INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE
Andrea Hendrickson
HENDRICKSON, ANDREA
25’
A world where technology has taken the place of any human to human contact. The lack of human interaction created physical bubbles around everyone. Only allowing for an interaction to occur from 25 feet away.
I am studying interactive architecture because I want to understand how architecture can control and change the individual experience in order to help my reader understand that architecture is more than the building but it is the environment that it creates.
What is interactive architecture and how does it change the standard of design? Can public spaces be transformed, through interactive forms, into personal space?
SOFTlab
Design Studio | NYC
Changing Places
Research | MIT Media Lab
Live, Work, Play
Intelligent Environments: A Manifesto future personal research
Studio / Lab | NYC
ongoing research
The Living Architecture
research case study
Through technology and innovative materials interactive space can be created.
Digital Intimacy Furl
Tan Lihuang Linus | Master Research
Material Development Programming Research 1:1 Design / Fabrication CityHome (responsive home) Phone texting interface, data to installation LED lights, instalations, multifunctional structure
Interactive Architecture Can architecture, through interactive forms, transform public spaces into personal space? For a form to be interactive it must have some way of reading and responding to information. This means that the form must have a programmable intelligence that will allow it to respond to the human condition in a way that transforms a space from one experience to another. This response system can occur in many different ways but it is through technology and innovative materials these spaces can be transformed. Through a system of sensors and computer responses architecture has the potential to change form and function thus allowing architecture to change from stagnate forms to an architecture that responds and interacts with the human form. This idea is discussed in “Intelligent Environments: A Manifesto” through a series of qualifications for
Design Reserach Plan these said environments. Juan C. Augusto, a Professor of Computer Science at Middlesex University, understands that there are many computing systems that are already in place that act as response systems. Researchers also understand that through the technological advances the hardware components now have increased power with smaller form. Both understandings thus lead to the proposal of the integration of technology into architectural systems to create an “intelligent environment.” Augusto at all lay out basic principles of the proposed “intelligent environments.” The system must be capable of recognizing a situation where it can help, have an autonomous behavior, but be a response system to the human not self-governed1. The system, although having the ability to behave independently, strictly relies on human interaction and need. The researchers also lay out base fundamental systems including sensors and actuators, networks, artificial or programmed intelligence. This leads to the understanding that interactive architecture is limited by the programs and systems by which the “intelligent environment” is created. Also the research states
that the environment must be a closed space with defined boundaries. This comes with the understanding that the system of sensors is limited and thus limits the responsive architecture to strictly defined boundaries. This manifesto is theoretical research of what exists and its potential in a built system. “Intelligent Environments: A Manifesto” by Juan Augusto at all lays out the ground work for what interactive architecture has the potential of being. Stephen Townsend at the University of Nottingham and Maya Pindeus at University of Applied Arts, Vienna. Townsend’s thesis project ‘Digital Intimacy’ is the conceptualization of: “architecture as an embodied interface and physical space has been fused with digital media in order to stimulate the imagination of inhabitants2.” It is an interactive environment that provides sensory stimulation for autistic children through both touch and site. This project explores the ideas of intimacy, interaction, and multi-sensory experience. For the project to be understood as a successful exploration of these sensory experiences a 1:1 prototype had to be made; then an understanding of each part of the system could be understood. The project is an overall understanding of architecture as both stimuli and response to human interaction. He intended: “to facilitate playful explorations and fluid dialogues between people.” Townsend’s thesis is a direct response to the theories proposed in “Intelligent Environments: A Manifesto.” Through sensors and actuators the systems sends signals to a computer control system that then projects information in response to the initial interaction with the sensors and actuators. This creates a direct interaction with the architecture and the architecture directly responds to the interaction. This project presents the limitations and raises the question: architecture or installation? At this scale one can argue it is merely a responsive installation. But the ideas can then be projected at a much larger scale to create a system of architecture that can respond to the needs of the space at any given time based on the interaction of the human’s touch. This leads to Maya Pindeus’ ‘Synthetic Skin.’ Similar to Townsend, Principle Researchers Bijing Zhang & Francois Mangion design and developed ‘Furl: Soft Pneumatic Pavilion’ by fabricating a new material and testing it to the human scale. ‘Furl’ is the integration of a soft robotic material and Electroencephalography (EEG) which senses brain activity in humans. This combination develops a space that moves and responds to our very thoughts. The soft robotic material alone is a step in the direction of interactive architecture. This material acts like a lung of sorts by inflating and deflating. The changes in the form of the material are results of how the deflated form is constructed. The calculation of inflation and the compressive and tensile pressure on the form is what manipulates the form. The idea is that the pavilion will begin to inflate when it picks up the brain waves of the human; thus transforming flaccid forms that seem lifeless in to overhangtype forms. Responding to the theories of “Intelligent Environments: A Manifesto,” this is the transformative quality that begins to answer how public space can be transformed through interactive architecture. It provides the structure of an interaction that is only in response to the human and has a limitation to the response based on programmable information and structural creation. Zhang and Mangion, in order to
Synthetic Skin, Stephen Townsend understand the limitations of this project, constructed a working model. Although not 1:1 this model proves that the brain wave technology interacting with the soft robotic material works. This provides somewhat of a backbone to ‘Synthetic Skin’ by Maya Pindeus, a student at the University of Applied Arts in Vienna. Sited at the Museumsquartier in Vienna, ‘Synthetic Skin’ is a proposed responsive architecture with the ability to change form based on the needs of the space. With the use of soft robots, the surface can deform based of pneumatic inflation. This type of response was the result of the investigation of the biological structure found in animals such as trunks and tentacles. The canopy and floor bend and deform to create both additional enclosure and as a result gaps in the original canopy. Pindeus proposes a large scale form of Townsend’s ideas but she does not go into the depth of understanding the system of sensors and computer systems required for such architecture like ‘Furl’ does. This project, though, begins to propose the idea of how these small scale studies could be projected on a large scale and begin to transform stagnant, public spaces in to transformative, interactive spaces. These four cases begin to understand that architecture no longer has to be universal but it can actually begin to transform and interact with the users of the space. Stephen Townsend, Bijing Zhang and Francois Mangion have an understanding that interactive architecture is possible with the understanding of both material development and technology. It is this development that interactive architecture is possible. These case studies begin to fabricate the idea that interactive architecture can change how spaces are initially perceived and interacted with. Augusto, Callaghan, Cook, Kameas, Satoh, “Intelligent Environments: A Manifesto,” Humancentric Computing and Information Sciences (2013), 3 : 12, doi:10.1186/2192-1962-3-12 1
Townsend, Stephen, “Digital Intimacy” (unpublished Special Emphasis thesis study, University of Nottingham, 2009) 2
Furl: Soft Pneumatic Pavilion
Annotated Bibliography Augusto, Callaghan, Cook, Kameas, Satoh, “Intelligent Environments: A Manifesto,” Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences (2013), 3 : 12, doi:10.1186/2192-1962-312 Juan C. Augusto, a Professor of Computer Science at Middlesex University, proposes a system of interactive architecture to the Humancentric Computing and Information Sciences (HCIS). This journal publishes papers which cover the various theories and practical applications related to human-centric computing and information sciences. Augusto provides a platform that Interactive Architecture can follow. This entry is used as a guideline for judging research in interactive spaces. Stacey, Michael “Digital Craft in the Making of Architecture” in Manufacturing the Bespoke, ed. Bob Sheil, (John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Publication, 2012), 71-73. Michael Stacey is an Architect, Chair in Architecture and Director of Architecture at the University of Nottingham, where he leads the Making Architecture Research Studio. In this article Stacey questions whether the digital design of architecture can be considered a craft. Although this question does not relate directly to interactive architecture, it is a question that can be raised when discussing programming that must take place for interactive architecture to occur. Additionally, Stacey talks in detail of Townsend’s ‘Digital Intimacy’ which provides a strong case study for Interactive Architecture.
Townsend, Stephen, “Digital Intimacy” (unpublished Special Emphasis thesis study, University of Nottingham, 2009) Stephen Townsend, a graduate of the University Of Nottingham, proposes a thesis project that strongly addresses the idea of Interactive Architecture. Although this source is brief in content it provides many visuals necessary to understanding his design and conceptualization. Pindeus, Maya, “Synthetic Skin” (unpublished thesis, University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Diploma Studio Hadid, 2014) Maya Pindeus, a student at the University of Applied Arts in Vienna, proposes a thesis project that addresses Interactive Architecture in a more theoretical sense. This source, although brief, provides enough visuals and content to critically analyze and compare it to other studies. Mangion, Francois, “Furl: Soft Pneumatic Pavilion” (unpublished research, Interactive Architecture Lab, 2014) Francois Mangion, a researcher at Interactive Architecture Lab, along with Bijing Zhang, developed a pavilion that uses both innovative technology and materials. This report provides an understanding of the project providing explanation of both the technology and material through video report. This research provides a strong case study that has concrete research and development.