman, Ole (ed.), “New Architectural Practices”, Archis, 172, Amsterdam : NAi/ Elsevier, 2000:4 Bouman, Ole (ed.), “Old and New Media”, Archis, 162, Amsterdam: NAi/ Elsevier, 1999:6 Boyd, Danah and Elisson, Nicole, “Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11, 2007, Available at: <http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html>, [Accessed on 14/03/2011] Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Digital Britain – Final Report, TSO, June 2009, Available at: <www. official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm76/7650/7650.pdf>, [Accessed on 01/04/2011] Evans, Leighton, “A phenomenological analysis of social networking”, in Humanity in Cybernetic Environments, Ed. Daniel Riha, Oxford: Interdisciplinary press, 2010, Available at: <http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/publishing/id-press/ebooks/ humanity-in-cybernetic-environments/>, [Accessed on 15/03/2011] Halford, Susasn, “Hybrid Workspace: re-specialisations of work, organisation and management’, in New Technology, Work and Employment, 20:1, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005 Hodge, Brooke, “Seeing things – Architizer connects architects”, NY Times, 2009, available at <http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/seeing-thingsarchitizer-connects-architects/>, [Accessed on 15/01/2011] Jamieson, Claire, The Future for Architects – Full report, London: Building Futures/ RIBA, 2011, available at <http://www.buildingfutures.org.uk/projects/building-futures/the-future-for-architects>, [Accessed on 27/03/2011] Maj, Anna & Derda-Nowakowski, Michal, “Cyber-Communities in Their Quest for Free Culture: User-Generated Content Portals in the Anthropological Perspective”, in Humanity in Cybernetic Environments, Ed. Daniel Riha, Oxford: Interdisciplinary Press, 2010, Available at: <http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/publishing/id-press/ebooks/humanity-in-cybernetic-environments/>, [Accessed on 05/02/2011]
78 | 79
Marwick, Alice and Boyd, Danah, I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience, 2010, Available at: <http://nms.sagepub.com/ content/early/2010/06/22/1461444810365313>, [Accessed on 05/03/2011] Nealludevig, “Interview with Architect Marc Kushner of Architizer, Part I”, BaseNow, 01/10/10, Available at: <http://www.basenow.net/2010/10/01/interviewwith-architect-marc-kushner-of-architizer-part-ii/>, [Accessed on 03/02/2011] Nealludevig, “Interview with Architect Marc Kushner of Architizer, Part I”, BaseNow, 24/09/10, Available at: <http://blog.thisisbase.com/2010/09/24/interviewwith-architect-marc-kushner-of-architizer-part-i/>, [Accessed on 03/02/2011] Ofcom, Social Networking – Research Document, 2008, Available at: <http://stakeholders. ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/media-literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/ socialnetworking/>, [Accessed on 27/12/2010] Puybaraud, Marie, et al, Generation Y and the Workplace - Annual Report 2010, London: Johnson Controls, 2010, Available at: <http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/publish/etc/medialib/jci/be/global_workplace_innovation/oxygenz.Par.41451. File.dat/Oxygenz%20Report%20-%202010.pdf>, [Accessed on 01/03/2011] Goad, Robin and Mooney, Tony, The Impact of Social Networking in the UK, Hitwise, 2008, Available at: <http://www.hitwise.com/uk/registration-pages/the-impact-ofsocial-networking-in-the-uk>, [Accessed on 26/02/2011] Williams, Alex, “From Scion to ‘Service Provider’”, New York Times, 03/11/10, Available at, <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/fashion/04upclose.html>, [Accessed on 12/01/2011] Woodrow, Maggie et al., Social Class and Participation, London: UK Universities, 2002, Available at <www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Documents/feti2.pdf>, [Accessed on 15/04/2011]
WebPages
Alexa.com, Site Information – Architizer.com, Available at <http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/architizer.com#>, [Accessed on 01/04/2011] Apple Inc, “Architizer”, itunes preview, Available at <http://itunes.apple.com/app/architizer/id423084127?mt=8>, [Accessed on 01/04/2011] Architizer.com, About Architizer, Available at <http://www.architizer.com/en_us/intern/about-architizer/>, [Accessed on 12/12/2010] Bjarke Ingels Group, BIG Architects, Available at <http://www.big.dk/>, [Accessed on 05/02/2011] Compete.com, Site analytics – Architizer vs. Archello, Available at <http://siteanalytics. compete.com/architizer.com+archello.com/>, [Accessed on 01/04/2011] Facebook.com, “Statistical Data”, Pressroom – Facebook.com, Available at <http://www. facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics>, [Accessed on 05/04/2011] KKLD Architects, Architizer, Available at <http://www.kkld.net/en/architizer/>, [Accessed on 17/03/2011] Reuters, Facebook tops Google as most visited site in U.S., 30/12/10, Available at <http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/30/facebook-googleidUSN3011260620101230>, [Accessed on 06/04/2011]
80 | 81
IMAGE CREDITS Figure 1: Boyd, Danah and Elisson, Nicole, “Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11, 2007, Available at: <http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html>, [Accessed on 14/03/2011] Figure 2: Courtesy of www.facebook.com. Figure 3: Idid. Figure 4: Stevens, Gary, The Favored Circle: The Social Foundations of Architectural Distinction, Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1998. p58 Figure 5: Courtesy of www.architizer.com. Figure 6: Ibid. Brochure. Figure 7: Courtesy of www.archello.com. Figure 8: Ibid. Figure 9: Ibid. Figure 10: Courtesy of HWKN Architects. Figure 11: www.architizer.com. Figure 12: Courtesy of Archigram Archival Project, available at http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk/project.php?id=56 Figure 13: Courtesy of www.wikipedia.com, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ File:Destijl_anthologiebonset.jpg Figure 14: Courtesy of Archigram Archival Project, available at http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk/magazine.php?id=99&src=mg Figure 15: Jamieson, Claire, The Future for Architects – Full report, London: Building Futures/ RIBA, 2011, available at <http://www.buildingfutures.org.uk/projects/buildingfutures/the-future-for-architects>, [Accessed on 27/03/2011]
Social Me The digital condition of the next generation of architects. MA (Hons) Architectural Design Dissertation MĂĄrio AndrĂŠ Sampaio Kong (0789924) The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. April 2011